The AAF Tank is freaking amazing!

[b00tsy 28]

At first sounded interesting, but I cannot repro the issue.

Please don't hold me to the exact percentage of the hill, but in comparison to a car the tank engine is like a mopet engine and has difficulties to climb hills. Where a car/offroad has no problem at all to climb the hill.

Im made a quick video to let you see what I experience. You see that the tank already got stuck half way and finally with some messing around I very slowly got it to the top. Then at the same spot I did a hill climb with an offroad (with a flat tire!) and it had no problems at all to get on the top. A tank should have much more traction and brute power to make it to the top imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2leLNAVfVjU&feature=youtu.be

[kuIoodporny 45]

I don't see any issue there.

[b00tsy 28]

I don't see any issue there.

I disagree. Strongly. It sucks climbing hills with it, it takes you 2 minutes to climb a little hill (if it moves forward at all), while it should have much better traction and power then a damaged offroad that gets up the hill in 10 seconds.

[best2nd 10]

A tank should have much more traction and brute power to make it to the top imo.

Nope. Tank has less traction due to insane weight that is puling it down. Heck, you can even completely lose traction and slide down hill!

[bakerman 247]

Here's a video of a real Leopard 2 climbing a steep hill. No problem for it.

I haven't pinpointed the exact problem, but it may be the PhysX traction. I've played around with tank physx and I've gotten tanks to drive up hills without too much hassle. I had to shorten the first two gears of the gearbox rather extensively (also had to alter every other gear along with the entire engine) in order for tanks to climb hills more comfortably.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Bakerman

[maturin 12]

Do you see how slow it's going on that (very short) hill?

[CrazyBaron 10]

Here's a video of a real Leapord 2 climbing a steep hill. No problem for it.

I haven't pinpointed the exact problem, but it may be the PhysX traction. I've played around with tank physx and I've gotten tanks to drive up hills without too much hassle. I had to shorten the first two gears of the gearbox rather extensively (also had to alter every other gear along with the entire engine) in order for tanks to climb hills more comfortably.

please... how about a real hill and not the one from tank polygon for demonstration/training that are usually no more then 1-2m high and with some kind of road on it

Edited January 21, 2014 by CrazyBaron

[disco.modder 116]

please... how about a real hill and not the one from tank polygon for demonstration/training that are usually no more then 1-2m high and with some kind of road on it

In that video's case, the shown armored vehicle is not a tank. Rather an APC, precisely the M113. Thus it is much lighter than a Main Battle Tank.

[kuIoodporny 45]

The offroad weighs around 2000 kgs, has at least 150HP engine. The tank has engine that is 10 times as powerful, but whole vehicle weighs 30 times as much. I hope you can do the rest maths yourself, also maybe notice that terrain shape isn't helping.

[UltimateBawb 1]

The tank should at least sound like it's exerting power instead of sounding like it's idling. It's pathetic as it is.

[sultanofswing 10]

The offroad weighs around 2000 kgs, has at least 150HP engine. The tank has engine that is 10 times as powerful, but whole vehicle weighs 30 times as much. I hope you can do the rest maths yourself, also maybe notice that terrain shape isn't helping.

You do realize that with more weight comes more traction right?

Take your average pickup truck for example, With nothing in the bed trying to climb a hill. You will end up with the rear wheels spinning. Now put more weight in the bed of it and it will be able to climb the hill more efficiently.

Depending on the power plant that the tank has will dictate how steep of a incline and at what speed it can climb. Traction is not the issue.

---------- Post added at 04:57 ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 ----------

Nope. Tank has less traction due to insane weight that is puling it down. Heck, you can even completely lose traction and slide down hill!

That is an issue with the game. Read my other reply about traction.

[becubed 24]

This has been covered in the past.

forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102313-Tank-speed

and

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132622-Very-slow-transport

Tanks are slow up hill.

Read DM's posts in particular as he is speaking from experience.

[kuIoodporny 45]

sultanofswing, I thought it's obvious that traction is not issue there. I don't know why you try to prove that I'm wrong.

If anything, the problem is with offroad having too much traction, not tank speed.

[das attorney 858]

Just for reference, here's a good vid of a Challenger climbing a very steep dirt hill:

[b00tsy 28]

You have slow and you have not even making it to the top of a hill. In 2035 you would think they have engines that could handle a small hill and get up there quicker then slow walking speed. And someone else also mentioned the lack of engine sound when you are going full throttle up a hill, it indeed sounds like the engine is idle and not giving it all to move up the hill. And tracks should have way more traction then rubber tires under a grassy/dirt underground. I am not expecting that the tank should go up a hill like an offroad, but I do expect to make it up a small (not to steep) hill faster then slow walking speed. Right now it feels like the tank has zero torque and and only a little traction with the slightest hill you need to cross over. And as ArmA3 is not a 'simulator' anymore, the realism is not the final factor anymore either, but playability. Taking 30 minutes to cross 3 or 4 hills is not really playable. And I had the same gripe with ArmA 2 armor too where you basically had to stick to the roads to get from point A to B otherwise the mission would be over by the time you arrived at the AO.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Just for reference, here's a good vid of a Challenger climbing a very steep dirt hill:

That hill was way steeper then my example in arma3, yet it did it pretty fast from a stopping position and on a loose sand hill too. Thats the torque and brute power that is lacking with the arma tanks.

[maturin 12]

Tanks not magically being the kings of mountain warfare is a needed outcome for both realism and game balance.

[shifty_ginosaji 10]

^ Dead on

[das attorney 858]

Tanks not magically being the kings of mountain warfare is a needed outcome for both realism and game balance.

That's fair enough M and I agree but it would at least go a long way for realism if they looked like they were trying to climb. At the moment, it looks like the tank is stuck in 4th gear when it encounters a hill.

I don't really want tanks to be able to climb mountains either, but the game seems to drop revs when a tank is on an incline. You would expect the gear to be low (high revs) and lots of exhaust fumes.

[b00tsy 28]

Yup that was what I what I am trying to say. It is like a mopet engine on a hill climb, zero torque, no brute force. Especially from a standing position going up a hill it wont get any engine power, you just hear an idle sound and see spinning tracks or a tiny bit of movement. I am not asking for for way more speed, a bit more is more is wanted though, but it should have more torque and be able from a stationary position to climb up a steep hill at moderate speed (with the proper engine sounds) (as shown in the youtube vid posted above me).

Oh and ps,

The tank is also a submarine. I can drive fully submerged with it for ages without being ejected unless I go deep into the ocean.

Edited January 31, 2014 by B00tsy

[lugiahua 26]

Currently, tank (or any armored vehicles in the game) have problem even climbing small hills on a paved road...

[oryang 10]

The Strider is also more lightly armored when compared to the Hunter and Ifrit. The armor value for the Strider is 90, where the Hunter/Ifrit is at 120. So having some amphibious properties has a detrimental effect to armor value.

Really? And I always though the Strider was the most armored, while the Hunter was the least armored. From my experience, Striders and Ifrits withstood more damage than Hunters when I accidentally rammed them into trees and rocks and whatnot. (Yes, that proves my skills behind the wheel) But good info anyway. Next time I'll trust the Hunter a bit more when I go crazy on the roads of Altis.

[kuIoodporny 45]

The whiners should check DEV version behavior of tanks vs slopes. Kudos!

[RushHour 11]

I don't see any issue there.

The whiners should check DEV version behavior of tanks vs slopes. Kudos!

It´s no wonder things takes ages to get fixed here, you´re in denial! And you probably still are even though you changed it in the DEV version.

Between Arma 2 and Arm 3 the concept of realism just died and nobody knows why.

[kuIoodporny 45]

I admit I was wrong, thought it was obvious - turns out it wasn't so much.

[b00tsy 28]

The whiners should check DEV version behavior of tanks vs slopes. Kudos!

It is much much better now. I tried the same slope from the video example and it has now more power and traction, it could even handle that little bump where it got stuck on the last time. Aslo no more idle sound when moving up. Thanks!

Oh, and don't take it to personal, the feedback was not to whine!

Have a beer :beeeers: :)