The T-100 Varsuk

[pipin78 10]

Another thing that bugs me in the final release is the T-100 tank.

In the Field Manual is stated that this tank is an evolution of the t-95 tank prototype featuring an unmanned turret and a 135mm cannon.

But the ingame model and stats does not match the field manual.. it has a clearly manned turret and a 120mm gun

the above model is instead based on the cancelled "Black Eagle" tank (Obyekt 640) which it was supposed to have a manned turret with bustle autoloader and a 125mm gun

The t-95 prototype(Object 195), also cancelled, could look like this

based on leaked photos:

Obviously the fastest thing that BI can do is fix the field manual description but it would have been interesting to have a tank with such a different crew layout since armor penetrations that can kill crew are modelled ingame..

[zukov 490]

plus

no recoil

some missing texture and material

no coaxial gun

backlight sometimes work and sometimes no

i think (hope) that is a placeholder ;)

[raspu86 92]

There's a lot of issues with tanks and apcs currently. To name a few:

- Merkava bore evacuator on the barrel retracts inside the vehicle when the gun is fired

- Horrible driver sights

- No proper FCS

- Guns and machineguns do not hit the center of your aiming reticle even if zeroed correctly

...

[pipin78 10]

There's a lot of issues with tanks and apcs currently. To name a few:

- Merkava bore evacuator on the barrel retracts inside the vehicle when the gun is fired

- Horrible driver sights

- No proper FCS

- Guns and machineguns do not hit the center of your aiming reticle even if zeroed correctly

...

yeah and both tanks and heavy IFVs are stopped in the traks by small objects and they can still flip in the air and bounce back ..

but I think all this issues will get fixed in time..

It's the strange internal inconsistencies and the copy-pasted content that bugger me.. It's like the content was not planned well but trown in on the go..

Edited September 18, 2013 by Pipin78

[Binkowski 26]

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027714688/36056A21B69A92C498DBD8D3F68198044BF99773/

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027630055/BB499C1953507F92EB042042CF864A5AA35EAD3D/

I'll just leave this here.

[pipin78 10]

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027714688/36056A21B69A92C498DBD8D3F68198044BF99773/

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027630055/BB499C1953507F92EB042042CF864A5AA35EAD3D/

I'll just leave this here.

Do you know? This can be realistic!!! According to the wiki the "Black Eagle" turret was just a mockup with nothing inside.. BI got it right!! XD

[trent 14]

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027714688/36056A21B69A92C498DBD8D3F68198044BF99773/

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1101417743027630055/BB499C1953507F92EB042042CF864A5AA35EAD3D/

I'll just leave this here.

Quality over quantity, amirite?

[instagoat 133]

That tank is so unfinished animation wise. It's as if they made it for the screenshots and then just let it sit on the shelf after they removed the coil gun. I'd rather see it replaced by the new model design that they are presenting to the public the first time this winter. Last I heard they wanted to show it to the world this month.

[byku 13]

Well, i personally like the T-100, although I agree it needs finishing. Coaxial gun and those soldier sticking from underneath the gun.

[-=seany=- 5]

The quality of most of the vehicles in the game is horrendous. From their "physics" (I don't mean just flipping, they just don't feel nice to drive) to their half finished models, terrible LODs, weird armaments (no coax gun), re-use of assets. The list goes on. Every time I come on here I see some new abomination I had not yet had the misfortune to experience myself. What the heck have they been doing for all this time? Even if they did dump a lot of content and restart, they have been showing us these assets in screens shots for ages and they feel about 70% finished.

Has any one tried to drive the civilian truck? That's good for a few "laughs". I have seen better physics in Alpha tech demos. The sound is horrible too, it just adds to the dead, lame, weird feeling of driving it.

Every time I load the game and go into the editor and drop down some assets to have a play around, it's cut short by finding some crappy bug or glitch or other weirdness that just makes you go, "really BIS?"

Are we expected to to report all these issues to get them fixed? Or are BIS going to actually go over all these glaring issues with existing content (particularly the vehicle assets) and polish them up? I would really like an official comment on this. Eg "We are aware that some existing content needs polishing and we will get around to it over the course of future updates". I understand it might take a while, I just want to know we aren't going to be left with these sorry excuses for vehicle physics and sub standard models etc. Don't let this be another ACR.

If the vehicles in this game where a user made mod I would have dumped them long ago. They look pretty nice, that is about it. The rest of it is armature hour.

Edited September 18, 2013 by -=seany=-

[icewindo 29]

Quality over quantity, amirite?

So what? It's a special design for the hot Greek Altian climate, eliminating the need for air conditioning.

[pipin78 10]

That tank is so unfinished animation wise. It's as if they made it for the screenshots and then just let it sit on the shelf after they removed the coil gun. I'd rather see it replaced by the new model design that they are presenting to the public the first time this winter. Last I heard they wanted to show it to the world this month.

Do you mean the T-99 Armata? I'm curious too but the last time they were about to show the t-95 and suddently they cancelled it instead..

I wish BI choosed the T-90MS: nice and modern looking with good references around.

The Black Eagle is nice and massive but it is not that futuristic.. it's from the early '90s..

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

So what? It's a special design for the hot Greek Altian climate, eliminating the need for air conditioning.

And it works underwater too! up to 5m deep!! XD (no joke: try in the editor.. enemy AT infantry even waste their missiles trying to sink you.. BI should add torpedoes!!)

[Tonci87 163]

Ah I remember when people where saying that A3 doesn´t need many Weapons and vehicels because "quality over quantity". I told them it wouldn´t work that way.

[raspu86 92]

I just don't get it why there are so many complaints about missing campaign/airplanes while there are so many flaws in the existing tank/apc models/features right now. I think(fear) BIS focus is derailed by those complaints.

[i wub pugs 15]

I think(fear) BIS focus is derailed by those complaints.

I guess that would make sense if we were getting oodles of more content, crappy or not. But we aren't getting boatloads of new content. We're supposedly getting a steady trickle.

Face it, the game is in early BETA and we probably won't have a full game for a year. It took two years to develop what they trashed. We're only a year into this build.

If you bought it at full price...............I'm sorry.

[Corvinus 35]

I completely agree with OP on all points, especially on:

Obviously the fastest thing that BI can do is fix the field manual description

They should just change its description as if it is an export variant of Object 640. It doesn't have anything to do with Ob. 195, besides, calling Object 195 as "T-95" is just plain wrong, just like to call an MBT from "Armata" project "T-99".

[13islucky 10]

Has anyone else see the new cannon optics for the Slammer and Varsuk? I find them pretty realistic, and the Varsuk's is based off the T95's. Progress, I guess.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I was on devbranch. I was not being sarcastic.

Edited September 19, 2013 by 13isLucky

[aoshi 1]

stay underwater for a long time too,(have a awesome particle effect ) but only show if the camera is inside the water.

[wgaf 10]

You want to hear the really bad news?

"And there are yet more brand-new vehicles being sculpted by the artists."

from here http://dev.arma3.com/sitrep-00026

[Tonci87 163]

And why is that bad News?

[pils 49]

True.

I don't care the slightest about any campaign and I get a bit annoyed when going through the fixes and recognize 1/3 of them are irrelevant tweaks in the showcases and challenges. Why put time and effort in the useless gun range challenge and tweak the s**t out of it when there are real important and basic features that really need fixing and improvement. Like physics, ballistics, balancing, sounds, stability etc.

[oggoeg 3]

And why is that bad News?

Probably because the all the negative nancys will be like "This new vehicle is based on this in real life and it has the viewport/commander position/coax gun 5cm more to the right that it is in game, bad job BI, worst company of the year 2013". :raisebrow:

[zedderzulu 7]

Maybe he wants them to fix (some of) the errors first. Hovering turret on the T-100 is a bit ridiculous, the Mi-48 cockpit deserves better although personally I'm really not that bothered by the copypasta apart from perhaps the static weapons.

Either that or wgaf has lost all faith in the ability of BIS to model anything and wants them to stop right now before they release any more content for the game. You're guess is as good as mine...

That said:

I don't care the slightest about any campaign and I get a bit annoyed when going through the fixes and recognize 1/3 of them are irrelevant tweaks in the showcases and challenges. Why put time and effort in the useless gun range challenge and tweak the s**t out of it when there are real important and basic features that really need fixing and improvement. Like physics, ballistics, balancing, sounds, stability etc.

I'd imagine that's because the guy(s) BIS hire to write missions can't all code gameplay mechanics and engine modifications. But they can tweak showcases and challenges.

[pipin78 10]

Has anyone else see the new cannon optics for the Slammer and Varsuk? I find them pretty realistic, and the Varsuk's is based off the T95's. Progress, I guess.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I was on devbranch. I was not being sarcastic.

No.. as stated above in not based on the t-95 at all. Different gun, different turret, different crew layout..

It doesn't have anything to do with Ob. 195, besides, calling Object 195 as "T-95" is just plain wrong, just like to call an MBT from "Armata" project "T-99". .

Sometimes it's reffered as Объект 195 but I'm no expert and I do not speak russian.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Pipin78

[pils 49]

Maybe he wants them to fix (some of) the errors first. Hovering turret on the T-100 is a bit ridiculous, the Mi-48 cockpit deserves better although personally I'm really not that bothered by the copypasta apart from perhaps the static weapons.

Either that or wgaf has lost all faith in the ability of BIS to model anything and wants them to stop right now before they release any more content for the game. You're guess is as good as mine...

That said:

I'd imagine that's because the guy(s) BIS hire to write missions can't all code gameplay mechanics and engine modifications. But they can tweak showcases and challenges.

Yeah you're probably right. I just hope they hired the right ratio of mission devs to mechanics/engine devs, so getting the very basics right won't take forever.

Abd it should pay off to fix Arma 3 to a decent (almost) bug-free game as I guess they want to sell one or more addons in the future. As semicrazed fanatic of the series I'd of course buy any addon and would even pay for well made DLCs - but only if I'm still playing the main game and it's worth it.

I'm not yet pissed as I paid the reduced price and of course already knew there will be still issues in the release. But as noob who just bought the game I'd be a bit disappointed.