Tanks DLC Feedback

[ivan keska 45]

What i want is the ability to damage optics, because shooting out optics and damaging view ports has been one of the oldest methods of dealing with armored vehicles. One which which still works even against the most modern and advance vehicles.

 

Also more realistic optics as well, since ya we might have some amazing night vision and thermal sights on tanks now a days. But they still aren't anywhere near what we have in game, so seeing them get upgraded by being downgraded. Would be a nice thing to do and also work as a balancing measure. Since right now you can it's pretty easily to snipe as far as 10km with a tank, since the optics are so clear.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'd be amazing to see a Heavy Barrel version of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. It would fit in as a stated Premium asset, and fills both the Tracked and Amphibious role on a different level than the current Amphibious Fighting Vehicles we currently have in game.

[bars91 956]

BI track record of including canned test beds (XM-8, AK-12 etc) leads me to believe, that if we actually get amphib tracks with this DLC, NATO would likely get the EFV.

 

But man would it be epic to see CSAT get the Kurganets-25 IVF. AFAIK no game dev has yet made that thing, so I imagine it would be quite a unique feature along with EFV.

[chompster 29]

Aside from a bunch of the things mentioned above,

 

 

[bl4dekk 9]

Hello, I made a short video to show the two types of active protection, show some concepts of Soft kill system and Hard Kill system.

basically an armored which has hard kill also has soft kill, the two systems work together depending on the type of threat.

 

 

 

 

Please Developers add this important feature to the game!. xD

 

 

It has many tanks, APCs and MAA (Mobile anti air) you can add the dlc, I suggest 1 to the OPFOR team.

 

 

 

T-14 Armata : Tank

 

 

 

 

The rectangle in red is the fixed compartment soft kill system it contains infrared smoke, and multi-spectral smoke screens.

 

This is the Soft kill system in red and purple.

 

 

And these low are hard kill system.

 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

I also heard (I may be wrong) that in Arma the tracks on vehicles don't actually move, but instead the texture moves to give the illusion of tracks moving. If this is the case a welcome addition to armoured vehicles would be to actually have the tracts move. 

 

Also that UE4 tank physics stuff is just beautiful! 

[R3vo 2654]

Holy fuck! This UE4 demo is amazing. That's how tanks should look and drive!

[Vasily.B 529]

Also dont forget You got ready turret sterring system in OFP. Just port it :)

Physx is biggest badass, same with formation keeping.
Also facing frontal armor to enemy would be nice feature.

[DancZer 65]

What i want to see in the Tanks DLC is not really a tank specific feature, but more like a long time missing one. Better radio and communication possibilities for example like TFAR. Multiple channels, ranges, relays, voice noise, etc.

It plays a huge role in the gameplay.

[sandan 16]

I'm a simple man with simple needs.

But! There are a few things that have bothered me since Operation Flashpoint which should be a big deal for this DLC=

1) Destroyed wheels disappearing are complete game logic if you get my meaning. It doesn't make sense, they should have a model replacement to just look completely ripped to shreds then act like a complete dead leg.

2) The same with tracks, once they break the tank should just roll off the track. Both of these features will give repair speciallists something to do and players will love that guy for it. BTW the repair shouldn't be instantaneous.

3) When the game was first shown at E3 the player was able to attach explosives to objects. Bring that back if you can (valid way to destroy tanks).

4)Make ramps openable like with the chopper doors.

[Vasily.B 529]

I hope they read it :P

[x3kj 1247]

Aside from a bunch of the things mentioned above, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ky9LhbxZI 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fWvIvcg5qM

This works the same as physx... Its just the suspension shown off, which isnt the problem in Arma (though tweaking potential exists). Also, last videos... shows how little clue the guy that configured and rigged the tank has. Track tension must be an alien term for him.

[DaViSFiT 21]

What Tank DLC must have:

 

- AI that are using tank and apcs the right way. Not driving straight to the front, aware of anti tank guys, never show their back to the enemy, help own guys from far away / stay behind. Against a lowtech enemy make the armor a shild for infantrie. Different driving skills.

- realistic damage, values, penetrations. Not every 20mm can penetrate a tank....  :unsure: and not every hard penetration let a tank explode 100%.

- realtistic night vision and thermal image.

- reworked driving model. Dont make a tank drive 7kmh up a hill and this strange "steer+forward=1kmh" for vehicles should also be found a solution.

 

What the DLC should have:

 

- Make the job for driver interessting. Make it harder or more sim-style. give him some more options. Make him feel to drive 60t even with 1500hp.

- Make more parts of the tank can be destroyed and needed to be fixed.

- more chance of survival on this high tech vehicles. Beside tanks its all a one-Shot stuff.

- fix all the ticket problems around tanks. Make the game more CO, more Sim, more complex...

- 

[Redphoenix 1540]

Man, looking at what some people want I question myself if they understand how much work certain things are.

Example: Tank Interiors. Those are the BIGGEST waste of ressources imaginable. a simpe "2.5D" similiar to what BWMod does is more than sufficient. 

Anything more is a simple waste of time and money.

Same with "more tanks". Well yeah, maybe one or two tanks more, but if I see people requesting one or two hands ful - phew, that's quite a lot for a DLC, gents.

[R3vo 2654]

Man, looking at what some people want I question myself if they understand how much work certain things are.

Example: Tank Interiors. Those are the BIGGEST waste of ressources imaginable. a simpe "2.5D" similiar to what BWMod does is more than sufficient. 

Anything more is a simple waste of time and money.

 

 

That looks nice, would be nice though if it was interactable though and if the HUD would be implemented into it so it can be hidding automatically in first person view.

 

 

 

 

Same with "more tanks". Well yeah, maybe one or two tanks more, but if I see people requesting one or two hands ful - phew, that's quite a lot for a DLC, gents.

 

If that means they charge more for the DLC and therefore are able to stuff /improve more features, it's fine with me.

[Redphoenix 1540]

That looks nice, would be nice though if it was interactable though and if the HUD would be implemented into it so it can be hidding automatically in first person view.

 

 

If that means they charge more for the DLC and therefore are able to stuff /improve more features, it's fine with me.

 

To your first point: Yeah, that would even be in the scope to manually flip switches. I also think that would be fairly possible to do.

 

To you second: Yes as well. It all depends on how much ressources you can spare. If your budget is bigger, naturally you can spend more.

[rhyfelwyr 8]

Made an account to make basically one point, although i do have my own suggestions.

As much as i would like to see T14 in Arma, 100% it wont be an accurate representation of the tank. Quite a number of it's charasteristics is still unknown to public, and really keep that in mind everytime you read a wiki page or watch a youtube vid, there are very few people in the world right now who actually know what that thing is capable of.

[Vasily.B 529]

Man, looking at what some people want I question myself if they understand how much work certain things are.

Example: Tank Interiors. Those are the BIGGEST waste of ressources imaginable. a simpe "2.5D" similiar to what BWMod does is more than sufficient. 

 

Anything more is a simple waste of time and money.

Same with "more tanks". Well yeah, maybe one or two tanks more, but if I see people requesting one or two hands ful - phew, that's quite a lot for a DLC, gents.

I thing its sensless, as most of time player will use optics, so who the hell need interior :P Maybe driver station, so he could look around if he have 3 vision ports, but crew compartment for rest of crew is useless.

More tanks..... yeah, who need them? Already there are mods like yours, and other delivering Leo's T-72's, T-90's, T-80's, Abramses, and all kind of Apc's....

So i'm signing under RedPhoenix post, do not create interiors. Not to mention about performance looses.....

[en3x 209]

Man, looking at what some people want I question myself if they understand how much work certain things are.

Example: Tank Interiors. Those are the BIGGEST waste of ressources imaginable. a simpe "2.5D" similiar to what BWMod does is more than sufficient. 

 

Anything more is a simple waste of time and money.

Same with "more tanks". Well yeah, maybe one or two tanks more, but if I see people requesting one or two hands ful - phew, that's quite a lot for a DLC, gents.

 

We both feel strongly about this topic and that is great.I find myself surprised how many people are excited about tank dlc and comment here.

 

You may disagree with me and that is perfectly fine!

 

Looking back at Arma or Arma: Cold War Assault this was driver perspective:

 

 

Throughout the years of arma 2 its iterations and arma 3 we are currently at 2d image.

 

 

So at the moment we have years of letterbox style effect that simulate driver position.In dedicated DLC about tanks,

first of its kind in arma series I would love to see advancements in this particular field.

 

I'm trying to be realistic based on how long modelers at BIS take to model assets so considering quality over quantity

mindset I would be satisfied with 2 new tanks with interiors and vannila tanks being brought up to speed after DLC production.

 

Why do I care? It pains me to see myself and others sitting down in tank and going immediately in third person to driver vehicle

around.Realistically I have no enjoyment driving in letterbox view.Yet I would like to if I could only look around and feel like I'm

in a vehicle.

[R3vo 2654]

So we all have discussed quite abit about features and wanted vehicles, but as seen in the Helicopter/Karts/Marksman DLC we will most likely also get quite alot of static, decorative objects.

 

So I am wondering what kind of objects you'd like to see.

[[evo] dan 79]

Has anyone seen the latest RHS post? They've apparently fixed tracked vehicles in water again. Maybe this means we may get an amphibious tank or 2?

 

I'm thinking along the lines of the upgraded PT85 that the PLAN uses (I can't remember the designation though)(type 63?) for CSAT.

 

I'm hoping for the Stingray 2 though for an "independent" side tank.

[DaViSFiT 21]

3D Interiors for driver its a real help to imagine his position and surroundings. If he can feel his position better, he can drive better. With this 2D Stuff its working, but less feeling, less fun. Bwmod did a better job then Bi, RHS did it best on some vehicles. Its the first step to make driver position interessting.

For the Gunner its only good if its a lowtec vehicle where you better look outside to aim. Like a Sd.Kfz. 234 or simmilar ;)

For commander its only good if you dont have a monitor, a periscope and cant open the luke.

[Onno 22]

A couple of points I would really like to see:

 

Vehicles:

 

I would like to see a couple of 'low tech' vehicles to complement the current top end tanks for each side in the game. (Blue/opfor and independent)

 

An Independent AA vehicle would be nice, this would complement the vehicles for the independent side. Besides the AA vehicles getting more rounded, it would also be nice if there would be some kind of long range AA vehicles as part of the tanks DLC, which would then tie in with the improved sensors that will come with the Jets DLC.

 

Both OPFOR and Independent could use an engineering vehicle. It's really disappointing that this vehicle is only available for BLUFOR. This would complete the arsenal to a more well rounded one for these sides.

 

A vehicle like a Bradley for BLUFOR would be nice. The Marshal is too lightweight to fill in the role of the IFV. Like others have mentioned, the merkava only has the ability to carry passengers in emergency situations. Something like a Namer with a RCWS turret with missiles on the side would be nice to have in this role.

 

Rocket artillery for OPFOR and Independents would be nice.

 

Damage handling

 

I think Arma should have more detailed modelling of parts in terms of what parts are on a tank, as well as how they work. For example, when a fuel tank gets hit, then that fuel tank should get drained, but not the others.

Or when the drive shaft gets hit, the tank should get immobilized.

I think War Thunder does a great job at modelling the hitboxes for certain key parts, rendering only those functions useless. I'd love to see a similar system in Arma as well.

 

I'd also like to see active protection like Trophy on the modern tanks

 

Physics & environment interaction

 

Tanks need to be less prone to bouncy behaviour. It seems to me that the physics calculations suffer from overflow when dealing with heavy objects. This is not only apparent in tanks, but also in ship behaviour. Maybe we could get a per class physics handling of some kind?

[bl4dekk 9]

A couple of points I would really like to see:

 

Vehicles:

 

I would like to see a couple of 'low tech' vehicles to complement the current top end tanks for each side in the game. (Blue/opfor and independent)

 

An Independent AA vehicle would be nice, this would complement the vehicles for the independent side. Besides the AA vehicles getting more rounded, it would also be nice if there would be some kind of long range AA vehicles as part of the tanks DLC, which would then tie in with the improved sensors that will come with the Jets DLC.

 

Both OPFOR and Independent could use an engineering vehicle. It's really disappointing that this vehicle is only available for BLUFOR. This would complete the arsenal to a more well rounded one for these sides.

 

A vehicle like a Bradley for BLUFOR would be nice. The Marshal is too lightweight to fill in the role of the IFV. Like others have mentioned, the merkava only has the ability to carry passengers in emergency situations. Something like a Namer with a RCWS turret with missiles on the side would be nice to have in this role.

 

Rocket artillery for OPFOR and Independents would be nice.

 

Damage handling

 

I think Arma should have more detailed modelling of parts in terms of what parts are on a tank, as well as how they work. For example, when a fuel tank gets hit, then that fuel tank should get drained, but not the others.

Or when the drive shaft gets hit, the tank should get immobilized.

I think War Thunder does a great job at modelling the hitboxes for certain key parts, rendering only those functions useless. I'd love to see a similar system in Arma as well.

 

I'd also like to see active protection like Trophy on the modern tanks

 

Physics & environment interaction

 

Tanks need to be less prone to bouncy behaviour. It seems to me that the physics calculations suffer from overflow when dealing with heavy objects. This is not only apparent in tanks, but also in ship behaviour. Maybe we could get a per class physics handling of some kind?

 

 

Yes, anti aircraft in arma 3 cannot defeat the Jets (because Them not have active protection on them), an anti-aircraft static vehicle like Us patriot or Ru s400 in an independent truck.

 

and he not have a long range anti aircraft in the game.

 

 

 

[the_demongod 31]

About interiors; getting 3D interiors is the only thing that this DLC could possibly do to get me to drive tanks. I've driven a tank before in real life. You can't see shit. However, I would prefer to have literally no view to the outside at all and have a 3D cockpit than the current approach. IRL the optics for the gunner are indeed scope-like and more similar to what the driver sees currently, but the driver in the tank has periscopes. Similarly to the 3D optics in game, the current representation of what looking through a periscope is like is completely wrong. It's not like looking through a tube, it's just a slit with a perfectly clear view to the outside that you can look through just like a physical slit, and still see the inside of the cockpit just fine. The current model is the equivalent of only being able to look through your optics while running around, or only being able to see the HUD while flying.

 

It's looking like it would greatly benefit BI to develop a system to support working MFDs in interiors. The Jets DLC practically requires it, and it would be good for the Tanks DLC too since interiors are fairly likely to be part of it, so they could kill two birds with one stone if they developed this system before either came out so they could incorporate it in both.