Tanks DLC Feedback

[pipyn1970 19]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 5:28 AM, lexx said:

I actually wouldnt mind existing assets with different turret types. Would be really hard to sell this as a dlc to many players, though...

 

Cant think of a gap in the armor lineup, though. New AA-tanks don't really make much sense to me, and a second MBT for the factions.. why? The only thing I could think of right now is a mobile rocket artillery for CSAT, but that doesnt really sound "tank dlc" to me.

 

Another thing would be some UAV-like-controlled tank, but again i feel like people wouldnt like that.

 

These ass-old tanks like T-something are out of scope for A3's setting unless you give them to AAF/FIA... looks kinda forced then, though. It's like oooh captain obvious of military games.

 

Really dunno. I just hope BI won't wait with more information again until 1 week before the dlc gets released. 

What I think this DLC should be like is this:

Bring into arma RL armour values, Update turrets, Invent better AI crew who can be a valued member of the team, Give each armoured or MRAP vehicles proper RL IED/ATmine proper blast protection (maybe the crew & dismounts would suffer shock or very light wounds) but the vehicle would protect them, Re work the torque of all MRAP's & armoured vehicles so they have proper guts while climbing, Amend the Marshal to be "more like" the new U.S Marines ACV & amend other AFV's to be more like the Puma?, Re work the rear of the slammer UP so the back is home to extra ammo instead of troops? Increase the ammo carried of all the armoured vehicles & the "hot topic" Interiors for the MilSim 1st person players. Also proper RL versions of the LAWS (so amend the ones we got in the game already instead of making new models). Oh yeah & one other thing I would love to see is real cammo netting deployment - If your vehicle is trying to hide then it would be nice if you could "deploy" proper cammo netting to hide it from both ground troops & aircraft. The warrior IFV for example has tubes all over the vehicle to place the "net poles" to hide the vehicle. In 2035 maybe in RL the nets used then might be made of a material that reduces the vehicles heat sig & outline better?  

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

3 hours ago, pipyn1970 said:

Amend the Marshal to be "more like" the new U.S Marines ACV

 

Please no.

[oconnor 10]

I would like to see more viewing ports in tanks for the driver. Usually drivers have three viewing ports. The driver's view is limited in real life already but in Arma 3 it is ridiculously limited. I also would love to see a more realistic driving/suspension model like shown in the UE4 tank kit posted by chomster. The current damage model also needs a huge overhaul. It seems there are no different armor values for sides and backside. Also, damaging vehicles looks quite boring. Have a look at Men of War: Assault Squad 2 to see what different damage states and and destruction of vehicles and buildings may look like. I am really looking forward to the Tanks DLC!

[froggyluv 2136]

 

 Im not tryna be a wiseass but am genuinely curious why people seem to think Tanks dont need interiors while cars, planes, helos etc do? I just dont get it why wouldnt you want to see the insides of the vehicle your in??

[semiconductor 309]

6 hours ago, froggyluv said:

 

 Im not tryna be a wiseass but am genuinely curious why people seem to think Tanks dont need interiors while cars, planes, helos etc do? I just dont get it why wouldnt you want to see the insides of the vehicle your in??

It's completely useless feature-wise.and there's no point in implementing it for aesthetic reasons since it isn't even visible 99.999% of the time.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

1 hour ago, semiconductor said:

It's completely useless feature-wise.and there's no point in implementing it for aesthetic reasons since it isn't even visible 99.999% of the time.

It is not useless. A full featured cockpit would even give better access to functionality if done right.

If you judge with you obviously small experiance and imagination -  it is indeed useless - for you.

[pipyn1970 19]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:56 PM, Nightmare515 said:

 

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 11:00 AM, pipyn1970 said:

Amend the Marshal to be "more like" the new U.S Marines ACV

 

Please no.

 

To me the Marshall just seems underpowered for a Marine vehicle from the 2030's. The US Marines are working on a new ACV that would see it through past 2030 (I think) & some of the requirements were: To be launched further from land & I think to have a sea speed of about 15 mph (sorry if I have some of the figures wrong but I don't have the info to hand), carry a full squad, Be mine & IED resistant for tomorrows battlefield, Be able to launch without a landing craft & maybe others I seem to of forgotten about right now.

So looking at the world of Arma these are my reasons I said to upgrade to Marshall:

The maps are small so if maybe one day we did get a "Marine" DLC complete with static working Amphibious ship, like maybe a future USS Wasp, (I'm thinking a base in the ocean where the player can operate from & the base would be on different levels) & maybe an AI controlled Frigate for protection, the mission maker could place them with the carrier at the edge of the map so enemy players cant pick them off from the land. At the moment the only way of getting Marines to the shore is either via helicopter or assault boats. If we used the assault boats then they either get left there or have to be driven back & either way the Marines that's landed have no Fire support from a ground vehicle.

Imagine if the Marines could launch from the mother boat in their own vehicles & still be able to use the vehicles through out the mission & that the armour was upgraded to proper modern standards (2030), the driver (at least) had a proper interior for his pleasure. Image the enjoyment the clan would get from playing in such a role. I think loads of people would like to join the (arma) Marines with that sort of detail. 

That's why I said I wished they would take another look at the Marshall. Keep its shape, yes. I think most future vehicles like this will be wheeled anyway for Urban warfare. Just flesh it out, give it proper interiors, Bring it up to 2030 armour values & either make the skin kinda stealthy or allow us to deploy stealthy camo nets that would reduce the vehicles signature. Maybe let us also have proper ammo counts for the vehicle?

[pipyn1970 19]

3 hours ago, semiconductor said:

10 hours ago, froggyluv said:

 

 Im not tryna be a wiseass but am genuinely curious why people seem to think Tanks dont need interiors while cars, planes, helos etc do? I just dont get it why wouldnt you want to see the insides of the vehicle your in??

It's completely useless feature-wise.and there's no point in implementing it for aesthetic reasons since it isn't even visible 99.999% of the time.

Maybe give the player (vehicle crew) the option of does he/she want to spend their mission looking into a full screen scope (unrealistic I think) or give them the MFD pages where they can see the same thing (poor quality?)  by looking at the screens within the positions they play & also at the same time look around to see the other player & talk to them. People would I think be more happy to play in 1st person that way & yes the game play would be more of a challenge but also more rewarding in my opinion.

[pipyn1970 19]

How about a new "scout" vehicle that has a low profile & is wheel based ( 6 or 8), has a crew of 2 (driver & commander/gunner) & then has one in the back who controls a stowed away little unarmed  stomper UGV & stowed on top would be a Darta? in the back of the vehicle would be a monitor where the UAV controller interacts with to launch & control the UAV/UGV. The monitor would only show the poor quality grainy view that we see now or slightly less quality maybe. The important thing here is that from within the vehicle the controller cant hear the constant droning of the drones unless they are very close by. Any contacts the drones pick up could be fed into 2 radar screens maybe, 1 for the controller & 1 for the commanders seat. Maybe the commander has to then mark the map of the contacts or send them via a data link to other commanders? The UGV would be able to drive from a ramp to leave or enter the mother vehicle & the Darta would have its own small inverted Helipad on top of the vehicle where it would automatically clip into. The Stomper would be visible within the back of the vehicle if its not been deployed. Maybe painted with a stealthy camo? I think any recon units who love playing that role would love their own vehicle like this, After all it is 2035.

 

Imagine your a Recon team within a MilSim group. Your Unit has no Intel on the enemy within an area & its far to hot to fly in. The Unit commander could deploy the Scout vehicle forward into the area. They have to pick their route carefully. They get to the enemy bandit country & lay up. The Scout vehicle has been hidden within a hull down position with a stealth camo net draped over. Trees all around to help hide your shape. The area you have to check is covered with mountains & small farms & tracks & woods. The driver & UAV controller patrol out to place (cant remember their names) the hand held "eyes" on the ground to an area where the vehicle cant see, maybe hidden behind a hill next to a small track. The commander uses his turret to scan 360 while your away. The patrol come back. The UAV controller then deploys the stomper to a position the commander wants. The stomper is hidden from prying eyes & the Scout vehicle is hidden further back. The Darta is then deployed further away, high in the sky, watching, seeing everything. Contacts appear on the "radar" within the vehicle. The commander sends the intel via Data link to the main base. The main fighting body can now launch their attack while the Scout team watch the events unfold on their screens within the vehicle. Mission over & the main fighting body RTB. The Recon team pack up & either RTB or move to another area.

Edited May 19, 2017 by pipyn1970
After thought

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

2 hours ago, pipyn1970 said:

How about a new "scout" vehicle that has a low profile & is wheel based ( 6 or 8), has a crew of 2 (driver & commander/gunner) & then has one in the back who controls a stowed away little unarmed  stomper UGV & stowed on top would be a Darta? in the back of the vehicle would be a monitor where the UAV controller interacts with to launch & control the UAV/UGV. The monitor would only show the poor quality grainy view that we see now or slightly less quality maybe. The important thing here is that from within the vehicle the controller cant hear the constant droning of the drones unless they are very close by. Any contacts the drones pick up could be fed into 2 radar screens maybe, 1 for the controller & 1 for the commanders seat. Maybe the commander has to then mark the map of the contacts or send them via a data link to other commanders? The UGV would be able to drive from a ramp to leave or enter the mother vehicle & the Darta would have its own small inverted Helipad on top of the vehicle where it would automatically clip into. The Stomper would be visible within the back of the vehicle if its not been deployed. Maybe painted with a stealthy camo? I think any recon units who love playing that role would love their own vehicle like this, After all it is 2035.

 

Scout SV Ajax pls pls

Edited May 19, 2017 by Nightmare515
Autocorrect

[pipyn1970 19]

Just now, Nightmare515 said:

Scout SV Anal pls pls

I was thinking of this but with a different concept that might fit in to the Arma world mate. That's why I suggested a Scout vehicle that a recon (recce) team operate from & can deploy the stomper & Darta from. But I tried to give it enough scope so that when & If the BI guys see it they could see the potential of such a vehicle. Would be nice I think to see such a team operate with this vehicle & deploy RL tactics with MilSim units. 

[Vasily.B 529]

Back to interiors - did you thinked about rendering it - on THIS engine?

[iratus 71]

19 hours ago, froggyluv said:

 

 Im not tryna be a wiseass but am genuinely curious why people seem to think Tanks dont need interiors while cars, planes, helos etc do? I just dont get it why wouldnt you want to see the insides of the vehicle your in??

 

I think they won't get much use. You can control your car/plane/helicopter from it's interior with no restrictions --> they get used a lot. You would however not be able to see much from your gunner, commander or driver position in a tank. Sure, there are viewports, but I remember rarely using them in OFP: With interior view you've got 3 small viewports showing what you want to look at (the suroundings of your vehicle), but about 85% of the screen is taken up by things you rarely look at or do not need to look at at all. Back in the day most players I know used the letterbox view almost exlusively. This is even more the case for the commander and gunner which have powerful optics (and in the case of the gunner don't have viewblocks).

Yes BIS could use PiP panels. But a full screen view of the optics beats a PiP wich you have to look at in your vehicles interior any day, even if said PiP would have the same framerate, viewdistance and anti-aliasing.

 

It is not about "not wanting to see the interiors". If there are modelers who literaly have nohing better to do, then go for it! But making interiors for all the tanks in the game is a lot of work, I doupt there are enough idle modelers sitting around to just do that.

[R3vo 2654]

1 hour ago, Vasily.B said:

Back to interiors - did you thinked about rendering it - on THIS engine?

 

What's your freaking issue with rendering? Haven't you noticed that every other vehicle in Arma 3 has an interior, some with even quite some quality (Hunter, Ifrit).

[Vasily.B 529]

17 hours ago, R3vo said:

 

What's your freaking issue with rendering? Haven't you noticed that every other vehicle in Arma 3 has an interior, some with even quite some quality (Hunter, Ifrit).

And people are complaining enndlessly about poor performance. More vehicles, more problem. Besides that, what will give you gunner seats interior? It will be useless.

[R0adki11 3949]

3 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

And people are complaining enndlessly about poor performance. More vehicles, more problem. Besides that, what will give you gunner seats interior? It will be useless.

That's interesting, because last year you were quite vocal on these forums asking for tank interiors.

[R3vo 2654]

4 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

And people are complaining enndlessly about poor performance. More vehicles, more problem. Besides that, what will give you gunner seats interior? It will be useless.

 

Never heard anyone complain about poor performance caused by vehicle interiors.

And why the hell would they be useless. We could use that interior to display various weapon states (ammunition, zeroing etc.), especially useful if we get new ammunition types like airburst. That's exactly how the jet interiors are used.

One might argue that we have this information integrated into the HUD, but that would mean that every other, already existing interiors are also useless, however, BIS still invested the time to properly model and configure them.

 

As someone who is obviously quite interested in tank gameplay, I refuse to understand your point of view.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

Why you listen to an Neanderthal hammering an M4 onto a stone into pieces and complaining it is useless for hunting?

[Peter S 33]

Tank Interiors are far more important than most features if you ask me, especially when playing as an MBT/IFV or armoured crew member in general. A lot of the Milsim community in my experience thrive on immersion and realism, and as a passionate armoured-enthusiast with personal experience I am finding the biggest detriment to playing missions as a part of an armoured crew is the lack of interior models, and that especially for the driver.

 

Since the driver on most vehicles won't be able to be turned out when the Turret is in use, it is in my opinion mandatory that the driver at least has a 3d interior so that he may move his head around and have more to look through than just a square window surrounded by an abyss of depressing black, which quickly makes the drivers job immensely less immersive and far too boring during lulls in the battle.

 

Commanders can usually turn out and interiors for him isn't as necessary considering he should be able to use optics while turned in.

 

For gunners it is much the same, but I hope for a feature to 'lock' the Turret's current position, so that when the tank is moving through urban terrain or out of combat, the gunner doesn't have to turn his turret all the time to force it the same direction of the hull. There should be a way to lock the turret in a position relative to the hull in the 360 degrees left and right.

[R3vo 2654]

2 hours ago, Rossmore said:

Tank Interiors are far more important than most features if you ask me, especially when playing as an MBT/IFV or armoured crew member in general. A lot of the Milsim community in my experience thrive on immersion and realism, and as a passionate armoured-enthusiast with personal experience I am finding the biggest detriment to playing missions as a part of an armoured crew is the lack of interior models, and that especially for the driver.

 

Since the driver on most vehicles won't be able to be turned out when the Turret is in use, it is in my opinion mandatory that the driver at least has a 3d interior so that he may move his head around and have more to look through than just a square window surrounded by an abyss of depressing black, which quickly makes the drivers job immensely less immersive and far too boring during lulls in the battle.

 

Commanders can usually turn out and interiors for him isn't as necessary considering he should be able to use optics while turned in.

 

For gunners it is much the same, but I hope for a feature to 'lock' the Turret's current position, so that when the tank is moving through urban terrain or out of combat, the gunner doesn't have to turn his turret all the time to force it the same direction of the hull. There should be a way to lock the turret in a position relative to the hull in the 360 degrees left and right.

 

I fully agree. Nothing more to say.

[Vasily.B 529]

I also would want it for gampleay purpose and realism but to be honest... All tank interiors have lights inside, vision ports, working parts (autoloader, gun breach, loader) that require extra animations, fixing PIP (i think its very hard, since it isnt done since years), interior lights vere done by various tweaks in RHS, but Bohemia itself...... havent done this. Static interior is one thing, but number of scripts needed to get this static box working is very big, and will be very heavy for already bottlenecked CPU.

[R0adki11 3949]

3 minutes ago, Vasily.B said:

I also would want it for gampleay purpose and realism but to be honest... All tank interiors have lights inside, vision ports, working parts (autoloader, gun breach, loader) that require extra animations, fixing PIP (i think its very hard, since it isnt done since years), interior lights vere done by various tweaks in RHS, but Bohemia itself...... havent done this. Static interior is one thing, but number of scripts needed to get this static box working is very big, and will be very heavy for already bottlenecked CPU.

Actually what is wrong with PIP? I have mine set to full in graphics and have no issues. Also it doesn't have to be scripts if its part of the game engine. 

[Vasily.B 529]

What is wrong with PIP? Low resolution, low refresh rate, low draw distance.
 

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

PiP is bugged and cannot be trusted. E.g. for some vehicles mirrors working fine, for some it is flickering like hell.

Similar for monitors.

[Vasily.B 529]

I would also give you guys more screens of how those scripts "work" but for some reason i cannot take screenshot anymore,as after 64 bit support steam overlay also not work.