Vehicle interiors. Merkava MK IV tank for example.

[jakeplissken 81]

I know this has been discussed before, but is there a real reason that the tanks have no interiors?

 

Here is the interior of the Merkava MK IV tank used by Israel:

 

I noticed when using the Gorgon and I turn out, I get a flash of an interior complete with a steering wheel and no windows.

 

But this would make this game much more complete. Or this this a lower priority than the new island and graphical overhaul?

[somesangheili 111]

It may look pretty being able to see inside the tank, but you would have to be able to see outside the tank as well. Most tanks use mirrors to do that, and the only way to mimic a mirror in Arma is to use PiP. If the driver is trying to look through 6 different PiP mirrors, the framerate is going to be pretty terrible.

[drebin052 324]

In addition to what SomeSangheili said, the only reason why you see a flash of the interior on the Gorgon is because the model is direct port of the Pandur II from Arma 2: ACR, which did have one for the driver.

 

The Slammer family don't have interior views for the driver and gunner (apart from the passenger compartments) because they weren't made with ones to begin with.

[en3x 209]

Every other vehicle has interior.I would love to see tank being treated the same.I heard about statement -

too much work it doesn't really add to it anything.But with that outlook why are then passenger stations

in tanks modeled?

[KingLeonidasI 0]

Nahh this has been done in opration flashpoint with an older version of the engine pictures! :D really reason is budget or laziness commander http://prntscr.com/b0ghs2  . driver seat http://prntscr.com/b0ghxz

gunner http://prntscr.com/b0gipa

Abraham tank this is

 

t80

just killed the abrarham XD. driver http://prntscr.com/b0gk8q

Commander http://prntscr.com/b0gke2

gunnerview you can actually see the abraham through the sight without zooming http://prntscr.com/b0gkh5

[Karl Sauer 79]

Its a matter of workload really, and as a tankcrew you will probably spend the majority of the time looking through optics, windows and whatever else you have, if you aren't unbottend.

 

Just look at a game like Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad, they have full tank interior and moving about inside of it, but it only had two tanks on release, and did not get additional ones till many years later. The workload was simply too great to effectively pump out vehicles at a steady pace. But those interiors were barely ever looked at, as you need to look through the tiny view slots, optics and whatever to actually operate the darn thing. 

 

What I am trying to say, is that its a lot of work for very little reward.

[slatts 1978]

Here's how a mission with tank interiors goes. 

 

"Hey we're being shot at, better look through my optics for the rest of the mission so I can actually see more than 50ft away"

 

Take a 1st person only game. Passengers in APC's and MRAPs etc have interiors because they actually need them. Take a look at BF2/3/4 where it's a black screen with a window. Sure tank crews in Arma have sorta the same thing but if you need a better view you can turn out. And if you need to turn in since you're being shot at, you're going to go into optics to shoot back. 

[en3x 209]

well the driver needs interior in first person view.Cardbox view is very arhaic.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I don't think it matters unless Bi plan on adding some real functionality to interiors too, and not just a few, but every single vehicle, perhaps something like the TKOH interaction in first person, but otherwise, it's a waste of resources for anything other than cars, trucks, and any other vehicle where you're not required to stare down optics and scan in all directions 24/7. That's my opinion, of course.

[slatts 1978]

well the driver needs interior in first person view.Cardbox view is very arhaic.

 

That I can agree with though. Even if it's a generic interior that's 100% correct to the vehicle.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I've always found A3 interiorless tanks unimmersive and disappointing.

[Defunkt 431]

That I can agree with though. Even if it's a generic interior that's 100% correct to the vehicle.

I've always thought a completely featureless black box in 3D with non-PiP viewports would be highly achievable and much better than the 2D representation (of a black box). At least you could move your head and peer left and right. I expect it would feel significantly less restrictive/claustrophobic.

[Fadi 22]

The lack of interior for gunner and commander doesn't bother me as much because yeah, they should be spending their time scanning with their optics.

 

Drivers though is a different story. The single periscope has it's uses, being full screen means you can see things in better detailed than zoomed out sitting an interior but it's terrible at giving you an idea of your surroundings. I don't think an interior would have to be heavily detailed either -- I'd be okay with something simple and shadowed to act as a supplement to the periscope view.

 

Uh, excuse the lazy editing (10 minutes before I leave for work..) but something like this (an edited Steel Beasts screenshot) would be more than enough for me: http://i.imgur.com/KwWPnrd.png

 

Admittedly PIP screens having their issues would more or less mean the sides wouldn't be offset like that but OFPs nor the vehicles views with interiors in A2/OA (like the Bradley) weren't either.

63

[jumpinghubert 49]

The complete lack of interior for tanks after that period of time is out of the question, sorry. To fall into a black hole when you change the optics destroys the immersion. Thats why i don´t use tanks in arma3 at all. Not to be worth it and too much work? But a complete new island though we have quadrillions of islands for arma3? Ha.....ha? I would play tons of tank missions if there would be quality over quantity logic tank related.

[Wiki 1558]

I've always found A3 interiorless tanks unimmersive and disappointing.

It's the same since OFP :(

[en3x 209]

The complete lack of interior for tanks after that period of time is out of the question, sorry. To fall into a black hole when you change the optics destroys the immersion. Thats why i don´t use tanks in arma3 at all. Not to be worth it and too much work? But a complete new island though we have quadrillions of islands for arma3? Ha.....ha? I would play tons of tank missions if there would be quality over quantity logic tank related.

 

This makes me think! Where is ambition for tanks as there is for crafting island (one of the biggest in games overall).When you think from your angle

all excuses seem so petty : D.I would like to see underpromise overdeliver for tanks one day.

[KingLeonidasI 0]

Its a matter of workload really, and as a tankcrew you will probably spend the majority of the time looking through optics, windows and whatever else you have, if you aren't unbottend.

 

Just look at a game like Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad, they have full tank interior and moving about inside of it, but it only had two tanks on release, and did not get additional ones till many years later. The workload was simply too great to effectively pump out vehicles at a steady pace. But those interiors were barely ever looked at, as you need to look through the tiny view slots, optics and whatever to actually operate the darn thing. 

 

What I am trying to say, is that its a lot of work for very little reward.

Red orchestar 2 tank interior it had an advantage is that you diden't have to turn into these black screens but could turn your head right and left to look out of view ports. like the Driver in merkva tanks sees where the fuck the gunner is pointing on the screen can evaluate the threat without being told to drive backwards. an example. RHS has made some tank interios which is awesome. and really helpfull. the commander have to crawl to the tank driver. all these Can be added in Arma. it would also make penetration system also Worth it. Seeing that anti tank bullet overpenetrate your tank and go out the other side and make a hole in the tank. is gona make a untrained crew Panic.alot of reasons and additions and meanings i can keep adding. Arma is a game for complexity and Realism. not cheap game offs

[KingLeonidasI 0]

It's the same since OFP :(

OFP tank interior was awesome. Heck During that time.2001 game was 5-9 years ahead of time.

[joostsidy 685]

I was a huge fan of the OFP tanks with interiors. Looking around in your tank during a break in the action felt very immersive not to mention you could look into the tank from outside if the hatches were open. The interiors also had seperate lighting independent from outside lighting conditions. It felt like a/the real thing!

 

I think OFP was an idealistic game whereas later Arma's were more practical. OFP tried to capture the military feel totally on all aspects with terrain, infantry and vehicles. It tried to give the total, balanced package and succeeded well for the time.

 

Arma3 is a much more complex game. Balancing and optimizing all assets seems to be impossible with time and budget constraints that BIS face. There are gaps in asset quality where it is clear where the focus of quality is. (natural) terrain, infantry and helicopters are the strong points of the game. Buildings, armored vehicles and boats are some of the categories that are relatively weak.

 

Tanks was about half the reason I played OFP, so it hurts a bit to see that not only tank interiors are missing but their physics and AI are not good as well. I make SP combined arms missions with lots of vehicles and infantry and I guarantee you that these missions won't work with vanilla ai. AI tanks are looking the wrong way, driving the wrong way, selecting the wrong weapons. What you expect from looking at the box doesn't work and is just plain broken. Fortunately, I have been scripting since OFP and am able to fix a few things (like wandering tanks in COMBAT mode).

 

There are just too few people interested in this to make it worth the effort for BIS. Realize that customers are not always rational. Advertising with a whole new Island or loads of new weapons will always get people excited even if they already have loads of these assets. My guess is that advertising with new tanks with interiors is too much 'niche' according to BIS. I also believe that they completely given up on this idea and will possibly only return in a far future version where it is 'easy' to implement and PIP screens are not resource hungry.

 

So unfortunately Arma3 is a game in which sometimes you have to avoid some assets or scenarios because they feel rudimentary and break the immersion of the game. On the other hand, the average quality and the quality of specific assets is so high that this game is still by far my favorite game!

[germanske_norge 43]

I was a huge fan of the OFP tanks with interiors. Looking around in your tank during a break in the action felt very immersive not to mention you could look into the tank from outside if the hatches were open. The interiors also had seperate lighting independent from outside lighting conditions. It felt like a/the real thing!

 

I think OFP was an idealistic game whereas later Arma's were more practical. OFP tried to capture the military feel totally on all aspects with terrain, infantry and vehicles. It tried to give the total, balanced package and succeeded well for the time.

 

Arma3 is a much more complex game. Balancing and optimizing all assets seems to be impossible with time and budget constraints that BIS face. There are gaps in asset quality where it is clear where the focus of quality is. (natural) terrain, infantry and helicopters are the strong points of the game. Buildings, armored vehicles and boats are some of the categories that are relatively weak.

 

Tanks was about half the reason I played OFP, so it hurts a bit to see that not only tank interiors are missing but their physics and AI are not good as well. I make SP combined arms missions with lots of vehicles and infantry and I guarantee you that these missions won't work with vanilla ai. AI tanks are looking the wrong way, driving the wrong way, selecting the wrong weapons. What you expect from looking at the box doesn't work and is just plain broken. Fortunately, I have been scripting since OFP and am able to fix a few things (like wandering tanks in COMBAT mode).

 

There are just too few people interested in this to make it worth the effort for BIS. Realize that customers are not always rational. Advertising with a whole new Island or loads of new weapons will always get people excited even if they already have loads of these assets. My guess is that advertising with new tanks with interiors is too much 'niche' according to BIS. I also believe that they completely given up on this idea and will possibly only return in a far future version where it is 'easy' to implement and PIP screens are not resource hungry.

 

So unfortunately Arma3 is a game in which sometimes you have to avoid some assets or scenarios because they feel rudimentary and break the immersion of the game. On the other hand, the average quality and the quality of specific assets is so high that this game is still by far my favorite game!

 

I was quite surprised to see how bad the vehicular physics were in a "simulator". The vehicular combat in Arma 3 is clunky and awkward at best, and downright laughable at times

[Defunkt 431]

The vehicular combat in Arma 3 is clunky and awkward at best, and downright laughable at times

Still a heap better than Steel Beasts' infantry combat.