Tanks DLC Feedback

[Damian90 697]

Ok so because Tanks DLC was announced, and Bohemia Interactive encouraged us to provide feedback, I give myself liberty to start this topic. Note to moderators, please move it if it's in wrong section.

 

https://arma3.com/news/arma-3-roadmap-2016-17#.WAozF4-LTIU

 

 

TANKS DLC

 

We round off this roadmap with an ambitious goal: overhauling the experience of armoured combat in Arma 3. This package will follow our well-established model: a set of premium assets, which bring something new to the sandbox, supported by platform improvements and additions for everyone, for free. We encourage our community to share their own wishes on the topic, too!

 

Ok so now few things for BI devs about possible, and I would even say necessary improvements. To show how exactly stuff should look like in case of vehicles, I will use probably the best currently avaiable on market tank simulator, Steel Beasts Pro PE as a reference.

 

1. Thermal Sights.

 

Yes, thermal sights in ArmA3 are, ok but they don't work as they should the primary problem is the contrast.

 

Let me present how it looks like in case of the above mentioned simulator.

 

 

As you can see contrast is good enough that gunner can actually see terain details very clearly, it's especially good in 2nd and 3rd generation FLIR systems that modern vehicles receive.

 

For example video of a real thing.

 

 

It would be really great if in game thermal sights would provide such contrast.

 

2. Fire Control Systems.

 

Again, here is where ArmA3 really lags behind. At RHS we tried to create realistic FCS but it's still not perfect. The biggest issue is turret control, how it should be solved? Again good example is Steel Beasts, where turret follow the cursor, so the player does not need to move mouse much, and the turret movement itself is more stable, soft if you get me. ;)

 

Also FCS should be able to calculate lead for moving targets in automatic mode.

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A2_(SEP)

 

Here is a tutorial (still WIP but I please BI Devs to keep an eye on it, should be finished soon AFAIK) for M1A2SEP FCS use, I choosen it because it would be a very close to what Merkava Mk4M or in game M2A1 Slammer have in terms of FCS capabilities.

 

In general if I can advise something to BI devs in terms of improving vehicles fire control systems, if you guys can, purchase Steel Beasts Pro PE, and use it as a reference, will be very helpfull. http://www.steelbeasts.com/

 

3. Modern Main Battle Tanks Armor Simulation.

 

Here is also something that can be improved.

 

In general armor simulation should be based on:

 

a - Armor real thickness (or it's estimations).

b - Armor effective thickness when it's angle is taken in to consideration.

c - Armor protection vs Kinetic Energy threats like APFSDS ammunition.

d - Armor protection vs Chemical Energy threats like munitions with shaped charge warheads i.e. tank HEAT rounds, RPG's or ATGM's.

 

The general rule of thumb is that KE protection is lower then CE protection, although this is more complex subject, and can be discussed in greater detail later on.

 

4. Large Calliber Ammunition Simulation.

 

This includes bot simulation of kinetic energy munitions like APFSDS and chemical energy munitions like HEAT, especially the latter one is a bit more complex subject that would need longer discussion.

 

5. Simulation for amphibious tracked vehicles.

 

6. Better physx handling for tracked vehicles.

 

Yeah so this all for now, would be great if BI devs responsible for this project would for example put here their own questions, at least I can vouch for myself I can help by providing real life data, and all research + my own knowledge about this subject. This is really ocean sized subject so a specific questions for each point would probably be the best.

[opteryx 1562]

I want present day MBTs, not this futuristic nonsense.

 

-edit-

 

Oh and I just remembered, NonWonderDog created a fairly realistic tank gunnery mod back in Arma 1.

 

 

 

I would love to se something that could compete with Steel Beasts.

[Janez 530]

I want that railgun!

 

[Damian90 697]

 

 

I want present day MBTs, not this futuristic nonsense.

 

Well ArmA3 MBT's are present day.

 

M2A1 Slammer is a Merkava Mk4M, T-100 Varsuk is Object 640 (there is even video of that prototype), MBT-52 Kuma is a Leopard 2A4 with MBT Revolution upgrade package from Rheinmetall. :P

The only vehicle that is a BI creation is BTR-K Kamysh.

 

Oh and one thing I would really like to see is Namer vel IFV-6c Panther NATO heavy APC in IFV variant, and BI devs really don't need to do much, they already have base vehicle, and already have the turret.

 

 

Another point I just reminded myself, would be great if vehicles would have functional hard and soft kill active protection systems. Like Trophy on Merkava Mk4M/M2A1 Slammer and Namer/IFV-6c Panther.

 

 

Another thing I would also want to see, is that vehicles that in real life have 4 crew members, have them in game, for example Slammer and Kuma. It could be solved that way that loader provides faster reloads of their main guns, and maybe give him some additional functionality? Like using remote weapon station (could be an option for both commander and loader?).

[en3x 209]

I would emphasize Tank phyX for tracked vehicle.

 

What we have is not optimal.

 

Tank flip if you spin around on spot

 

Tank looses momentum when jumping (drops all speed down instantly)

 

Unable to spin on the slope (tank starts rolling backward)

 

Tanks don't have correct weight system (collision - everyone know about flying tanks)

Bit expanding on this topic - tanks are vehicle and bumping happens in convoys.

When that happens tanks should not flip or fly away - thus collision issue.

 

This seem like obvious and first thing that tanks need in order to go on and

implement other features like FCS, active protection system, etc...

 

--------------------------------

 

How do you guys feel about interiors?

 

I would gladly trade like 2 new tanks with interiors with 4 tanks without inside interaction.

Consideration for the rest of the tanks interiors?Model interiors in due time.

Kuma/T100/Slammer + 2 new tanks with interiors.

 

Kinda like quality over quantity.

[Damian90 697]

I would emphasize Tank phyX for tracked vehicle.

 

What we have is not optimal.

 

Tank flip if you spin around on spot

 

Tank looses momentum when jumping (drops all speed down instantly)

 

Unable to spin on the slope (tank starts rolling backward)

 

Tanks don't have correct weight system (collision - everyone know about flying tanks)

 

This seem like obvious and first thing that tanks need in order to go on and

implement other features like FCS, active protection system, etc...

 

Yeah, heavy tracked vehicles should feel heavier. If anything I can provide proper weight data for various vehicles for BI if they want to, in metric tons.

 

I would also advise BI devs to look at physx system implemented in WarThunder, it's an arcade game, but still it have a very good physx system for ground vehicles, they just feel right in that game, so again looking at other product might be benefitial for ArmA3. :)

 

Other thing is of course that modern AFV's have much better engines and transmissions, as well as suspension systems, so they will be far more mobile than WWII and early 50-60's vehicles modelled in WarThunder.

[.kju 3244]

1. Config option for One-man-tank like OFP had (hasGunner=false; hasCommander=false; )
2. Better AI commanding as human (driver and gunner) - we have many good CIT tickets on this topic; will post soon

3. Improving the damage modeling (see also) (better placement of hitpoints and more hitclasses like for ammo storage, crew positions; removing the hardcoded effects on engine&hull destruction; making hitPart trigger on the affected unit, making handleDamage results more reliable or better to understand, etc)

4. Improving the destruction FX (not always explosion, random delay in explosion, turret blow off, various FX)

5. Improving sounds (hit effects, directional hearing, etc)

6. Defensive systems (ARENA, SHTORA, etc)

7. Ability to adjust targeting and radar system via SQF

8. Bonus: Tweaking AI abilities in tanks (reaction time, radar usage, eye sight, hearing, precision, etc)

9. Bonus 2: Radio support command to work again (or to expand - like RTB, etc)

10. Bonus 3: Advanced AI behavior - see Smarter tanks mod

[nigal 25]

I'm in it for tank interiors (and also all those other things too)  :D

 

[Damian90 697]

 

4. Improving the destruction FX (not always explosion, random delay in explosion, turret blow off, various FX)

 

This one is a bit tricky and should be dependant on vehicle design, ammunition storage design, how much ammo is left in vehicle etc. But I agree with general direction.

 

Another thing is, Slammer tanks just like their real Merkava Mk4M tanks counterparts, should not, I repeat should not! Have the ability to transport infantry in their rear hull compartment. The real hull compartment is for ammo storage only! Here is how Merkava Mk4M looks inside.

 

 

If infantry is taken then nearly entire ammo storage must be taken out.

 

 

And tank is then left with only 10 ready rounds in turret bustle magazine.

 

 

So to have it's full ammo loadout, Slammer just like real world Merkava, should not be able to take infantry dismounts.

[KoalaDSK 122]

Hello there,

Then I will give my two cents:

I guess we need some proper vehicle interiors for the upcoming Tanks DLC. Something like we can see in Virtual Battlespace 3:

Next thing, I would like to have a proper damage system. Something like we had in Operation Flashpoint aka Arma: Cold War Assault back in the days. If I am not totally wrong each track of the tank could be damaged independently and you had some trouble to move the tank with a single damaged track. Something like that would be really great.

Best regards

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Tweaking the gating/contrast on the TI equipment definitely has my vote. VBS and Steel Beasts do it well

 

Configuration-wise I'd also like to be able to set different view memory point positions for each vision mode, rather than only having a single memory point per turret.

Things like the TI sight head are not always located next to the optical sights. And it might also provide an ability to see where the gunner is looking, from the commander's turret if the commander has a view mode that is able to reference the gunner's view mem point.

[Damian90 697]

Tweaking the gating/contrast on the TI equipment definitely has my vote. VBS and Steel Beasts do it well

 

Configuration-wise I'd also like to be able to set different view memory point positions for each vision mode, rather than only having a single memory point per turret.

Things like the TI sight head are not always located next to the optical sights. And it might also provide an ability to see where the gunner is looking, from the commander's turret if the commander has a view mode that is able to reference the gunner's view mem point.

 

Yeah, some tanks have also auxiliary sights placed in a different spot than primary sights.

[x3kj 1247]

I have spent 3 years modding/working primarily on tanks in A3 (unreleased yet however). Including PhysX, damage model etc. So i have quite a couple of suggestions, a bit more detailed than the OP. These are just from top of my head, i will edit it later with more.
 
Driving:

• Better controll scheme (no longer thrust cutoff during "hard turns"), due to sound (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85846), gear (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T77540) and controll issues. I have suggested a solution here (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T7843)
• Manual Gearselection. Please? ... Pettka said that this is already ingame, but there are still no controlls for it. It would allow us to enforce a slow drive speed. Currently you will go to 0 to 30 in no time, making driving at walking pace in sync with infantry impossible). With manual gears option we could force 1st gear and therefore only drive very slowly. During climbing a hill the autobox often switches and then has to switch back due to lack of torque. Manual gear option fixes that.
• Eliminate Fake Gears. Re-tuning of tank gearboxes and torque-RPM-Curve. I have found that with proper torque-rpm-curve fake gears are not needed anymore. Fake gears produce alot of problems (interconnected with problem 1).
• Fix banana behaviour at slow speeds (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T77522). Very annoying when operating together with infantry
• Better modelling of resistance forces for tracked vehicles. In RL, you need to give throttle to be able to complete a turn, due to the resistance. Would make tanks feel less like twitchy race cars. I can provide more info on this if needed.
• Differentiation of physical properties for different terrains. Right now it doesnt matter if mud, tarmac or gravel, it all results in the same vehicle handling. I can provide more info on this if needed.
• Completing the work on the amphibious tankX feature (iirc its only enabled in diag.exe on devbranch right now? i never use anything else, so i wouldnt know)
• Support for more than one reverse gear. And also support for analoge values for driving in reverse. Currently only 1 reverse gear is supported and you can only drive either full speed reverse or make full brake (in reverse). Modern mil. vehicles and powertrains are designed specifically for having the same mobility in reverse as forward.
• Solve the sudden jolts that propell the tank in various directions. Implement a limiter to acceleration/forces/torques inside the physics solver. A tank accelerating from 0 to -50 within 1 frame is not a thing that can reallistically happen.

AI:

• New Combatbehaviour specifically for tanks /AFV. Currently it uses AI designed for rifleman, making every tank battle a cluster fuck. It causes the reckless "drive me closer, i want to hit them with my sword" behaviour, followed by "never mind, i'm too close, lets drive away to expose my vulnerable rear" -rinse&repeat. Examples of that can be seen in most "arma 2/3 tank battles" on youtube. Recent example from dslyecxi can be seen here https://youtu.be/iVbCCSY57Rk?t=8m53s and here https://youtu.be/BIGFFUv4ols?t=29m33s (russian tanks=AI).
• Fix for S curve behaviour for AI drivers controlled via Playercommander. Makes smaller positioning adjustements impossible. Totally useless in 99% of driving as well.
• Fix jerky reverse behaviour (see link above)
• Do not cause AI to turn out, when the player turns out when in combat mode. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T80344
• Teach AI how to use the right ammo for the job. They are currently not able to reload a more appropriate round. They always use the first magazine that is loaded until it is empty.

Desired Features for Tank AI:

• Facing front towards largest ground threat during combat (unless maneuvering for a position)
• Staying at medium combat range unless commanded to advance.
• Being able to advance slowly in combat mode, while firing.
• Stopping for firing the main weaponsystem (in case vehicle has no ballistic computer and stabilization). For example weapon systems like the TOW Humvees and similar and of course older tanks absolutely require this.
• Driving in reverse under usage of smoke in case AI decides to retreat

Visual:

• 3D Periscopes on all stations. Modelling the entire Interior of a Tank is extremely time consuming and the small benefit to gameplay vs. the work is prohibitive. Modelling just the Viewports/Periscopes will have the same effect: provide more situational awareness and also immersion, while beeing very easy to do. It was done somewhat comparably for M113 driver and Bradley driver in A2. The idea behind this can be applied to commander and gunner too and can be demonstrated with these concept images: one two. I demonstrated the implementation in one of my WIP videos @2:32 (Commander of a Battletank)  and @6:31 to 7:55 (different tank). These are fantasy vehicles, their periscope designs are pretty terrible (narrow). However, thats still better than current "always glued to the optic" implementation of vanilla A3. There are issues that prevent this method from beeing implemented properly. The Commander View LOD is not functional, so if the Vehicle has Gunner, Driver, Commander and Passengers, not all can be modelled this way. Also, the Shadow LOD for Gunner View, Driver View, Cargo View, Commander View do not appear to be working. I tried everything, but the main default shadow LOD was always used.
• Fix of steering wheel and pedal animation sources for TankX simulation (alternative https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83574)
• Implementation of animation source that gives TI temperature state (1= maximum hot, 0 = cold). I guess source "oil" was used for that previously, but it is broken for TankX and CarX.
• Removal of "auto-hiding" of drivers model when turned inside Tank (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83066) It makes no sense that this is still hardcoded. We have config options that should be responsible for this. Very bad for vehicles that have visible driver, but also require turn-out/in feature. (currently you have to force out a driver to see his model)
• Removal of "All-in-one-Sight". Currently Maingunner Sight has NV, Thermal, Normal all in one sight. In contemporary vehicles the sight for each respective mode often has different properties (FOV, Zoom, reticle, position...). Currently it is not possible to implement this properly. You can only do different zoomlevels, which have to be cycled by "Zoom in /out" - extremely counterintuitive. When a viewmode has no NV vision available, nothing will happen if you press "N". It will not switch to a sightmode that has NV. Also, transition between all sightmodes and so on is instantaneous. There should be a smoother transition (darkening to black, then un-darkening again with new sight mode) between thermal/NV/visible light. And there is only a single memorypoint for the optic. Not multiple.
• Make recoil force configurable in cfgAmmo or cfgWeapon config (is currently hardcoded) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121475
• Fix the Bug where 8bit alpha maps (DXT5 compression) do not receive shadows when using for example a SuperShader material. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85685

Damage Model:

• Fixing of the Damage System issues (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120542). With these fixes, proper and detailed damage modelling using the already implemented systems for penetration becomes possible.
• Improvement of Rocket and Missile HEAT simulation. Currently these are only Highexplosive weapons with increased damage and lower radius. There is no penetrationcapability.
• Better damage modelling to crew. Only direct hits on crew kill them currently. No close hits (fragments). 95% of the time all crew disembark undamaged.
• Longer disembark times for crew. Currently they just pop out in seconds, leading to very unrealistic scenarios (especially for a close-in anti-tank weapons team). The current exit animations don't exactly help there...
• No "sad barrel" anymore. If elevation drive is damaged, lock gun movement movement. But don't force it to face downwards. It's unrealistic and gamey.
• Individual damage for weapon systems. If a weapon is damaged, prevent it from shooting. But dont affect other, undamaged weapons. No longer block entire gun movement just because main tank barrel was hit. There is still a functional machinegun... Same can be said for APC. A hit on the autocannon does not justify losing the missile complex for example.
• Vulnerable tank optics. Allow us to define "damage overlays" (cracked glass for example), memorypoints and healthpoints for specific optic modes
• Proper ammo fuzes, instead of the explosive parameter, which also affects other things.
• Damage to "modern" tank features, e.g. turret stabilization (damage removes stabilization), powered turret traverse/elevation (losing it means resorting to a handwheel -> vastly reduced traverse/elevation speed), electronic radars/sensors and of course optics ("blinding" a tank).

Gameplay:
Driver:

• Technical possibility for turned-out drivers to switch to FFV (-> driver is not as useless when vehicle is stationary). This does not have to be "full FFV". Even a position where just the head looks out with the ability to use binoculars would help tremendously. Only usable for driver positions, where the mainturret won't chop off their head obviously.

Gunner:

• Fix for Turret Lights not following the turrets movement (broken since 1.55) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T118330
• Additional Ballistic computer setting without "auto-lead". Requiring lasing to set range, no constant lasing. Similar to Arma 2 Ace Implementation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5UnOhUrbY
• Overhaul of reload mechanics:

• Preselection for reload of Tank rounds (so that after a shot, the preselected round is loaded)
• Possibility of not loading a round after a shot (e.g. in case of uncertainty of what is required)
• Unloading a round (so that the weapon is empty)
• Longer Reloadtimes in case a round has to be switched for another.
• Better Interface for selection of magazines, NOT actionmenu.
• E.g. holding R to see a reloading selection interface (with rounds, preselection settings etc). And normally tapping R to start reload (in case auto-reload was disabled)

Commander:

• Ability to slew maingun onto his optics target (see scripting improvement)

All:

• 3D Periscopes half-interior (as mentioned in visual)
• Crew Position interface
• Tweaking of TI and NV "clarity" / contrast for less clear and obvious image. The HDR behaviour wreaks havoc with TI, which i demonstrated here:

notice how when zoomed out, the vehicles are completely "white", and only when zoomed in on them do you see details of the TI map
 
Scripting:

• Fix Animating occupied turrets via Script. Currently only possible for Remote Controlled Vehicles (e.g. Stomper or Drones). Would be extremely usefull for Commander/Gunner interaction (e.g. slewing maingun onto commanders target) and also for custom FCS systems (e.g. custom artillery computer). Currently one would have to always implement 2 weapon/turret models, where one of the two is always hiden depending on wether player-controll or script-controll is active -> very messy.

Sound:

• Better track/wheel-terrain interaction sounds. Examples and description here and here
• Additional auxiliary sounds (cooling unit, gearbox, turbo) with apropriate sound controllers (delayed ramping up/down) for more realistic sound. Example: Engine + Turboloader, Engine + CoolingFan + Turboloader
• Directionality of sounds (especially exhaust), like described earlier in the sound dev thread (mentioned here)
• Better impact sounds of Projectiles on Tank Hulls (exterior and interior). Current "stone on metal pan" sounds from Arma 2 are too obvious.

[zeealex 2029]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but is tank physics too much? like when the tank is totalled the turret pops off, and when the track is busted it unlinks and falls based on collision objects. 

[Rydygier 1309]

And I just said, I give feedback no more. What a hopeless optimist I am. But, if they ask...

 

It was mentioned, so only to emphasize few personal priorities:

 

1. Nice to see, you apparently can't anymore kill a tank with a pistol and lots of time and bullets, even with MG, but still, beneath this hard shell there's still arcade hitpoints hidden, revealed by damage scripting command, if tank is hit with proper AT-weaponry. So as for the first - let's bring damage/hit/armor/penetration consequences modelling even closer to the reality;

 

2. As for my second wish - AI crew behavior - routine driving of course, but mainly in combat proper movement and fight tactics;

 

3. And as for my third wish, my good djinn... Hm. Something more elusive perhaps - somehow improved immersion, a feeling "like in the real tank", whatever may be needed here, when it drives, when it fires, when it get hit, not sure, surprise me. Also "like next to the tank" which is kinda marginal thing, but likely standing just at the gun, when it fires is... well, more rich and thorough experience in the reality. 

[lexx 1363]

• 3D Periscopes on all stations. Modelling the entire Interior of a Tank is extremely time consuming and the small benefit to gameplay vs. the work is prohibitive. Modelling just the Viewports/Periscopes will have the same effect: provide more situational awareness and also immersion, while beeing very easy to do. It was done already for M113 driver and Bradley driver in A2. The idea behind this can be applied to commander and gunner two and can be demonstrated with these concept images: one two. I demonstrated the implementation in one of my WIP videos @2:32 (Commander of a Battletank)  and @6:31 to 7:55. These are fantasy vehicles, their periscope designs are pretty terrible (narrow). However, thats still better than current "glued to the optic" implementation of vanilla A3. There are issues that prevent this method from beeing implemented easily. The Commander View LOD is not functional, so if the Vehicle has Gunner, Driver, Commander and Passengers, not all can be modelled this way. Also, the Shadow LOD for Gunner View, Driver View, Cargo View, Commander View do not appear to be working. I tried everything, but the main default shadow LOD was always used.

While not looking like the most best thing, the "black 3d interior" is still so, so much better than what we currently have... Especially for vehicles that have more than a single front window.

[x3kj 1247]

While not looking like the most best thing, the "black 3d interior" is still so, so much better than what we currently have... Especially for vehicles that have more than a single front window.

Due to the shadow behaving badly, the interior was entirely black in the first case. The viewport "frames" are modelled and textured (like in the second case at daylight) - its just not seen because the bug displays everything as black. Also, real vehicles have wider periscopes, so you would have a lot less black around you - which makes it less jaring when you play the game than in this demonstration. It doesnt take a lot to bring custom vehicles up to this feature level either. Imo it is a very good compromise between immersion, awareness and work required. Provided they fix the issues with the LOD and the shadows.

[twistking 204]

First of all, i want to say, that i'm pretty excited about the roadmap. All the DLCs seem to be a good idea / make sense and apart from that, it's good to know that work is continuing on our beloved Arma.

 

Feedback to Tank DLC:

 

- Interior: I Like x3kjs idea of having just the viewports rendered. I would prefer fully modeled interiors though. In armas semi-futuristic vehicles, i could imagine, that the cockpits are mostly an array of generic displays and modular controllers, so vehicles of one side could share a decent amount of assets. I'm not saying that all interiors could or should look the same, but just want to remind you, that very modern vehicles tend to have more simplistic cockpits, when most of the controls are touchscreens or similar... and this could greatly reduce the amount of work needed to make interiors for all vehicles in the game...

 

- AI: has been mentioned already, but can't be stressed enough;)

 

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

all in all i don't expect steelbeasts level of fidetlity, but i do expect some improvments in every aspect: system simulation, armor / damage simulation, tank AI / combat vehicle AI, sound and graphics, atmosphere / immersion, gameplay...

[rowdied 44]

1. Interiors

 

2. AI behavior - have role specifics ie/ driver has certain behavior routines associated with his position, experienced loader speeds up  load times etc...

 

3. Damage and Penetration model - even as simple as a WW2 model to get something up and running so mod guys can then add their own two cents until a complete model can be implemented

 

4. See RAM mod as a basis if necessary by Olds an Bakerman or....

 

5. HIRE Lib 41-45 / Iron Front developers - they had a complete damage and penetration working model albeit buggy sometimes in MP but working none the less when many said it couldn't be done... and even 16 years ago.

 

6. HIRE Lib 41-45 / Iron Front developers - just do it and save yourself some time and effort BIS

[x3kj 1247]

3. Damage and Penetration model - even as simple as a WW2 model to get something up and running so mod guys can then add their own two cents until a complete model can be implemented

We already have that. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

Except lack of penetration capability for rockets/missiles (HEAT) makes it necessary to use of 2001era hitpoints, or require scripted workarounds.

[merlin 17]

OPTICS DAMAGE STATES

I would be very interested to see optics hitboxes and damage states; with corresponding effects on the ai. The "take out the eyes" approach to disabling armor is known to underequipped rebels worldwide. In the event your optics are damaged a screen artifact (cracked glass?) might be displayed over your view or the screen could cut to static, perhaps the static would represent total destruction of the sight as opposed to small arms damage. The gunner would then switch to a backup sight that lacked thermal imaging or any of the higher magnification settings of the primary sight. I think the most important thing that can be gained from this feature is inclusion in a sample model and adoption by the modding community.

 

SOUND DESIGN

There have been some major improvements to the sound design in Arma 3 but i think vehicles have been largely overlooked. Tanks need to be loud and imposing on infantry around them, check out the Abrams modeled in RHS:USAF if you want to experience really immersive vehicle sound design. Bonus points if different tanks can be identified by their sounds! A screaming gas turbine tank is basically what i'm asking for :D.

 

 

ACTIVE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (APS)

Optional feature on tanks, intercepts ATGMs and rockets; the APS would have limited charges and would kill or wound friendly infantry nearby when activated; can be countered by firing multiple simultaneous ATGMs or rockets at the tank (onboard radar would not be able to detect second rocket through the debris of the first one preventing interception). I'm sure you guys are well aware of active protection systems and suspect there has been a conscious design choice not to include them; i'm sure someone else in this thread can do a better job pitching them than i can.

[rowdied 44]

We already have that. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

Except lack of penetration capability for rockets/missiles (HEAT) makes it necessary to use of 2001 hitpoints, or require scripted workarounds.

Do we really?

 

No actually, what we have has existed since OFP.

 

Have you played Iron front or Lib 41-45 mod back in the day? I am looking for what the RAM mod brings to the table along with the damage model Iron Front had.

 

After 16 years of new pretty units, new pretty islands and objects don't you think it is time we had more realism in our damage model to tanks and vehicles?

 

Quoting wiki that you linked to...

 

Concluding Remarks on Armor & Penetration in Arma 3

• In vanilla A3, the effects of armor are largely ignored by the damage system.
• More accurately: armor penetration is present, but its significance is overwhelmed by the global hitpoint effect
  • this due in part to the way hitpoint "spheres" are placed in many Arma vehicles
  • the effects are particularly dramatic for high damage-value weapons and for indirectHit weapons.
• Caliber-based ballistics work very well, but caliber is bugged for rockets & missiles (it can't be added).
• Nor can the submunition feature be used as a workaround (it is also bugged for missiles, and limited/unreliable for anything other than high-trajectory artillery shells).
• A script-based approach must be used to enable those weapon types to penetrate armor correctly. RAM contains such an approach.

[x3kj 1247]

Do we really?

What a silly question. Penetration exists, improved hitpoint dependency exists. Nothing like that was in OFP. Technical details prevent it from beeing configured without depending on global hitpoints. Technical details i mentioned as key points for fixing.

 

 

i'm sure someone else in this thread can do a better job pitching them than i can.

Tanks nearly invulnerable to missiles/rockets (and possibly even tank shells) until warheads run out? Seems like an incredibly boring concept to me tbh. Not only that, it would make APCs as durable as MBTs against missiles... the one who packs the most countermeasures wins.

[Valken 622]

I would love it if you refined all the armored ballistics modeling like "Real Armor Mod" as default! And please some future weapons style battle tanks.

 

Lastly, please give us the Grey Alien easter egg or a separate DLC for it.

[johnnygitarr 7]

hi,

 

lets look what other engines can do.

 

https://developer.unigine.com/en/devlog/20160919-unigine-2.3.1

(close to the bottom of the page)

 

the driving physics looks great, hope bi, can offer somethings similar.

 

imagine arma with the unigne engine ...

this is for the visual part my choice for an engine for arma.