Tanks DLC Feedback

[zukov 483]

mi wishes are 

1) completely reworked  T100 (so far is atrocius)
2) add svir 2 missile to T100
3) type 99/2000 chinese mbt with dazzling laser
4) fully functionality "namer" dozer  :) 
5) t72b3 at state of the art for guerrilla
6)  israeli M60 pioneer RC and M60 sabra kit (magach 6/7)
7) Barracuda kit for all tanks

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

mi wishes are 

1) completely reworked  T100 (so far is atrocius) - How and why?

2) add svir 2 missile to T100

3) type 99/2000 chinese mbt with dazzling laser - What?

4) fully functionality "namer" dozer  :) 

5) t72b3 at state of the art for guerrilla

6)  israeli M60 pioneer RC and M60 sabra kit (magach 6/7)

[Chairborne 2594]

Pls fix movement in water https://feedback.bistudio.com/T78269

 

In any case i'd say an improved damage model both for the armor itself AND ammunition.

Also please for the love of god fix SACLOS/manual guidance on missiles, because they have a really weird behavior right now.

[andersson 285]

Tank movement is #1 for me. I want heavy unstoppable tanks instead of power sliding bumper cars. It's such a let down to set up an exciting ambush just to see the tanks swish past you bouncing all over.....

[sebdspy 14]

1) I think that Tank movement and control should definitely be a priority in terms of platform improvements. There are physics issues such as spinning, randomly flipping and stopping as soon as the tank gets some air time (I have been on a charge so many times only to drive over a bump to which the tank violently skids to a halt before I can move again).

 

2) I think that hit points should be specialized to different modules in a tank. E.g. a hit point circle is associated with a crew member, and is located where that crew member sits. If a shell hits the crew member hit points, then that crew member is dead. Similarly, if a shell hits the hit point circle associated with ammo, the tank is blown up (ammo explosion). If the shell does not hit any important hit point circles, then the tank only suffers minor damage. Kudos to siletghoust for first suggesting this.

 

3) I think tanks should be equipped with Active protection Systems, like the Trophy APS on the Merkarva MBT. Currently, tanks have little to no protection against rockets and missiles which are used commonly across the Arma 3 battlefield, therefore limited their ability to operate, survive and attack. This would be a major booster to Arma 3 tank gameplay. Also, a British military official stated that kinetic projectiles from tanks are becoming more relevant again today as active protection systems are greatly limiting missiles and rockets effectiveness in armored warfare.

 

4) In terms of content, some tanks that could be used as inspiration include:

a) T-14 Armata, a new Russian MBT (CSAT)

b) T-15 Armata, a new Russian IFV (CSAT)

c) Scout SV, a specialized IFV for the British military (NATO)

d) Al-Khalid tank, the Iranian MBT (CSAT)

e) VT-4, Chinese MBT (CSAT)

f) Kurganets-25, new Russian IFV (CSAT)

g) Last, but most important the PL-01, a new tank designed by BAE and a Polish company that can be invisible to IR with it's special plating. This tank can be used for it's concepts and inspiration on Arma 3 tank design (e.g. IR stealth), or can be used as a whole.

 

Thank you very much BIS for such a wonderful game. I hope these suggestions help.

[sebdspy 14]

 

• The current damage model probably won't get overhauled but I can see some changes, such as better crew damage simulation. Maybe even specializing the hit points so they mean different things to the game "tracks vs a ammo storage for example"

 

[Wiki 1558]

Working reactive armor could be nice.

[ceolnariazz 39]

 

thats what we need not more big tanks ! :P

[ice_age0815 37]

would like to see more european tanks like germany, england ,france and so on 

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

In addition to the below ideas, different variants of the new (and existing) tanks with different weapons systems mounted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

And for those who want solo'able tanks:

 

 

 

[Ozzycrazy 0]

M113 SPECIALIZATIONS http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-specs.htm 

 

 

 

 

PL-01 STEALTH TANK SPECIALIZATIONS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01

  

T-72 SPECIALIZATIONS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

[taro8 806]

* Realistic armor penetration and mechanics similar to Real Armord mod

* Not retarded AI that will point front of the hull toward danger and not bail when they have damaged track or something, similar to Smarter Tanks and Realistic Tank Crews

* Active protection system like the Trophy on Merkava (it already has the 3d model AFAIK on the Slammer)

* Towing

* Armored Recovery Vehicles

* For the love of god let us disable the vehicle voice commands only (front, back, fast etc.)

* Make AI drivers not retarded so when you tell them to stop they will stop instead of rolling down the hill

[Redphoenix 1539]

I will not talk about any 3D specific model I'd like to rather ask you guys to work on the PhysX issues that are currently making tracked vehicles nearly unusable in any terrain.

 

But I didn't see a lot of people saying this: Thanks BI for actually a.) making those DLCs and b.) taking in all the feedback of us. There aren't many companies in our world which do that.

[Damian90 696]

BI Devs, one more thing I would like to point out in terms of Armored Fighting Vehicles AI, is the weapons handling.

 

1. AI should be able to choose appropriate weapon and ammunition for a specific threats and ranges. For example, a coaxial machine guns should be used only up to 1200m, this is how far it can be used with effective fire, and also how far FCS on modern tanks allow to use it.

 

Against infantry, soft targets (trucks for example), structures, light armor, tanks should use HE or HEAT rounds, in modern tanks FCS allows to fire it up to 5000m.

 

Against heavy armored targets like other tanks, APFSDS or HEAT ammo, also up to 5000m.

Same behavior for IFV's armed with autocannons, for example if vehicle is armed with 30mm autocannon and 7,62mm coax + ATGM launcher.

Coax as in tanks, against infantry up to 1200m.

Autocannon HE ammunition against infantry groups, soft skin vehicles and structures (+ low and slow flying aerial targets) up to 2000m.

Autocannons APDS/APFSDS against other lighter armored APC's, IFV's etc. up to 2500m.

ATGM's against heavy armored targets like tanks, heavy APC's and IFV's up to 5000m.

 

2. One thing is that tanks should have all as a coaxial machine gun, something like 7,62mm machine gun, this is especially true for M2A1/M2A4 Slammer, as now it uses 6,5mm machine gun, but it should be something of a larger calliber.

Also ammo capacity should be higher, this is how it is in reality.

 

Merkava Mk4M/M2A1/M2A4 Slammer - 120mm MG253 smoothbore gun 64 120mm rounds, coaxial machine gun 7,62mm (or similiar calliber) 3000 rounds (+ there is probably some additional storage for commander machine gun, this is also important, would be great if commander would have MG on a pintle mount next to his hatch, this MG can be used only manually when commander is exposed - see RHS how it is implemented in some of our tanks like M1A2SEPv1 or T-72B).

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/jian_zhen_wei/merkava_iv/images/merkava_iv_38_of_57.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/jian_zhen_wei/merkava_iv/images/merkava_iv_39_of_57.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/jian_zhen_wei/merkava_iv/images/merkava_iv_46_of_57.jpg

 

Leopard 2A4 Revolution/MBT-52 Kuma - 120mm Rh120/L55 smoothbore gun 42 120mm guns, coaxial machine gun 7,62mm 4750 rounds + 12,7mm machine gun in RWS.

 

T-100 should have something around 40-44 rounds for it's 125mm 2A46M-5 smoothbore gun, also 1750 rounds for it's coaxial machine gun and 300 rounds for it's 12,7mm machine gun.

 

3. Additional reloads for vehicles. This is especially important for various IFV's APC's and similiar vehicles. Besides ammunition loaded in to a weapon, there is also secondary storage for reload, so vehicles can stay longer in battle zone, without need to withdrawn behind friendly lines or order support vehicles with ammunition to come to them.

 

So all these vehicles should have at minimum one reload, in reality much more.

 

4. Vehicles machine guns, especially tanks and similiar, should fire in long bursts of around 10 rounds, right now behavior is, sometimes tanks fire single shots from their machine guns, it should always be a long burst.

 

5. M2A1/M2A4 Slammer/Merkava Mk4M commander hatch also should open in a different way.

 

It's not opened and stay in vertical position, but due to it's weight and thickness it's laying opened on the special supports on turret bustle.

 

http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/article_images/LPlas12Aug08_019.jpg

http://www.supervideo.com/Merkava4ExtendedRange60mmMortar.jpg

 

6. M2A1/M2A4 Slammer also have improper side skirts. Because both are based on Merkava Mk4M, they should use thicker side skirt, and also last segment is not slat armor type, but full armor type.

 

Right now however both use side skirts from Merkava Mk4A.

 

Difference on photos below.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Merkava-4-tank-67.jpg
Merkava Mk4A

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Merkava4m-Windbreaker-0036a.jpg

Merkava Mk4M

 

These are more or less the same in terms of thickness as side skirts used on Namer (IFV-6c Panther).

 

7. Turrets and remote weapon stations, another thing that can be improved and I know lots of people have problems with that, is that NATO, CSAT and AAF have many vehicles literally armed with the same turrets and RWS's, would be great if this could be changed.

 

For example NATO and AAF (as it was mostly armed with weapons provided by NATO) would use turrets and RWS's mostly of NATO/Israeli origin as it is now (also see my post number 1 in this thread), while CSAT would use different ones, mostly based on Russian and Chinese developments.

 

8. M2A1 and M2A4 Slammer tanks. The one thing I think is... well without sense is that M2A4 uses 105mm gun, I understand from where it comes, but guys, seriously, nobody in real army would rearm a tank with a weaker gun that uses obsolete ammunition, only because tank received additional armor and it was done to reduce weight.

So both M2A1 Slammer and M2A4 Slammer UP should be armed with the same 120mm MG253 gun.

 

Another thing is designation codes, and this is very important.

 

Military designation codes follow a simple logic, so if M2A1 is a basic variant, and next one is uparmored variant, then the up armored variant should not be designated M2A4 but M2A2.

 

Another thing is, if we assume that in game NATO is primary represented by US Army, then Panther, Cheetah and Bobcat should not be designated as IFV-6a, IFV-6c etc. But also with MxAx designation codes, for example M6A1 Panther, M6A2 Cheetah etc. So we would have a single, consistent family of vehicles, as they are in game so:

M2A1 Slammer, M2A2 Slammer UP, M4 Scorcher, M5 Sandstorm, M6A1 Panther, M6A2 Cheetah, M6A3 Bobcat CRV and so on, now it makes perfect sense from a real world military designation system.

 

 

PS. Would be really great if BI devs would say here what they think about all this, what they could implement, and what not. :)

[R3vo 2652]

Against infantry, soft targets (trucks for example), structures, light armor, tanks should use HE or HEAT rounds, in modern tanks FCS allows to fire it up to 5000m.

 

Yes, that would make tanks more dangerous to players. Right now they don't engage with against infantry with their 120mm cannon.

[bakerman 247]

So I'm just giving some feedback and additional info on some of the commonly requested features in this thread.

 

1. RAM (Real Armor Mod) features request. This may be surprising to some, but a lot of what was originally provided / fixed with RAM has since been incorporated into the game, with the notable exception of HEAT simulation.

 

2. APS feature request. Active protection requires some hefty tracking scripts or code in order to function. The engine is barely coping as is, so it may not be feasible with the performance cost in mind.

 

3. Better damage modeling. The engine in its current iteration supports very advanced damage modeling. If modeled it's possible to have fully accurate RHA representation, depletable ammo storage and ERA / Reactive Armor (as seen in RHS). All it takes is a bit of time, but the cost is relatively minimal.

[x3kj 1247]

3. Better damage modeling. The engine in its current iteration supports very advanced damage modeling. If modeled it's possible to have fully accurate RHA representation, depletable ammo storage and ERA / Reactive Armor (as seen in RHS). All it takes is a bit of time, but the cost is relatively minimal.

Question: Do you not have any problems with projectiles skipping through main armor FireGeo when they penetrate ERA block firegeo? They are often very close together, and that can lead (in my experience) to projectiles ignoring what is close behind another piece of FG.

I definitely agree with you on 1. Its already a quite good foundation we have right now, but some bugs/ weird behaviours should to be ironed out (Point 1 in Damage in my large post on pg1). The damage after-effects still have to be scripted though. Esp. somewhat accurate damage to crew can only be accomplished in a "hacky" way.

[twistking 204]

might not be within the scope of the dlc, but if some form of interiors should make it into the game (which i hope), i would also hope for a workaoround for the engine limitation of not having seperate lighting for interiors. at the moment this is notable in the back seats of apc/ivf: the interior is lit, like the outside. this is, because arma can only have one "true" light source at a time.

a simple workaround might be, to have the interior in shadow all the time (since is has no windows) and than use PP on the shadow areas to darken it further to get a really dim interior ambient even at bright daylight outside. finally some "fake" lights and shader wizadry could be added to the inside, to give a realsitic, dimmly lit atmosphere. these lights would not cast shadows due to engine limitations, but the improved ambient occlusion could make up for it.

 

i really hope sth. like this could be done, since i find the sunlit interiors in closed comaprtments to be quite an immersion killer...

[Variable 322]

On top of what was already said, here are my pet peeves that I'd like to see fixed or improved:

Complete Lack of audio queues to replace tactile feedback when pressing buttons in the tank. Every single control should have some kind of sound when activating it.

Overly stable sights. Tank or not, guns and machine guns are not rock solid, and their video sights should be affected when they discharge. To put it simply the view should mildly shake when firing.

There's some kind of weirdness going on when trying to relay targets to AI. A lot of times the target is very visible and yet right clicking it as the tank commander does not produce a target report for the AI.

An important issue is the poor radio protocol. Part of Arma 3 marketing was a new and improved AI radio protocol. However, the radio protocol was degraded constantly after OFP and Arma 3 was no exception:

-The AI is no longer reporting what type of target it destroyed (remember OFP's "BMP is history"?)

-The AI responds to orders even before the damn command was verbally completed(!)

-It's no longer possible to order the AI (gunner, for example) to watch a certain relative angle (1 o'clock for example), only a certain point. This ability is especially important for armored vehicle commanding.

It's not possible to order AI subordinates to load a different type of armament even if you are not their tank commander. That makes it impossible to have your own commanded tank using APDS while tank number 2 is ready with HE rounds.

It should be possible to order the gunner of a vehicle to look at a certain point even if you are outside of the vehicle.

The reverse command was completely broken at the past but it's still partially broken. When given the command to reverse the AI will take time to respond, time that will render you dead in a lot of situations. A fully working and aggressive response to reverse command is critical for tanks!

I'll add more as other issues come to mind.

[Rydygier 1302]

-The AI responds to orders even before the damn command was verbally completed(!)

 

 

 

Indeed. Noticed that. Arma often pays some extra attention to details, could do same in this case. But in fact it's overall issue, not tank-related specifically. 

 

But... But I think, Tank DLC shouldn't be "wasted" for bugfixing and issues corrections. Free patches are for that. DLC (paid and traditional following free engine update) IMHO should be focused on enhancements, introducing new content and overall - new cool things, not on fixing existing things. If any fixes - always welcomed - then only "by the way" not as part of DLC. 

[R3vo 2652]

On top of what was already said, here are my pet peeves that I'd like to see fixed or improved:

Complete Lack of audio queues to replace tactile feedback when pressing buttons in the tank. Every single control should have some kind of sound when activating it.

Overly stable sights. Tank or not, guns and machine guns are not rock solid, and their video sights should be affected when they discharge. To put it simply the view should mildly shake when firing.

There's some kind of weirdness going on when trying to relay targets to AI. A lot of times the target is very visible and yet right clicking it as the tank commander does not produce a target report for the AI.

An important issue is the poor radio protocol. Part of Arma 3 marketing was a new and improved AI radio protocol. However, the radio protocol was degraded constantly after OFP and Arma 3 was no exception:

-The AI is no longer reporting what type of target it destroyed (remember OFP's "BMP is history"?)

-The AI responds to orders even before the damn command was verbally completed(!)

-It's no longer possible to order the AI (gunner, for example) to watch a certain relative angle (1 o'clock for example), only a certain point. This ability is especially important for armored vehicle commanding.

It's not possible to order AI subordinates to load a different type of armament even if you are not their tank commander. That makes it impossible to have your own commanded tank using APDS while tank number 2 is ready with HE rounds.

It should be possible to order the gunner of a vehicle to look at a certain point even if you are outside of the vehicle.

The reverse command was completely broken at the past but it's still partially broken. When given the command to reverse the AI will take time to respond, time that will render you dead in a lot of situations. A fully working and aggressive response to reverse command is critical for tanks!

I'll add more as other issues come to mind.

 

...and please fix that clunky left/right commanding. You tell the driver to turn left, he turns left, then a bit right again..and so on and so forth, very imprecise.

 

 

But... But I think, Tank DLC shouldn't be "wasted" for bugfixing and issues corrections. Free patches are for that. DLC (paid and traditional following free engine update) IMHO should be focused on enhancements, introducing new content and overall - new cool things, not on fixing existing things. If any fixes - always welcomed - then only "by the way" not as part of DLC.

 

 

Well, we all know BIS' bugfixing. Either they do it right with the DLC or we'll never see a fix for things like that. Anyway, I believe we should post all related issues to tanks, whether bug or feature request.

[Damian90 696]

In general I think we can separate all this in categories.

 

Absolute priority:

 

- Physx improvements.

- AI improvements.

- Amphibious capabilities for tracked vehicles.

 

Secondary improvements:

 

- Armor simulation improvements.

- Ammunition improvements.

- Fire Control Systems improvements.

 

Other improvements:

 

- New vehicle variants (like IFV-6 Panther with remote turret armed with autocannon, machine gun and ATGM's).

- Vehicle models improvements.

- Realistic ammo loadouts.

- Other improvements mentioned in this thread.

[Esketamin 12]

A Tank DLC is the best news I could imagine on Arma 3. I've never been in a real tank though, but read a lot on that topic and like steel beasts ;-)

Here are my thoughts:

 

General:

1.) Make Tanks controllable with analog input (Steering wheel or whatever)

2.) Physics needs to be fixed, when touching a small rock, spinning 720 degrees and than flipping is not what a tank should do

3.) Attachable flags (blue, green, red, yellow, maybe more?) would be great (for trucks as well though)

4.) Attachable yellow blinking lights (don't know what they are called in English), would be cool if those lights could actually be "real lights" that illuminate the environment and are visible from some distance.

5.) Vehicle towing with working physics

6.) More variety to how tanks blow up

 

Driver:

1.) Maybe one vehicleslot, where a modeled 3d interiour makes sense. Give him mirrors/monitors to enable him to go reverse as well.

2.) Manual gear selection and analog controls.

 

Gunner:

1.) Fire Control System with Laser ranging, not that silly locking from vanilla (think Steel Beasts is really cool here, ACE3 and RHS not bad as well)

2.) Automatic lead calculation (again Steel Beasts)

 

Commander:

1.) Hunter-Killer implementation with overriding etc.

 

That's what I think is important in changes, when coming to suggestions for new (premium) vehicles,

I'd prefer something like two tanks, that are really well done over dozens of basic models.

 

What I would really love is something like a T-72 or T-80 for Opfor and a Leopard 2A5 (maybe 1A5 might fit better for the opfor models i suggested) for Blufor.

[Variable 322]

But... But I think, Tank DLC shouldn't be "wasted" for bugfixing and issues corrections. Free patches are for that. DLC (paid and traditional following free engine update) IMHO should be focused on enhancements, introducing new content and overall - new cool things, not on fixing existing things. If any fixes - always welcomed - then only "by the way" not as part of DLC.

Luckily that's not how software development works. When adding new features developers open the code and learn it, and that makes it a great opportunity to fix bugs that have been there forever.

[Rydygier 1302]

Luckily that's not how software development works. When adding new features developers open the code and learn it, and that makes it a great opportunity to fix bugs that have been there forever.

 

 

OK. Just I would prefer "in addition to", not "instead of".