All these new patches and we STILL can't use GPS inside the tank driver seat.

[maturin 12]

It's not as simple as allowgps=1.

The driver's periscope is a scope, and scoped views don't allow looking at GPS. They'd have to re-write every armored vehicle to change it. Not a fast tweak.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Myke;2536585']No' date=' it doesn't simulate the loss of signal at all. It probably was a decision made at some point: should the driver have GPS, yes or no? No, he get direction commands from the commander and besides that he should focus on the road/area.

Simple as that. The Driver doesn't need to have a GPS, the Commander does. It's not up to the driver to know where they are and if the Driver really needs satelite navigation to find it's way, then he probably shouldn't be on the drivers seat at first.[/quote']

That is rather silly.

In real life, tank drivers do in fact have lots of information in front of them.

vehicle commanders are to link the crew with the wider scope of the battle space, not to know if theyre heading east or west.

I don't mind the narrow field of view, but I do mind the lack of navigational instruments.

[Harzach 2505]

In real life, tank drivers do in fact have lots of information in front of them.

I suspect it's far less than you think. In general, it's a yoke, pedals, a few crucial temp/fluid level instruments, and periscope.

Do we need GPS for MBT driver? Couldn't care less. 3D cockpit? Absolutely.

[squirrel0311 16]

I suspect it's far less than you think. In general, it's a yoke, pedals, a few crucial temp/fluid level instruments, and periscope.

Do we need GPS for MBT driver? Couldn't care less. 3D cockpit? Absolutely.

The problem is, this issue doesn't just effect Main Battle Tanks.. It also effects armored personel carriers.

As far as people saying that you wouldn't be able to use a GPS inside a tank. I agree that you might have signal issues by itself, but with the GPS antenna it would be no problem. If they didn't build a GPS/Blue Force tracker into the system(dashboard) I'm pretty sure they'd at least make a port to plug in a hand held model.. infact I'm almost postive they'd do both so that you could take a hand held unit, link it to the tank and instantly upload set way points from your infantry guys.. (Yes that's just a scenario)

If you think that drivers wouldn't need to know that stuff because it's the commanders job...well you're right and wrong.... it's the commanders job to carry out the plan and tell the driver where to go but it's also his job to make sure everyone knows the plan. Having a GPS/blue force tracker screen in front of his driver, listing destinations, objectives, dangers, and other pertinent information makes his job easier. Rather than having to tell his driver everything over the comm, he can simply tell him to look at his screen, ask if he understands, and then explain what he needs to or go into detail on stuff critical for the driver. Using two senses (sight and hearing) to gather information is better than just one (hearing it over the comm) and it ultimately leads to a quicker better understanding and situational awareness.

Here is my wishlist idea regarding the dashboard, visability, and optics in armored vehicles. You can find my full wishlist on page 213 of the Wishlist NO DISCUSSION thread. Go read it! :P

Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers turned in: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver.

Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer should be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless to some degree but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports.

[maturin 12]

Do we need GPS for MBT driver? Couldn't care less. 3D cockpit? Absolutely.

*Sigh*

BIS isn't going to suddenly patch in a new cockpit. That takes a huge amount of research and work, almost like making a whole new vehicle.

This thread is about tweaking GPS in a patch. Ie, something that could actually happen.

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

About the 3d cockpit, it didn't had to have any detailed texture, i would be fine with a all black interior as we have now but with all the viewports and the possibility to zoom on them. If they could make it all detailed and cool would be even better and it would make the gps issue gone right? Because as people stated its caused because the viewport is like looking through a scope.

[swiftn7 1]

Myke;2536585']No' date=' it doesn't simulate the loss of signal at all. It probably was a decision made at some point: should the driver have GPS, yes or no? No, he get direction commands from the commander and besides that he should focus on the road/area.

Simple as that. The Driver doesn't need to have a GPS, the Commander does. It's not up to the driver to know where they are and if the Driver really needs satelite navigation to find it's way, then he probably shouldn't be on the drivers seat at first.[/quote']

Perhaps we should take into consideration how tanks are really used in the game, not how they are intended to be used by BIS:

Almost everytime I board a tank on a public server, there is no commander in charge and/or no gunner present. People refuse to take a role because they just want a taxi to next AO or, which is even worse for gameplay, though realistic, only specific units are able to board the tank on a functinal slot. So what do you do here? Drive yourself, stop every now and then to have a peek on the map, take the gunner seat yourself to engage hostiles,... so why the hell no GPS in first person view for the allround tank-driver-gunner-commander? And don't one dare to come back with an "it's for realism"-reason. This game is far far away from realism in many aspects, but that's another story.

3rd person view is the workaround here, for sure, but not preferred by everybody, or even restricted by the server/mission. So +1 for the OP.

[[frl]myke 14]

Perhaps we should take into consideration how tanks are really used in the game, not how they are intended to be used by BIS:

Almost everytime I board a tank on a public server, there is no commander in charge and/or no gunner present. People refuse to take a role because they just want a taxi to next AO or, which is even worse for gameplay, though realistic, only specific units are able to board the tank on a functinal slot. So what do you do here? Drive yourself, stop every now and then to have a peek on the map, take the gunner seat yourself to engage hostiles,... so why the hell no GPS in first person view for the allround tank-driver-gunner-commander? And don't one dare to come back with an "it's for realism"-reason. This game is far far away from realism in many aspects, but that's another story.

3rd person view is the workaround here, for sure, but not preferred by everybody, or even restricted by the server/mission. So +1 for the OP.

A perfect example how the lack of reasonable players is used as argument to dumb the game down. The problem isn't the tank not having GPS for driver, the problem is the lack of teamwork on public servers. IMHO, whoever plays on public servers is playing it completely wrong. I avoided public servers for a long time but gave it a try recently. I was quickly reminded why i avoided publics for a long time. I'll stay with the communities i know and where tanks are usually manned with at least 3 people. Never ever a driver missed a GPS. He opened the map shift+leftclick on the target area and off it goes.

Take whatever board game that comes to your mind, every game has its set of rules to make it challenging but still fair to be played. If you change these rules it isn't that one game anymore. Just think what would happen if i say the King at chess may move like the Queen. Or any other figure. It wouldn't be chess anymore. Same goes for A3. Tank at least requires 3 players to be fully operational. It isn't the tanks fault if you don't have 2 more players in your tank.

That's the way this game is meant to be played. If this doesn't fit your style of play, well, maybe then go for an other game then. Not everything that doesn't work as you would like it is a bug. Sometimes your expectations are just incompatible with how the game is designed.

-1 for OP. Commander is supposed to give the drivers orders where to go.

[Pyroslav 10]

I think thaat this would require much more teamwork than a public server can provide

[Smurf 12]

Myke;2537186']A perfect example how the lack of reasonable players is used as argument to dumb the game down. The problem isn't the tank not having GPS for driver' date=' the problem is the lack of teamwork on public servers. IMHO, whoever plays on public servers is playing it completely wrong. I avoided public servers for a long time but gave it a try recently. I was quickly reminded why i avoided publics for a long time. I'll stay with the communities i know and where tanks are usually manned with at least 3 people. Never ever a driver missed a GPS. He opened the map shift+leftclick on the target area and off it goes.

Take whatever board game that comes to your mind, every game has its set of rules to make it challenging but still fair to be played. If you change these rules it isn't that one game anymore. Just think what would happen if i say the King at chess may move like the Queen. Or any other figure. It wouldn't be chess anymore. Same goes for A3. Tank at least requires 3 players to be fully operational. It isn't the tanks fault if you don't have 2 more players in your tank.

That's the way this game is meant to be played. If this doesn't fit your style of play, well, maybe then go for an other game then. Not everything that doesn't work as you would like it is a bug. Sometimes your expectations are just incompatible with how the game is designed.

-1 for OP. Commander is supposed to give the drivers orders where to go.[/quote']

So, because people don't play as you want this shouldn't be fixed?

As maturin said, the problem is that you are always looking throught a scope in armored vehicles. Because they have no interiors.

[[frl]myke 14]

So, because people don't play as you want this shouldn't be fixed?

To "fix" something, it must be broken at first. Sadly BI can't "fix" the attitude of the gamers. The game isn't broken there so nothing to fix.

[Harzach 2505]

*Sigh*

BIS isn't going to suddenly patch in a new cockpit. That takes a huge amount of research and work, almost like making a whole new vehicle.

This thread is about tweaking GPS in a patch. Ie, something that could actually happen.

*Le sigh* back at ya, pal. I'd say the odds are even between the expansion of existing IFV and AMV interiors/addition of interiors to other armor and a global change to the scope system. Those odds may be 0:0, of course.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Myke;2537186']A perfect example how the lack of reasonable players is used as argument to dumb the game down. The problem isn't the tank not having GPS for driver' date=' the problem is the lack of teamwork on public servers. IMHO, whoever plays on public servers is playing it completely wrong. I avoided public servers for a long time but gave it a try recently. I was quickly reminded why i avoided publics for a long time. I'll stay with the communities i know and where tanks are usually manned with at least 3 people. Never ever a driver missed a GPS. He opened the map shift+leftclick on the target area and off it goes.

Take whatever board game that comes to your mind, every game has its set of rules to make it challenging but still fair to be played. If you change these rules it isn't that one game anymore. Just think what would happen if i say the King at chess may move like the Queen. Or any other figure. It wouldn't be chess anymore. Same goes for A3. Tank at least requires 3 players to be fully operational. It isn't the tanks fault if you don't have 2 more players in your tank.

That's the way this game is meant to be played. If this doesn't fit your style of play, well, maybe then go for an other game then. Not everything that doesn't work as you would like it is a bug. Sometimes your expectations are just incompatible with how the game is designed.

-1 for OP. Commander is supposed to give the drivers orders where to go.[/quote']

I can't agree here, you're justifying the issue by saying "you don't play with right people", "go play other games if you don't like this tiny problem!". Then you go on to say "You don't need a GPS, just open the map and place a magic marker that will show up on your hud".

I'm neutral on the issue as I generally don't use the GPS in the game at all, and I'll agree with you that it's not a big deal, but that just seems like very odd reasoning.

[dayglow 2]

Interestingly enough digging around the net trying to find out if the driver of a modern tank has access to GPS map or if the commander controls navigation information is hard to find. The most I can find is that the M1A2 SEP program includes upgrades to the driver information display to better share information and warnings in the tank. Nothing about GPS maps at the driver location.

[Tonci87 163]

You can bet that the driver has access to a GPS system in modern tanks. Why? Well the commander might die....

[squirrel0311 16]

You can bet that the driver has access to a GPS system in modern tanks. Why? Well the commander might die....

Exactly! Know your spot and 2 above you at minimum. If you sustain a turret/kill and still have mobility it might be up to you to get back to the nearest friendly line. Having to stop and look at a map is unnecessary when it's supposed to be 2035 and practically everyone has a GPS. Like I said earlier but I guess no one read it.... GPS makes things easier for the Commander.. He doesn't have to worry about if his driver is going to stray off to the side road because all he has to do is follow the GPS, this allows the gunner and the commander to devote more time to scanning for threats, planning on the best way to engage those threats as well communicating with others in the column.

Myke;2537186']A perfect example how the lack of reasonable players is used as argument to dumb the game down. The problem isn't the tank not having GPS for driver' date=' the problem is the lack of teamwork on public servers. IMHO, whoever plays on public servers is playing it completely wrong. I avoided public servers for a long time but gave it a try recently. I was quickly reminded why i avoided publics for a long time. I'll stay with the communities i know and where tanks are usually manned with at least 3 people. Never ever a driver missed a GPS. He opened the map shift+leftclick on the target area and off it goes.

Take whatever board game that comes to your mind, every game has its set of rules to make it challenging but still fair to be played. If you change these rules it isn't that one game anymore. Just think what would happen if i say the King at chess may move like the Queen. Or any other figure. It wouldn't be chess anymore. Same goes for A3. Tank at least requires 3 players to be fully operational. It isn't the tanks fault if you don't have 2 more players in your tank.

That's the way this game is meant to be played. If this doesn't fit your style of play, well, maybe then go for an other game then. Not everything that doesn't work as you would like it is a bug. Sometimes your expectations are just incompatible with how the game is designed.

-1 for OP. Commander is supposed to give the drivers orders where to go.[/quote']

It seems that perhaps you are the one who can't adjust to different play styles. It's a game, not a simulator, people play this to have fun, not just to train. If that was the case then GPS should just be taken out all together. It's one thing to have more options and choose not to use them. It's quite different to wish for less options flat out in an attempt to hold on to something you find somehow superior. If you don't like playing on public servers that's perfectly fine. That doesn't mean others have to not like it either. In fact I would bet that giving drivers GPS wouldn't take anything away from the game at all.. instead I believe it has a great potential to add another level of challenge and complexity for the vary reasons I mentioned above in my other reply.

[[frl]myke 14]

people play this to have fun

"Fun" might be described differently by different people. It is impossible to please all.

If that was the case then GPS should just be taken out all together.

Giving the Driver a GPS would take away from what i think A3 is great in: teamplay. You can't really force teamplay, agree on that, but no reason to make soloplay even easier. If you want to use a tank, get yourself a gunner and a commander, else just deal with it. And please not this "it's a game, not a simulator" argument. This just leads to futher dumbdowns. IMHO it's just nor plausible to give the driver a GPS.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Myke;2537403']

Giving the Driver a GPS would take away from what i think A3 is great in: teamplay. You can't really force teamplay' date=' agree on that, but no reason to make soloplay even easier. If you want to use a tank, get yourself a gunner and a commander, else just deal with it. And please not this "it's a game, not a simulator" argument. This just leads to futher dumbdowns. IMHO it's just nor plausible to give the driver a GPS.[/quote']

Why give the driver a compass? He can ask the commander. Why give him the turret direction indicator (to improve teamplay) and selected weapon indicator? The gunner can tell him. And what about singleplayer? Can I chat up my AI for info? Why allow the driver to open the GPS when he's in the third person view but not in the first person view? Because in first person you're forced into the optics view that does not allow the GPS overlay not because of magical GPS scrambling features and teamplay reasons that are magically void when the camera is not in optics mode.

You can pretend it's why it's happening, but it's not. :)

Now imagine the case where tanks had interiors from the get go and because you weren't locked in to the optics view, you could pull out your GPS. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Sniperwolf572
Quoted the wrong post

[maturin 12]

Giving the Driver a GPS would take away from what i think A3 is great in: teamplay. You can't really force teamplay, agree on that, but no reason to make soloplay even easier. If you want to use a tank, get yourself a gunner and a commander, else just deal with it. And please not this "it's a game, not a simulator" argument. This just leads to futher dumbdowns. IMHO it's just nor plausible to give the driver a GPS.

That is such uproarious bullshit. I don't even care about this issue, but I can't let that reasoning slide.

The lengths people go to justify things that aren't even design decisions, but simple gaps and oversights...

Just to hit a few items on the list of why you just spouted nonsense:

The commander can't always navigate because the commander has to fight. And scan for targets. Constantly.

The driver has no optics except those that face forward, so GPS would be crucial to his situational awareness in urban areas. Backing up, for example. It takes many precious seconds for the commander's periscope to swing through 360 degrees. The driver should able to... drive... without being nannied.

There's absolutely nothing unusual about a tank driver having a basic piece of navigation equipment. You can bet your ass every other driver in the military does (wrong turns=landmines and ambushes) and it's not even 2035 yet. They'll use their smartphones if they have to.

As for encouraging solo vs team play, GPS relates to this dichotomy so peripherally as to be entirely meaningless. You want teams in tanks? Then tank out the instant position switching. Problem 100% solved.

[swiftn7 1]

Edit (to prevent misunderstanding and to sum it all up):

Just to add some salt to the soup: The tank driver is able to use the GPS as long as he is turned out/hatch open... Makes absolutely no sense to me, because if you are driving the tank with the head outside, you would not be able to read a GPS display fixed on the dashboard easily... This is complete nonsense...

- The tank driver has no GPS in 1st person view, which makes no sense, as e.g. in an Ifrit GPS is available in 1st person.

- The driver has GPS in all vehicles when using 3rd person

- When in a tank GPS becomes available for the driver when he "turns out/opens the hatch"

Edited October 21, 2013 by SwiftN7

[andersson 285]

This is the only feature I miss from OFP; interiors. Then you could as driver use all forward viewports for better positional awareness AND it would enable you to look at your GPS. Today you can choose tunnelvision or awareness when turned out with the risk of getting shot in the head.

Unless you go to 3d view, which my friends and I have disabled. So I just avoid playing in tanks, which I loved in OFP.

As BIS don't deem it worth the effort to build interiors (that's what they told us in past discussions), they should atleast give the driver awareness through a GPS in optics view.

Modern and future 2035 tanks shouldnt be limited to WW2 standards. It's the driver that should see his position in the group and keep it, not the commander that should micromanage his movement. As maturin said, he is busy finding targets.

Edited October 18, 2013 by andersson

[siipperi 10]

I found it funny that some people would like to restrict GPS only because of gameplay mechanics, I personally think it's stupid and takes away of realism.

Myke;2536585']No' date=' it doesn't simulate the loss of signal at all. It probably was a decision made at some point: should the driver have GPS, yes or no? No, he get direction commands from the commander and besides that he should focus on the road/area.

Simple as that. The Driver doesn't need to have a GPS, the Commander does. It's not up to the driver to know where they are and if the Driver really needs satelite navigation to find it's way, then he probably shouldn't be on the drivers seat at first.[/quote']

Very true. There might be some modern APCs that feature driver GPS, but often that's not the case with most (if all) tanks. And paper map is always must have backup :)

Driver in generally is just informed to drive on the road or drive to some clear sign ahead. Ofc normal chit chat with tank crew is always welcome!

I see no point why driver couldn't have GPS on MFD in arma scenario. but before that I would like to get proper cockpit with similar prisma periscope system that is in RO2. And shooting down Navigation satellites is just ridiculous on war of that scale.

Sorry for pretty unorganized post :rolleyes:

[progamer 14]

It seems that perhaps you are the one who can't adjust to different play styles. It's a game, not a simulator, people play this to have fun, not just to train.

Arma has always, and always will have realism a a major part of the game. You don't like realism and you want a more arcade like game? BF, COD, GTA are all good options for people who don't like a lot of realism. Millions of people who have never played arma believe it's a simulator along with many reviewers. That's not going to change anytime soon. Arma players prefer realism and that's also not going to change.

[nuxil 2]

arma3 is not a simulator. its sandbox. two big difference. if you would call arma3 a simulator. i would dear to say, it sucks at it.

arma3 is a game with infantry in focus. not sure what arma is suppose to simulate. bad physics ? bad fps ? .

movements of inf has been improved from a2 to a3. but still some way to go before you can call it a simulator. hell, its missing something as simple as jump, climb over obstacles. "simple inf movements". if it was a simulator. surly that would be included.

you could call arma2 a military simmulator. not because its good at simulate infantry movement. vehicle physics. vehicle flight models. no, you can call arma2 a military simulator because of its huge content. so its used to simulate war. "warfare".

most of the aspect of the game is arcadish. just take a look at the flight models. compare that to a simulators like dcs.

or the cars to a any car simulator out there.

never the less. arma3 does indeed have focus on realism. but that doesnt automaticly make it a simulator. ;)

anyway. back on topic. gps as driver would be nice.

Edited October 21, 2013 by nuxil

[squirrel0311 16]

Myke;2537403']"Fun" might be described differently by different people. It is impossible to please all.

Giving the Driver a GPS would take away from what i think A3 is great in: teamplay. You can't really force teamplay' date=' agree on that, but no reason to make soloplay even easier. If you want to use a tank, get yourself a gunner and a commander, else just deal with it. And please not this "it's a game, not a simulator" argument. This just leads to futher dumbdowns. IMHO it's just nor plausible to give the driver a GPS.[/quote']

Very true! Fun does mean different things for different people. That's why it's important not to completely limit peoples options based solely on how you want to play.

Good teamwork is brought together through communication, not the lack of the driver having a gps. If you want to work together then all you need to do is communicate! There is nothing stopping you from saying, "Driver pull forward to that little dip in the road and turn right... Ok pull forward, onto the side of the hill.... Driver stop.. We're scanning... ...Driver forward and left..." Having a GPS means that he simply knows his destination and his point on the map without having to take his eyes off the road.

Now lets' look at the realism side... as I said before.. what if the commander is riding turned out and gets hit? Now you're relying on the gunner to scan, shoot, and tell you where to go? Now I know what you might be thinking... "Well that's when the driver has to pull out his map and compass." Realistically...Have you ever tried to use a compass inside of a big steel container? It doesn't work very well.... "Ok so we'll just use terrain features." ...Again, realistically...how much viability do you think a driver has while turned in? Not a lot.

Arma has always, and always will have realism a a major part of the game. You don't like realism and you want a more arcade like game? BF, COD, GTA are all good options for people who don't like a lot of realism. Millions of people who have never played arma believe it's a simulator along with many reviewers. That's not going to change anytime soon. Arma players prefer realism and that's also not going to change.

Realism huh? Please tell me more about how a modernized tank in 2035 isn't going to have GPS for the driver simply because it's not his job to know where he's going? Especially when we're working on developing systems for all sorts of land vehicles that can basically drive themselves all in an effort to help ease the work load on the crew.

If you've ever held a leadership position in the military then you know that one of the key points to being a good leader is making sure everyone knows the plan. Having personally been in a situation where the plan and route changed and where I had to take over as a driver. I can tell you, even in an MRAP with good visibility... it really really sucks driving through a hostile AO and having only one person that knows where you're supposed to be going, especially when at any point you can turn down the wrong ally and drive right into a group of turds carrying RKG's. By no means am I saying that a GPS will stop that, but having the piece of mind to quickly look and see where you are and where you should be is very nice. I know an MRAP is different than a tank but your chance is still 50/50 of getting hit. All it takes is a mobility kill to severely limit your options and survival chances.

The ability of the driver to see and know where he's going without constant direction from the commander is a very big improvement and greatly reduces the work load of both especially in combat. Especially when we're talking about supposedly "realistic" modern combat. As technology moves forward, we must adapt. Today we have ATGMs that can hit targets 5k meters out... does it really sound like a good idea to have your commander staring at a map or gps, and telling his driver how far up to go before turning which direction instead of him scanning along side the gunner for threats?....Maybe in your tank but not mine!

I'd also like to make it known that this problem doesn't just affect main battle tanks but also APCs.

In the end it comes down to this.. if you want a GPS, you should be able to use it. If you don't want a GPS then don't equip it or simply don't use it but don't tell others they can't have it because you don't want to use one.