Tank drivers interior

[en3x 209]

That is good argument. Launch of the game - lots of work, lots of complex systems to release. So lets leave out interiors once again. We shall leave them.

Due to no functional value, performance cost and BI resources.

 

However now years later we can dispell some of them. Non functional value. That would be good description of current system - I don't see or know many

people that would use 1st to drive around. Personally I can't stand it, which is why when you see the videos they are all in 3rd person. Tanks need driver

and tank/APC driver is the only set of vehicle that don't have dedicated interior. Hatchbacks, Jeeps, Airplanes, VTOLs, Helis its all there.

 

Performance cost makes no sense - Plenty of vehicles with interiors, in year of 2017 this argument is moot. (hardware progress).

 

BI resources and that is a big one - this is DLC dedicated to a tanks. Is not a launch, is not some interim thing on the way. Its standalone next year

full blown DLC. Plenty of time, resources if one allocates them.

[dragon01 902]

6 hours ago, joostsidy said:

Wouldn't it be strange to only have the new tanks have interiors? BI usually tries to keep some consistency to the game, making the vanilla assets a little more 'conservative' but more consistent in quality compared to mods. For instance they cancelled working vehicle doors because they couldn't get it working on all vehicles.

If BIS was consistent on one thing, it's that DLC assets are of noticeably higher quality than ones from the base game. 

 

Interiors might not have the hype, but people do care about them. Using the art team's time to introduce more than 4 vehicles seems unlikely to me, it'd take too much programming and balancing, plus trying to fit too many new vehicles into the game would not be easy. More vehicles that are nonetheless exactly the same is even more useless than adding interiors. I'm actually very curious what BIS is planning to do with DLC tanks to set them apart from what we currently have, because as it stands, every faction has a perfectly good MBT in its roster. There's a reason most countries don't field more than one type of MBT (and those that do are usually transitioning from one type to the other). Unless BI goes fully fictional (which it may), then besides the Armata, it's difficult to find an MBT design that would be much of an improvement over Merkava IV or Leopard 2 that we have.

[silentghoust 132]

On 6/4/2017 at 1:03 PM, en3x said:

That is good argument. Launch of the game - lots of work, lots of complex systems to release. So lets leave out interiors once again. We shall leave them.

Due to no functional value, performance cost and BI resources.

 

However now years later we can dispell some of them. Non functional value. That would be good description of current system - I don't see or know many

people that would use 1st to drive around. Personally I can't stand it, which is why when you see the videos they are all in 3rd person. Tanks need driver

and tank/APC driver is the only set of vehicle that don't have dedicated interior. Hatchbacks, Jeeps, Airplanes, VTOLs, Helis its all there.

 

Performance cost makes no sense - Plenty of vehicles with interiors, in year of 2017 this argument is moot. (hardware progress).

 

BI resources and that is a big one - this is DLC dedicated to a tanks. Is not a launch, is not some interim thing on the way. Its standalone next year

full blown DLC. Plenty of time, resources if one allocates them.

Your forgetting the main argument. Aside from eye candy, what mechanics are in the current game that they would need it? Crew as current, don't have a chance to die as individuals, so it's not like you need to go into your interior and see if some one died. This is contrary to all other vehicles, in which have some interiors. This also goes for APC's with the passengers. Passengers get a interior because of the above reason, as well as giving passengers stuck in first person view some sort of visual interest. As you would just have a black screen otherwise.

So as of current game, there is zero mechanics aside from just visual eye candy that justify a interior for armor vehicles. This might change in the future of course. When the Tank DLC comes out, and then I think we would have a much bigger solid case for interiors. Particularly if they make it so potential crew members can die, and players playing more hardcore modes would have no way to know. 

[dragon01 902]

4 hours ago, silentghoust said:

Your forgetting the main argument. Aside from eye candy, what mechanics are in the current game that they would need it? Crew as current, don't have a chance to die as individuals, so it's not like you need to go into your interior and see if some one died. This is contrary to all other vehicles, in which have some interiors. This also goes for APC's with the passengers. Passengers get a interior because of the above reason, as well as giving passengers stuck in first person view some sort of visual interest. As you would just have a black screen otherwise.

So as of current game, there is zero mechanics aside from just visual eye candy that justify a interior for armor vehicles. This might change in the future of course. When the Tank DLC comes out, and then I think we would have a much bigger solid case for interiors. Particularly if they make it so potential crew members can die, and players playing more hardcore modes would have no way to know. 

I think that it should be possible for the crewmembers to be injured and even die individually. It was the case in OFP, it'd be strange if this capability was removed in ArmA. It doesn't seem to happen anymore, but Tanks DLC will probably change that. Also, similarly to the recent cockpit improvements, it should be possible to add some diegetic indicators to the interior. Combined with PIP, it could be an interesting option.

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

Crew as current, don't have a chance to die as individuals

Dont spread half-knowledge. Crew can die individually from penetrating shots. Its just not very frequent because you have to hit them with a AP projectile spoton. If the shot misses a hairs width, nothing happens to the crew whatsoever.  HEAT projectiles are not modelled in arma properly, they are treated as HE instead. Which is a different but somewhat related issue.

 

Having 3d viewports modelled gives significant benefits for gameplay, because tank crew are not force-glued to their narrov FOV optic and can look around to assess their surrounding significantly better - eliminating the almost obligatory use of 3rd person view to be aware of your surroundings.

Having the rest of the interior modelled in full fidelity gives no further gameplay advantage (at least not for arma, where pushing individual buttons is not a thing), only more immersion. But even 3D optics already provide a significant boost to immersion and give the biggest gameplay benefit from 3d interiors.

[nekokamiguru 1]

On 6/3/2017 at 8:18 AM, ProfTournesol said:

The gameplay argument is weak compared to the immersion one imho, but as women ran away with the furniture, they may have taken the tank interiors off too.

It was aliens that stole the furniture

 

 

 

[twistking 204]

For me another big problem with the lack of interiors, is the fact, that the gunner is force-glued to the gun-sights on entering. For me that feels like being forced to ADS after picking up a handgun.

For the tank gunner it also means, that there is no way for the turret to stop being stabilized, which results in tanks always driving around with the main gun swiveling in all directions, because of constant gunner input and/or stabilisation.

 

If we can't get full interiors, it would be nice to get a "hub" view for commander and especially gunner, that is not the gun sight. It could be a display with status informations, pip, or a viewport, that is not the gun sight. Only on right clicking the gunner would enter the gun sight and get control over the turret.

That alone would help with the immersion thing, if the "hub-view" was designed in a cool, immersive way: Maybe it could just be a display with the gun sights in background, but with some well designed overlays showing status informations (ammo, sensors, gps/map, fuel, speed, own heat siganture estimate etc.) and with turret controls disabled. Right clicking would "zoom" in the gun sight and overlays would disappear, while showing aiming reticle and range infos and enabling turret control (like with current gun sight).

 

For the driver there would at least be the need to have some more viewports and maybe side/rear -camera pip, as mentioned by many.

[Defunkt 431]

On 6/2/2017 at 9:21 PM, x3kj said:

There is option B for 3d interiors - model only the viewports and keep the rest black or very blurred. Gives the gameplaybenefits of 3d interiors without requiring ridiculous amounts of model work. Plus generic interior cupolas could be reused by mods.

 

This is an idea I've also dropped a few times in various mod threads. A very simple viewpilot model, little more than a black box with openings for the periscopes is a very realistic proposition labour-wise (and is likely highly re-usable on existing vehicles and mods). Obviously inferior in terms of immersion but a huge leap forward in terms of situational awareness and being engaged in the action. The 2D cut-out is just so tiresome for long periods.

[andersson 285]

A totally black 3D interior with different view ports would be a change to the better. And if a "hub view" is added as twistking suggests it would make it even better.

[silentghoust 132]

11 hours ago, x3kj said:

Dont spread half-knowledge. Crew can die individually from penetrating shots. Its just not very frequent because you have to hit them with a AP projectile spoton. If the shot misses a hairs width, nothing happens to the crew whatsoever.  HEAT projectiles are not modelled in arma properly, they are treated as HE instead. Which is a different but somewhat related issue.

 

Having 3d viewports modelled gives significant benefits for gameplay, because tank crew are not force-glued to their narrov FOV optic and can look around to assess their surrounding significantly better - eliminating the almost obligatory use of 3rd person view to be aware of your surroundings.

Having the rest of the interior modelled in full fidelity gives no further gameplay advantage (at least not for arma, where pushing individual buttons is not a thing), only more immersion. But even 3D optics already provide a significant boost to immersion and give the biggest gameplay benefit from 3d interiors.

As far as I'm aware, unless you have a citation or a reference. Crew are not part of the fire geometry when turned in. You can still have asymmetrical casualties for example, by having one crew member already injured and you receive general damage overall. But I have yet to actually see a individual member of a crew die specifically from a proper AP hit. Not saying your wrong, but I would have to see it to believe it. 

 

[andersson 285]

I remember playing as commander in OFP that I had a look now and then at my gunner to see in what shape he was in. Sometimes you could see his bloody face and think "it's not much left in him" and you changed tactics. Or you could see him slumped over dead and you took his place. That is immersion.

[en3x 209]

Oh men I've never though of that. Checking on your crew condition by looking at him. Well I guess we gotten use to (not having tank interior) it because of arma 2 and arma 3.

[martin_lee 33]

Personally, I am already much happier if they'd just give a wider FOV on the fixed view we have now.

 

I remember back in OFP (and ArmA1, I think?)  when we have interior with view ports. One problem I found is that the FOV through them is pretty bad and had to move my view around to get a peek on things. It just feels that if one could just lean forward and put our face to the port, we could have a wider view.

 

I am just not sure how wide a FOV is on a real tank. If it is really that narrow, I'll learn to live with it.

[dragon01 902]

On 7.06.2017 at 5:43 AM, silentghoust said:

As far as I'm aware, unless you have a citation or a reference. Crew are not part of the fire geometry when turned in. You can still have asymmetrical casualties for example, by having one crew member already injured and you receive general damage overall. But I have yet to actually see a individual member of a crew die specifically from a proper AP hit. Not saying your wrong, but I would have to see it to believe it. 

Try putting a tank down in Eden, then clipping your camera into it. You'll see the crew are present inside, as with any vehicle that has an internal space. There's no way to see them during gameplay, but they're there, and probably can be hit if you're very accurate with your shots. For some reason, individual crew damage is far less likely in ArmA than it was in OFP, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. This is certainly something for BIS to improve when making Tanks DLC.

 

EDIT: It seems that it's just the commander (sometimes also the gunner), at least in vanilla vehicles. Odd...

[x3kj 1247]

9 hours ago, dragon01 said:

EDIT: It seems that it's just the commander (sometimes also the gunner), at least in vanilla vehicles. Odd...

Vanilla is inconsistent there, as with many other things.  Drivers will never be woundable because they force-hidden on tank vehicles by the game engine for some (likely legacy) reason  https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83066

You dont have to be able to see the gunner visually to kill them. The proxy just has to be in the firegeo.

As said, tank shots (exclusively AP penetrators at that) have to hit the soldier precisely . There is no fragmenting, overpressure or anything. Thats why it is so rare. OFP didnt have real penetration mechanic. It was propably just global damage to the vehicle and then the passengers received a portion of the damage at random or whatnot.

[joostsidy 685]

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

It was propably just global damage to the vehicle and then the passengers received a portion of the damage at random or whatnot.

You GUNNER, will receive HUNDRED % damage of this SABOT in your LEFT TESTICLE.

[silentghoust 132]

On 6/8/2017 at 0:02 AM, dragon01 said:

Try putting a tank down in Eden, then clipping your camera into it. You'll see the crew are present inside, as with any vehicle that has an internal space. There's no way to see them during gameplay, but they're there, and probably can be hit if you're very accurate with your shots. For some reason, individual crew damage is far less likely in ArmA than it was in OFP, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. This is certainly something for BIS to improve when making Tanks DLC.

 

EDIT: It seems that it's just the commander (sometimes also the gunner), at least in vanilla vehicles. Odd...

The only crew that will be rendered in the armor vehicles are ones that can turn out.

 

 

On 6/8/2017 at 10:00 AM, x3kj said:

Vanilla is inconsistent there, as with many other things.  Drivers will never be woundable because they force-hidden on tank vehicles by the game engine for some (likely legacy) reason  https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83066

You dont have to be able to see the gunner visually to kill them. The proxy just has to be in the firegeo.

As said, tank shots (exclusively AP penetrators at that) have to hit the soldier precisely . There is no fragmenting, overpressure or anything. Thats why it is so rare. OFP didnt have real penetration mechanic. It was propably just global damage to the vehicle and then the passengers received a portion of the damage at random or whatnot.

My testing simply doesn't show that.

Couple key points on this.

• Driver has consistent injuries that appear equal to the gunner(the actual target).
• The shot is near 90 degrees assuring minimal deflection in the internal components, assuming BI even simulates that far.
  
  My question is if you can model the proxies within the fire geo, where do you define them so the game knows to calculate damage to them as a person?

[joostsidy 685]

Nice demonstration Ghoust. It also shows that besides only rendered for hatch positions, the crew are just stuffed in there and not in a RL crew sitting position.

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

My question is if you can model the proxies within the fire geo, where do you define them so the game knows to calculate damage to them as a person?

Proxies of the crew have to be present in firegeometry to be calculated for damage. They also have to be unhidden. What is in the visual LOD doesnt matter/count.

 

Quote

My testing simply doesn't show that.

The shot looks like it missed. Like i said, you have to be extremely precise.  The silly pose they are in doesnt help this of course. Depending on angle of impact and also randomness, penetrating objectiles can change direction significantly. The firegeometry of the vanilla tanks is extremely dodgy. Since it doesnt really matter, due to the issues with the damage system, and there is no way to actually see whats happening (no killcam like in warthunder) its not really obvious.

 

Proof it does work - insta snapshot of moment of hit:

Look in fullsize, you will note the faint red line of the projectile path (there are two outside, the other one missed and "ended" somewhere on the turret "ring").

 

Gunner? He dead. There is no death animation for this however. Commander was missed by some millimeters -> nothing. On a follow up shot (but only after i setdamage of tank to 0) i killed the commander as well.

 

 

[lex__1 422]

All rounds get the tank through. You can look at it in this ticket.  https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83551
The trajectory of flight of a shell almost doesn't change. In certain conditions, the shell can pass through two tanks.

 

[das attorney 858]

It would be nice if they can change the code so that it doesn't have the same explosion sound for everything it contacts.  In that video, the shell makes the same sound whether it's hitting a tank or skipping off the ground.

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

2 hours ago, das attorney said:

It would be nice if they can change the code so that it doesn't have the same explosion sound for everything it contacts.  In that video, the shell makes the same sound whether it's hitting a tank or skipping off the ground.

Some for artillery shells, if they brush some leaves or a tree after leaving the barrel of the 155mm they trigger the explosion sound without exploding. Same before impact, chance of triggering the explosion sound twice, once from environment collision through trees/bushes and from the actual explosion.

 

Hopefully lots of tank related stuff will change with the upcoming DLC since armor and artillery is where it's at for me.

 

Cheers

[joostsidy 685]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Hopefully lots of tank related stuff will change with the upcoming DLC since armor and artillery is where it's at for me.

 

Probably a modest amount of tank related stuff will change with the upcoming DLC, but I'm excited for it nonetheless. ;-)

 

There is some hinting of interiors in the gamedev updates, so that is already more than I expected.

[en3x 209]

It means they are experimenting with it. Whether it makes it in or not is not known. I hope they go for it, but if they don't I

hope that they will explain it well enough why not. 

 

From Sitrep

 

Quote

Subscribers to our daily Dev-Branch changelog may have also noticed several improvements related to armored vehicles. As there were some speculations about the purpose of the changes (e.g. new animation sources for vehicle crew), we can confirm that these are connected to development of the upcoming Tanks DLC. We feel it's too soon to introduce any details about what the DLC will bring, yet we already experiment with multiple approaches and it feels only fair to unleash improvements that community modders can immediately benefit from. Standard bisclaimers apply: some of these changes are rather experimental and may not appear in the final DLC due to various reasons. Despite that, we are excited by Tanks' progress and look forward to share more details in the future!

 

[teabagginpeople 398]

I think they should lock it behind the pay wall. anyone that don't pay keeps the shitty letter box. 

 

Be greedy for a change. Fuck it.  Winters coming.