Tanks DLC Feedback

[R3vo 2654]

15 hours ago, mickeymen said:

I read the posts in this thread and I see the desires, desires, desires for the upcoming Tank DLC. New weapons, missiles, armor, protection, etc.
Why do people forget, or do not see, that today (v1.66), the physics of tracked vehicles in Arma3 is in deplorable condition!?As seems to me, It looks like a real shame.  As it seems to me, people should first want to have a normal physics in the game for all tracked vehicles. And then everything else.
 

Ten minutes ago, I played in Arma3, using tanks and in one mission(20 min gameplay), two tanks turned upside down onto the flat place of terrain , One tank forever stuck on a small stone fence and  several times the tanks accelerated suddenly, without any reason and jumped forward, flying as light cartons!!!

My God, how many bugs for a one game!?

 
@BIS and with this sh..t you want to do DLC!? Tickets with these problems already were created than not once times. 

At least about two years, these tickets are ignored!
I myself have created these tickets, but these problems are no one is going to solve! 

 

I found some tickets:

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117728

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82457

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T81804

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82601

 

@BIS, why is this still not fixed?

Instead of solving this problems, you AGAIN do the new DLC, which as usual adds to the game a new errors/

What, as a result, we will see in this Tanks DLC? Most likely it will be a new jumping /stuck/flips tanks.

This is cool! but, a normal person will not have to buy this.
You can add new tanks, weapons, sensors, missiles, armor, protection, etc, but if the engine problems of physics are not be solved - it will be porn 

 

Maybe you haven't realised it yet, but the Tank DLC actually gives them the opportunity to fix and improve the things you mentioned.

 

Quote

I read the posts in this thread and I see the desires, desires, desires for the upcoming Tank DLC. New weapons, missiles, armor, protection, etc.
Why do people forget, or do not see, that today (v1.66), the physics of tracked vehicles in Arma3 is in deplorable condition!?As seems to me, It looks like a real shame.  As it seems to me, people should first want to have a normal physics in the game for all tracked vehicles.

 

That shows me that you haven't read half of the thread, or at least didn't understand a word.

Broken physix were one of the first things mentioned here and it has been mentioned many times since the start of this thread.

 

[mickeymen 324]

9 hours ago, R3vo said:

 

Maybe you haven't realised it yet, but the Tank DLC actually gives them the opportunity to fix and improve the things you mentioned.

 

 

Hi. In its turn, maybe you haven't realised, in order to correct the shameful things no need to wait 4 years and do not need to create next DLC, for two years!  In the normal, this should be fixed as soon as users reported the problem using feedback. Creating the my post, I only hope, that this shit will be fixed before we get this Tank DLC, within two years/

Cheers!

 

9 hours ago, R3vo said:

That shows me that you haven't read half of the thread, or at least didn't understand a word.

Broken physix were one of the first things mentioned here and it has been mentioned many times since the start of this thread.

 

 

Maybe you have mentioned this before?

I saw what you write in this thread. All the same blah, blah, blah-  "give me new details"! 

In addition to verbal masturbation, there is no word about the main tank issue. 

 

These are your words:

 

Quote

Yes, the hull needs more details and also some animated parts like the Merkava has.

 

Quote

 

Advanced defenses against incoming missiles could lead to more advanced strategies for attacking, e.g, attacking from different angles with mutliple AT-Weapons, or eventually avoiding contact at all.

 

A defense feature which would support that, would be highly appreciated.

 

 

Quote

Had the same idea but discarded it because of the shotgun issues.

 

Quote

 

What I am missing is a way to execute an emergency brake, sharp turns, fast acceleration without loosing the ability to make the opposit, soft braking, slow acceleration etc.

 

Quote

 

The problem is, that even with a gamepad, the above maneuvers are not possible.

Furthermore I don't see the issue with additional hotkeys. I mean, it's not like the tank driver is already overstrained...

 

 

Etc

 

 

 

 

[ineptaphid 6413]

3 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

 

H Creating the my post, I only hope, that this shit will be fixed before we get this Tank DLC, within two years/

Maybe you have mentioned this before?

I saw what you write in this thread. All the same blah, blah, blah-  "give me new details"! 

In addition to verbal masturbation, there is no word about the main tank issue. 

 

Please do not use language like that on these forums again or I will suspend your account. Try to stay polite, then we all have a nicer time....

[mickeymen 324]

2 minutes ago, ineptaphid said:

Please do not use language like that on these forums again or I will suspend your account. Try to stay polite, then we all have a nicer time....

ok, no problem

[Vasily.B 529]

mickeyman i feel your pain :) I dont touch this game unless some user ask me to remove depedencies from my missions on workshop, that add automaticly from addons i not use in mission (another bug)
I dont touch this game, as i love armored vehicles, and way they are done it this game (physx issues, thermal vision) is worst thing i can see in any game (maybe Mafia 3 is worse)

But we have writed here about physx issues on 4 or 6 page, i dont remember exacly where, but surely its written. We all ask for features to improve gameplay with tanks, as its standing on very low level now, but firstly we asked for bug fixing.
Off course developers cant (or dont want) to make this all happen, but surely if physx wont be  fixed, most of players simply wont buy this DLC.

[x3kj 1247]

actually, someone brought up a good point - AT launchers (though he ment lightweight). We could use two new long range static AT launchers for Infantry. This makes them much more dangerous on longer ranges and allows them to carry the fight to the vehicles (instead of just reacting when attacked).

[road runner 4344]

On 2/2/2017 at 8:56 PM, Vasily.B said:

mickeyman i feel your pain :) I dont touch this game unless some user ask me to remove depedencies from my missions on workshop, that add automaticly from addons i not use in mission (another bug)
I dont touch this game, as i love armored vehicles, and way they are done it this game (physx issues, thermal vision) is worst thing i can see in any game (maybe Mafia 3 is worse)

But we have writed here about physx issues on 4 or 6 page, i dont remember exacly where, but surely its written. We all ask for features to improve gameplay with tanks, as its standing on very low level now, but firstly we asked for bug fixing.
Off course developers cant (or dont want) to make this all happen, but surely if physx wont be  fixed, most of players simply wont buy this DLC.

You have been warned so many times about making such accusations, and had it explained to you umpteen times. and you still continue. time for a break.

 

I shall remind the forum members of this rule.

"Any material which constitutes defamation, harassment, abuse or slander, towards developers, staff or users, is strictly prohibited"

[scotg 204]

Some of these features have already been stated, but I'm putting in my votes for adding them (not in any order of precedence):

Interiors. Add for vanilla tanks/armor, and support for mod tanks' interiors. This includes future thinking in case the world lighting system is ever improved, becoming advanced enough to change interior ambiance (in anything - vehicle, building...) when the doors are closed and block out significant amounts of light (the sun).

Support for independent tracks on same side, and track steering. The trend to replace offroad tires for a set of quad tracks is ever increasing, and I'll bet it will be more prevalent in 2035. Although it's more of a snow configuration, it might offer some variety to a future that looks even less distant than its supposed 18 years away from the time of this post. The support could also be used for all those Halo-type mods wishing to include a Scorpion-type tank, but I dare say these are just some examples of how it would be useful, and seemingly simple to do. At this point, not having support for this just seems like a possible lack of foresight from 2001.

I didn't see if there was a post for this, but how about support for dual-stick controls behaving just like tank controls - where each stick operates a track independently? If a player has such a controller (e.g.: F310, Xbox, etc.), then that option could be very helpful. Perhaps enabling that option could change how the keyboard moves the tank as well, for those who prefer sticking with KB.

While we're taking feedback on tanks, this might be an excellent opportunity to improve some basic ground vehicle stuff as well, to maybe lay down a better foundation for this particular DLC. In other words, the following may not be specific to tanks, but they will add value to tanks.

Towing - there are towing mods, but as great as they are, they just feel like a work around. One mod uses tow cables, and another only tows whatever is defined in its mod class or whatever. What I'm talking about however, is tactical relocation of mission critical assets - when using a helicopter is too dangerous or one simply isn't available. It could add value to convoy missions, and make setting up strongholds a little more fluid. Imagine being able to tow a VADS or a HAWK trailer to add much needed defense against air strikes. Imagine being able to deliver valuable supplies, communications trailer, or portable FOB to your troops. Now imagine being the opposition and trying to prevent these movements.

Suspension - I know this is a big one, and I apologize if it brings up any heat. I just ask for a little improvement for suspension visualization. Perhaps a simple skeleton for vehicles, using a mix of low-level IK (if that exists) with the current vertex selection assignment method. Offroad vehicles and possible future vehicle designs would be much more believable. The way I see it, if a driver's hand from an outside model can follow the steering wheel or a gun grip and affect the elbow and shoulders, then why can't a bouncing damper affect the rotation of wishbone suspension arms on the same model? The answer is there is not a skeleton in the vehicle when maybe there ought to be. Maybe the suspension parts can be proxy'd on to the main model; it could contain a skeleton, just as the driver is proxy'd and contains a skeleton. That's one way, I suppose.

 

Support for Driver turrets - mentioning this one could possibly put my very life at risk. In this game, where lone-wolfing is discouraged, it is a hallmark of good game play design to disallow a tank driver from operating its main gun, and I say kudos to that! However, to make it so dang hard for mod'ers to include driver turrets in their own creations is frustrating. Plenty of real-life vehicles have utilized this function, but not just in the form of delivering rounds to your enemies. For example, a police car with a driver search light would require some form of driver-turret. Operating a crane could also benefit from this ability. In helicopters, using a special helmet to aim the gun, cameras, and sensors could better mimic how real-life gunships can be used by pilots.

It has been stated that this game is primarily an infantry-focused game. The infantry will always be the bread-and-butter, but having believable support for them is paramount. When something works well it doesn't get the notice it deserves, but when it doesn't work quite like it should it risks becoming an eyesore - a distraction. It's not like I'm suggesting support for individual links on tracked vehicles --or perform detailed maintenance on them, like removing and rebuilding the engine. The simple considerations above will greatly help the game and DLC that BIS are providing. They will also make modding quite a bit easier and/or more polished, which in turn will add to the longevity of the game. Now that I've shared my thoughts, it might be helpful to know what BIS are willing to do, so that we can give them more productive feedback. So with great respect I say: BIS, help us to help you. :-) Whatever you do, just think about the future of the game, and I'm sure all will come out fine.

ScotG

[OMAC 254]

 

[x3kj 1247]

I forgot to mention in my mega post on page 1 that this bug is still unsolved:

Alpha maps with 8bit alpha (DXT5 compression) do not receive shadows when using Supershader (or any other shader) for example: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85685

Even ghillie suits in apex have to use 1 bit alpha maps due to this bug.  Welcome back to 2001...

[mechanical 17]

Is this not the place for BI response? 13 pages and only moderator damage control seen. There is literally nothing else to say everyone else said it. I would say that they need to get back to basics. fix phisics the best they can, fix ai operation the best they can, add accuracy (even if not pretty and super well modeled) to the interiors. Tanks in arma 3 have waaay to massive an advantage in some ways in 3rd person view because its so out scoped. But the interiors are so lacking that noone wants to play a 1st person server. So placing that charge under or behind a tank is just not going to happen against any player controlled tanks only few ai.

[chortles 263]

Considering that Bohemia has said nothing about the Tanks DLC beyond the initial announcement and this thread got started by a community member... why would Bohemia be expected to have replied?

[mechanical 17]

Idk I guess I just assumed that they might be involved in their own community(in this aspect, they are typically engaging regarding a lot of things). Its not like the thread is not passionate and apparently engaging to most people. I just thought maybe a pop in would be a courtesy, like hey yea we are actually going to do "some things like what this guy or that guy said" (not exact descriptions of course) about this or that. Maybe even just to pop in and say..yea we really don't care what you have to say, if you don't like how we make it go make a mod. We are putting in 2 tanks its free get over it. or even "we have read the posts but have no comment."

With that said..

Is it really necessary to feel like your talking to god or something, unsure if your just muttering among yourself or if someone is actually out there listening LOL? Took what 60 seconds for you to respond to me.

Allowing the topic to continue undisturbed ill be providing no further comment on any reply's about "if devs should or did or might or could comment or not". just a semi scope comment on my part in the first post, nothing more.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

On 25/02/2017 at 0:12 PM, mechanical said:

Is this not the place for BI response? 13 pages and only moderator damage control seen. There is literally nothing else to say everyone else said it. I would say that they need to get back to basics. fix phisics the best they can, fix ai operation the best they can, add accuracy (even if not pretty and super well modeled) to the interiors. Tanks in arma 3 have waaay to massive an advantage in some ways in 3rd person view because its so out scoped. But the interiors are so lacking that noone wants to play a 1st person server. So placing that charge under or behind a tank is just not going to happen against any player controlled tanks only few ai.

 

Well, unlike the Jets DLC threads which the content of those are in active developments, the tanks stuff is yet to even be seen or talked about. The BI Devs get nice and involved with the Jets DLC stuff since that's the stuff getting implemented first, so they get all the feedback they need.

 

BI may not reply to this thread directly, but I'm sure they've read it and maybe taken some ideas/notes. 

[lato190 55]

On 2/4/2017 at 1:29 AM, road runner said:

You have been warned so many times about making such accusations, and had it explained to you umpteen times. and you still continue. time for a break.

 

I shall remind the forum members of this rule.

"Any material which constitutes defamation, harassment, abuse or slander, towards developers, staff or users, is strictly prohibited"

 

no, he is right. More and more people are pi**ed off because of those issues that are there since alpha. If they really will fix the problem with the DLC, then its unbelivable that it requires a DLC (even the engine things are free) to fix those issues. Those issues should have fixed long time ago and should have been prio number 1 together with the other issues like CPU utilization etc.

 

The community should also consider the option that BI maybe CAN NOT fix those issues because it could screw the whole game. This is also the reason why they cant fix the clouds (it was admitted by the devs).

[en3x 209]

In the lights of current events from fixed wing DLC where BI leads decided to implement number of platform improvements (radar/hitpoints)

rather then expanding and fixing Flight model.

 

I feel like is one thing to leave out flight model that works alright but completely another to not overhaul tank phyX driving system.

I hope they seriously consider this overhaul (tankX) against numbers of other (smaller) improvements.

[dragon01 902]

The flight model was actually "fixed" with Apex DLC, it's just that fixes aren't yet applied to vanilla planes (check out the racing variant of Caesar BTT if you don't believe me). The devs stated that quite a few times in the relevant thread. Eventually, all planes should handle better.

[en3x 209]

28 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

The flight model was actually "fixed" with Apex DLC, it's just that fixes aren't yet applied to vanilla planes (check out the racing variant of Caesar BTT if you don't believe me). The devs stated that quite a few times in the relevant thread. Eventually, all planes should handle better.

 

Oukej quoted this though: "As much as I'd personally love a better flight model I'm fully confident in the decision we've made. "

 

Over here

 

[dragon01 902]

Actually, this referred to replacing the flight model altogether (with something like AFM), not tweaking the current one. They very much plan on doing that, including adding Apex-style flight physics to the planes. It won't be flightsim-level, but as far as I've seen, as of now the vanilla flight model is quite workable if configured properly. 

[en3x 209]

Yes yes Advanced flight model is not similar to fixing tankX system. Its one thing to implement advanced system on top

of already functional simple simulation and another one fixing inability tanks to spin on the slope or random lounging

or fake gears bandeau issue.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

These in Tanks DLC as free bonuses would be awesome:

[Vasily.B 529]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRQIj3_dC0Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwYfFgNwg8

 

Everything present since day1 of game release. Wanna banme again, fine, but that will not remind developers of this bugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pyronick 21]

I think many of these problems are caused by PhysX not simulating the tracks, but rather the wheels inside. That, and probably the geometry of the wheels and the collision detection.

 

I haven't really taken a look in how TankX works, but I imagine that this is the result of measures taken to improve performance. Having complex geometry such as tracks, coupled with high speed collision detection would severely degrade performance.

 

Not really sure if this is actually fixable unless we get much faster hardware.

[Vasily.B 529]

On 18.03.2017 at 11:59 AM, Pyronick said:

I think many of these problems are caused by PhysX not simulating the tracks, but rather the wheels inside. That, and probably the geometry of the wheels and the collision detection.

 

I haven't really taken a look in how TankX works, but I imagine that this is the result of measures taken to improve performance. Having complex geometry such as tracks, coupled with high speed collision detection would severely degrade performance.

 

Not really sure if this is actually fixable unless we get much faster hardware.

I was thinking the same, but how it is possible that in any other games there isnt such issues?
Problem with instant boost of tracked vehicles is surely bad programmed physX functions, propably connected with wheel handling (acceleration count by number of wheels by mistake?) I dont know how its done in arma 3, but it wasnt done like this in arma 2 nor any part before. Would be possible to disable physX for tanks and use normal scripting instead? Tracked vehicles handling in Arma 1,2 was OK, not perfect, as they was turning too fast, but it was fixable. Maybe someone can answer - what wheel is driving in arma 3 tracked vehicles? All road wheels or, as in real vehicles only 2 driving wheels ? Maybe here is the problem, if all road wheels could be done as dummy parts with rotation animation and working suspension, problem would be gone?

Maybe problem is with gearbox (some missing or exaggerated values)?

Just thinking out loud, maybe someone will find something.

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

I think many of these problems are caused by PhysX not simulating the tracks, but rather the wheels inside.

I have taken a look at how tanks in physx works and i disagree. Its not the wheels themself. And you need to understand that you cant simply simulate the entire track. You have to perform contact checks and force calculation for all contact points. Currently wheels are the contact points -> 20 at max for tanks. If you make it track segments instead it will be in the order of 100+ contact points you have to calculate. This is a very bad idea if you like performance.

Tanks use n-wheeled physx drive model, but still use an airfilled rubber tire-ground simulation model (unless i missed something). This is not root of the issue i say, but causes unnecessary calculations and complicate tweaking of the handling. Airfilled Tires have different friction values for lateral and longitudinal slip, that change dynamically based on tire load. Rubber padded tank treads have the same friction in longitudinal and lateral direction on hard surfaces. For soft ground (e.g. wet mud) its different IRL, as rubber-ground friction is not the main cause of the tractional force, but the grouser effect of the pad profile digging into the ground.

 

No, the problem is with the contact algorithms and how the forces are calculated and used in the system. The jumps you see sometimes indicate that there is an instability in the contact force algorithm -> large fluctuation in calculated forces -> strong but brief acceleration and high wheel rotation speeds. When using the EPEVehicles dialog in arma3diag.exe you can see how wheel rotation speed and slip change dramatically for a brief time during these jumps. I'm assuming that some contact points ("wheels") lose contact with the ground briefly during turning of the vehicle, thus the resistance to turning falls rapidly. Due to the great artficial turning torque that is applied to the vehicle (which is a thing that BIS implemented from what i can tell) it will cause jumps. When it comes in contact again shortly after, the friction stops it from accelerating further.

 

I can only assume, but i think from what i'm seeing is that if the turning force of the vehicle would actually be caused by the tracks/ wheels, rather than externally applied to the vehicle chassis (as seems to be the case now),  the problem would not exist. Brief loss of contact point to the ground due to limited contact detection accuracy would then result in loss of movement resistance, but also loss of applied traction -> balance of forces -> no sudden acceleration.

 

That the turning force is applied to the chassis artificially is indicated by the fact that if you get stuck with your tracks on terrain in forwards/backwards movement, you can still rotate the chassis without problem usually.

That this "external turning force" is the cause of the issue is supported supported by the fact that only tanks suffer from this issue and not wheeled vehicles, which do not use the "neutral turn" feature.