Jump to content
dale0404

New terrain reveal - Tanoa

Recommended Posts

Loving the Sheridan, Nightmare - I'd love to see a sharper, sleeker, more modern version - but something equally compact that packs a punch :) Still, nice find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therein lies the problem... Bohemia can throw out current 'all MBT' doctrine by authorial fiat so that amphibious tanks make sense, but you'd need a new helicopter just for airlift of this one tank -- and I doubt that it could carry any heavier besides this tank -- to say nothing of it having been deemed too light to resist HMG fire at the time.

At least with the current Huron and Taru you could go up to the two of the BMD series, but the second (and third which is almost a tonne over the Taru's threshold) rock the 30 mm 2A42 (and ATGMs), while only the heaviest BMD-4 (13.6 tonnes) has a 100 mm gun...

Which presents a perfect opportunity to implement some strategic airlift aircraft. On the other hand, I suspect that the transport of vehicles across the archipelago will encompass (at best) an LCAC-type hovercraft if they can achieve a satisfactory implementation of vehicle-in-vehicle transport. Not that there's anything wrong with amphibious APCs, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loving the Sheridan, Nightmare - I'd love to see a sharper, sleeker, more modern version - but something equally compact that packs a punch :) Still, nice find!

Well, the Merkava / Slammer is pretty small compared to the other MBTs. Maybe we can expect a jungle ready version of that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the main good thing about making a game that is more future based. they are open to create what they want. they could just create a MGS turret for the marshall or create a Amtrac kinda tracked vehicle and equip that with a 100mm+ turret even if it doesn't excist in rl the future part of the game could allow it.

That way you would have MBT's just not at the same armour level as the classical mbt's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the Merkava / Slammer is pretty small compared to the other MBTs. Maybe we can expect a jungle ready version of that one?

Probably, however, the Sheridan is sling loadable, can be airdropped, and can cross rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably, however, the Sheridan is sling loadable, can be airdropped, and can cross rivers.

That's what I meant with jungle ready. Amphibious, reduced armour, smaller cannon (like the TUSK just without the additional armour). You could cut out the carrier ability and save some more weight. As KBBW123 said it's fictional gear and BI can configure they stuff as they please.^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's far more important when it comes to tanks however is whether or not BiS will re-implement the collision models on the actual barrels of the tanks.

At the moment you can traverse your turret 360 degrees and not worry about it colliding with anything. You can put your barrell through a wall and fire it. The biggest disadvantage to armour in heavily vegetated areas is the inability to turn the turret without banging it against some timber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I'm not sure whether you're just trolling, [...]

I might not be totally serious (or giving too much thought), yet I'm certainly not trolling either (boy, do I hate this lame accusation/thought-terminating cliché...).

Just having a casual discussion, maybe?

Because even game developers are part of the wider global community and need to be sensitive to needs of other people [...]

You see, I don't like where this is going, and personally I don't even conceive a "global community". Certainly not one in charge of judging which games are "kosher" (i.e. politically correct) and which ones are not. I'm not really the book-burning kind of guy - no matter how trashy, evil, or wrong the book.

Look what happened to Ivan and Martin on Lemnos for example

That's IMHO a bad example, given this wasn't about political correctness (your dignity, the wider global community, or what not), but about specific particular interests. And if I may add: this was not about unsensible developers, but rather about lunatic derps, following some nutty rules in some shitty country (obviously). Shit happens.

the portrayal of real people in games (or films, or literature)

Who said anything about portrayal of "real" people?

A fictional tribe will do just fine. Or is an "alternate universe" explanation an option for you?

And even if. Isn't art (in the most general sense) allowed to play with different ideas? Isn't anyone allowed to deviate from current mainstream history or zeitgeist? Since when isn't it okay any longer to play with "what if" scenarios? Is there something wrong with "Inglourious Basterds"? Or maybe something more silly like "Iron Sky"? Are we free to tell a story about evil US guys during the WWII? Are we allowed to tell a story about "good" Nazis/Maoists/<your typical bad guy>? Is switching perspective not allowed?

Or what about the "Indiana Jones" films; those had various tribes in it. Is that all wrong? Those guys bribed by that french bad guy archeologist and running after Indy - was that wrong? What about that crazy diamond tribe, ripping out hearts to please their ebil gods? Tasteless? Is that "absolutely not ok"? Or what?

What about "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"?

Was that offensive too? Ok for its time, but clearly you couldn't do something like that nowadays?

And to take this discussion on the next level of absurdity (because that's exactly where this all is heading...): do we really need race- and gender quotas for games now? Is Witcher 3 offensive? Wasn't it super offensive that women in A2 couldn't even drive? LOL ;)

Isn't it even more offensive that they now completely lack in A3? Or is that cool with you? :cool:

I mean... nowadays anything is considered offensive by someone.

And not just the content itself, but also the lack of it! :hammer:

What I would be more concerned about would be how they would be portrayed in a campaign or mission, how their beliefs or society would be represented.

Seriously?

  • In what sort of way does Arma even attempt to represent "beliefs or society"?
  • What makes you so alert about "beliefs or society" of a tribe-faction. What about the NATO guys, the FIA or the stinky bugs and their beliefs and society?
  • And finally, what makes you think that BIS would deliver some ridiculous "Indy"-tribesmen and some funny cultisms? Did they ever give you a reason to think they wouldn't handle such a thing with taste?

In the end, they'd just be a faction of men with the same animations as anyone else, but way less equipement on them, which could make this rather interesting from a pure game mechanics point of view: make them slightly faster (max. speed/running), give them more strength/endurance which is amplified by the lack of wearing much of anything, so there's not much of fatigue, yet sure, they're a tad bit more fragile (no proper vests and stuff), but maybe super stealthy (configured like ghillie suits).

Come on... that could be hell of fun in so many ways, no?

:yay:

Since how indigenous communities/ groups have been treated in the past

??? And what exactly makes them so super special snowflakes? All of humanity has suffered and been treated shitty in the past (most aren't even around any longer for being assimilated - or worse - a long time ago...). So what? No more games (or tales, or books, ...) about the middle ages (or much earlier)? No games about native americans? Yes: but only the good and kind ones? What about africa? Are we allowed to do something with any of those guys?

Plus, an untouched (hence "uncivilized") tribe, as proposed, would have been treated arguably not shitty at all (up to now, bwuahaha :p) - simply for the lack of any treatment/outside involvement. But you're projecting all kind of real world stuff onto a proposed fictional tribe in some pew pew game. Is that really necessary?

They are not some exotic plaything to be added to a game as background setting.

Aha. And what else isn't allowed to be added as plaything/background setting?

Could you PM me that list so that I won't publicly ridicule myself too much in future? :/

Don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily wanna see some ridiculous indy-horror freakshow tribesmen stuff either.

But that PC-reflex/SJW-triggercrapfest needs to stop. People are - and need to be - free to make trash.

...which isn't even proposed here, and BIS isn't really known for producing trash either, so I just don't get why you're so upset/worried about poor tribesmen. Sometimes I wonder if people live in a constant fictional state of everlasting outrage - just for the sake of it. :rolleyes:

Since this is wildly off topic now - can we carry on with discussing the new terrain?

Hey, it's the mega monster thread afterall!

(But do as you please; so don't feel compelled to reply if you don't want to ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be hyped. i really really do. But the moment I have seen those ground textures I puked all over my keyboard, mouse and monitor. Cleaning all that up ruined the hype. Now I'm just disgusted.

https://i.imgur.com/YZU2ixd.jpg (175 kB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the moment I have seen those ground textures I puked all over my keyboard, mouse and monitor. Cleaning all that up ruined the hype. Now I'm just disgusted.

https://i.imgur.com/YZU2ixd.jpg (175 kB)

Are you judging the ground textures using a compressed video of the W.I.P island?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you judging the ground textures using a compressed video of the W.I.P island?

There is some smudging from compression but it's not enough to hide the blotchy middle-distance terrain we're all too familiar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea , so far Tanoa obviously got some mid range blur texture issues (all A3 maps suffers from that)

unless later A3 will bring some feature to deal with that

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is some smudging from compression but it's not enough to hide the blotchy middle-distance terrain we're all too familiar with.

I humbly think it's too early to judge the Tanoa mid-distance textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I humbly think it's too early to judge the Tanoa mid-distance textures.

Yeah, we don't know what's a placeholder or supposedly a finished item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't get it right from the beginning do not expect any improvement further in the future. I'm talking by experience.

Edited by Nikiforos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I humbly think it's too early to judge the Tanoa mid-distance textures.

That's a valid, even sensible, point of view but given BIS' track record with this eternal complaint (namely it's one of the few things they've resolutely failed to even really acknowledge, let alone engage on since 2009) I'm not terribly inclined to just assume they're going to do anything different. Arma is a damned fine looking game apart from this glaring shortcoming.

I'll confess I'm personally a bit more frustrated than usual about this issue because (until somebody who knows more about their terrain shader tells me it wouldn't work, and preferably why) I remain convinced they could quite easily make a significant improvement for existing and future terrains with next to no effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they don't get it right from the beginning do not expect any improvement further in the future. I'm talking by experience.

exactly - same thing was with Altis but with different excuse "It's Alpha , it will be improved" and now you can see any difference in the final Altis? - nope

and that Mid range texture issue needs to be addressed , not just waiting for something that it will fix itself

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 99% sure nothing will be done for midrange tex. Within few years I realized BI has this ADHD game developing cycle where they start doing a feature and release it broken, close their eyes and jump on doing next feature that will have the same fate.

Sounds harsh, but it's true. They should have fired their QA ages ago, someone had to say it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly - same thing was with Altis but with different excuse "It's Alpha , it will be improved" and now you can see any difference in the final Altis? - nope

This. It will never be fixed after the release, the time to whine is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a valid, even sensible, point of view but given BIS' track record with this eternal complaint (namely it's one of the few things they've resolutely failed to even really acknowledge, let alone engage on since 2009) I'm not terribly inclined to just assume they're going to do anything different. Arma is a damned fine looking game apart from this glaring shortcoming.

I'll confess I'm personally a bit more frustrated than usual about this issue because (until somebody who knows more about their terrain shader tells me it wouldn't work, and preferably why) I remain convinced they could quite easily make a significant improvement for existing and future terrains with next to no effort.

You should be able to do it with Tilled Resources in dx11 and dx12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This. It will never be fixed after the release, the time to whine is now.

yep, notice how the Dev's said they're better trying to allow better dynamic cover in the new maps as it's too late for the old ones. Tho I still don't know what that means, isn't dynamic cover un-doable aka moving tank, car, apc? I would think they meant baked in cover...

Nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ruebe: :raisebrow: Yeah, I'm looking at you funny and not Callsign.

That's what I meant with jungle ready. Amphibious, reduced armour, smaller cannon (like the TUSK just without the additional armour). You could cut out the carrier ability and save some more weight. As KBBW123 said it's fictional gear and BI can configure they stuff as they please.^^
A Slammer UP-derived variation trading said uparmoring for amphibious capability would be the simplest answer, especially when the real-life PLA fields amphibious armor with 105 mm guns such as the ZTD-05 (as well as armor with 105 mm guns derived from amphibious armor chassis -- yes, the plural is spelled the same in English -- which themselves may not be amphibious.
Which presents a perfect opportunity to implement some strategic airlift aircraft. On the other hand, I suspect that the transport of vehicles across the archipelago will encompass (at best) an LCAC-type hovercraft if they can achieve a satisfactory implementation of vehicle-in-vehicle transport. Not that there's anything wrong with amphibious APCs, of course.
I'm thinking that strategic airlift aircraft will need a "vehicle-in-vehicle transport" capability to serve the role... remember, an "LCAC-type hovercraft" is to be a ship-to-shore "connector" (generic, not the would-be LCAC successor of that name) for non-amphibious armor, though of course it should go faster than amphibious armor could on its own (see this LCAC with both HMMWVs and LAV-25s), or a M60 Patton driving off of a LARC). If a strategic airlift aircraft is to "justify itself for gameplay purposes" (that is, above and beyond what the C-130 did for Arma 2 beyond ambience and "my immersion") then it'll have to support this.
Probably, however, the Sheridan is sling loadable, can be airdropped, and can cross rivers.
This'll be the third time that I'm pointing out that you will need a new helicopter above and beyond the Helicopters DLC families just for sling-loading a "Sheridan 2035", airdropping will require that "vehicle-in-vehicle transport" be implemented for aircraft (to be fair, I'd look forward to that), and if you allow only the amphibious requirement... then there's a lot more options, including the T-90's 125 mm 2A46M-5 gun on a BMD-4 chassis.

Oh yeah, Tanoa is not guaranteed to have rivers... and you can forget about flowing ones. :(

yep, notice how the Dev's said they're better trying to allow better dynamic cover in the new maps as it's too late for the old ones. Tho I still don't know what that means, isn't dynamic cover un-doable aka moving tank, car, apc? I would think they meant baked in cover...

Nevertheless.

oukej was responding to a complaint that the AI couldn't use many objects as cover:
For example the trees: there are many of them, but often you can't order your men to go behind them (the proper marker won't show up). It also happens that you can order your men to take cover in only ONE position behind a useful cover object; often happens that the single position you can send him is placed in the wrong direction (exposed to the enemy fire)...
oukej's response seemed to me (you may read his actual post differently) to be less "it's unfixable, period" and more "there's so much that would need changing (to a degree that would be noticeable) that any time spent on fixing them to a noticeable degree would be at the expense of maximizing the quality of the terrain that we're going to charge people for". :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Meaning the cover nodes weren't giving enough options per orientation. Hopefully the entire nodes system gets some much needed sexy-ed upness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, i don't think we will see Vehicle in Vehicle transportation Via. Air vehcies. Why? Because... Unless BIS impliment something other than AttachTo, we won't see it...

Ok, wait second, i lied... As long as a vehicle has a Roadway LOD with enough friction, it's doable, actually...

So on the Naval side of things, plausible.

Air side of things... Not so much.

Air Vehicle Transportation besides sling load is about impossible with how the engine handles things.... in the air... Believe me, i tried everything, and with only an ammo crate jumping around inside of a helicopter, it took a matter of seconds for it to somehow break the rotor, and send me spiraling to the ground. The crate was even tied down, ish... Anyhow though, large vehicles, larger, faster moving aircraft is another story. Unless BIS do something engine wise, we will... sorry, could (as in possible, if looked into) see Naval Transportation of Vehicles.

As for AI cover, i still don't know why everyone is worried. ran a few tests recently, even on Mod made maps, the AI do indeed take cover of trees when under fire. This means your AI squad mates will be fine, and won't be useless, you can still tell them where to go, an they should take cover accordingly. As for your enemy AI, expect them to act the same way. While there is a chance you can get shot in the head, it's not 100% of the time, use cover wisely, suppress, and kill before you are killed. In the forest, it won't take long before things can go bad, due to lack of cover, usually everyone is on common ground. It's important to gain the upper hand, as fast as possible, else your done for, can't really run away either, most of the time.

Edited by DarkSideSixOfficial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. Meaning the cover nodes weren't giving enough options per orientation. Hopefully the entire nodes system gets some much needed sexy-ed upness.
Hence pretty much my interpretation of oukej's remarks being that they're working to achiev this for Tanoa but also that the focus is basically all on Tanoa, with none (intended to be) spared for Altis and Stratis in this regard.

@DarkSideSixOfficial: In that case, I wonder how BISim implemented it for the VBS3 C-27J?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×