Tank drivers interior

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

13 hours ago, teabagginpeople said:

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.

With ~10€ per DLC that's a lego-sized paywall.

 

Cheers

[Strike_NOR 898]

I can't help myself, this debate is going to get my two cents :P

 

I'll list them up as bullets to simplify some pros and cons.

 

Tank Interior pros:

 

• Immersion - Much better to feel "encapsulated in armor" and adds to overall realism.
• Damage assessment - See dead crew-members, possible damage textures etc.
• Realism - because it deserves its own bullet point.
• Consistency with the rest of armas vehicles.

Tank interior cons:

• Time-consuming to model and animate
• FPS-hit
• Poor internal damage effects due to engine limits (pilot LOD overlays the "exterior" world). Would be hard to make smoke, flames, sparks etc appear inside.
• Could be less user friendly to those who don't own track IR (as looking around the interior is quite cumbersome if you don't have head tracking).

 

What I am most eager to see in tanks DLC summarized:

 

• Reworked large-caliber ballistics and terminal ballistics (proper AP, HEAT, HE, HESH etc simulation)
• Reworked armor and fire geometry, allowing to simulate different armor types, thicknesses etc.
• Reworked modules (turret ring, elevation drive, ammo storage, optics, sensors).
• Reworked handling/physics. Better inertia, mass, suspension.
• Reworked AI behavior.
• New tanks! (why so low? Bamboozled again BI? New stuff is great, but better stuff is better™) ;)
• And lastly, if ammo module is to be modeled, please a fantastic ammo-cookoff firework to show everyone on the battlefield that you just REK'D someone ;)

 

Anyways, just my two cents :p who cares?

[en3x 209]

Strike you make good points and I would like to add some things that I may disagree with. 

 

Among pros I can't stress enough how important is too look around as a driver. Not only when turned out but also when you are turned in vehicle.

Image flying helicopter with fixed camera like tanks have? Imagine MRAPs, jeeps and cars driving like  that? Of course not it seem insane.

Yet Tanks in present form ever since Arma 2 which is more than a decade have them so there is this preconception.

 

So among cons is often mentioned Time consuming effort to model. Well isn't every DLC vehicle time consuming to model? 3 helicopters with interiors 

from heli DLC. Jets have 3 modeled interiors. I think people tend to connect Tanks interiors with idea that is useless without benefits paired

with the fact that we didn't have interiors for tank ever since ARMA: Cold War Assault.

 

Another is FPS hit. That is negligible for a very simple explanation. Majority of vehicles have them and they don't affect performance to a

degree that would be noticable. There is no one that complains about Jeep being performance hog due to interiors because there is not one.

Tank interiors wouldn't be any different.

 

It can be less user friendly to look around but so is every other vehicle without track IR. Is it cumbersome? Maybe, especially if you use Track ir, but

for the most people that drive/fly in first person with a keyboard and mouse and looking around seem fine.

[en3x 209]

One of the posters reminded me about this game that I played long time ago.

 

 

Compare that in your mind with arma 3. The modeled interiors combined

with bunch of friends really makes up for an different experience.

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

On 10/31/2017 at 2:57 PM, en3x said:

Compare that in your mind with arma 3.

 

This is the problem with the ArmA community. We all have imagination...

 

On a serious note though :) I believe RO2 uses Unreal engine, and was designed from the floor up with features like this in mind. We do not have any crew-switch animations in ArmA that I am aware of, you just pop in and out of existence. It's like quantum tunneling, you defy known laws of physics and re-appear somewhere close by.

Think a second about all the possible transitions you would have to cover, for all of armas vehicles. RO2 had like, 2,3 drivable tank types? I imagine they were a pain to model, with mechanics, animations and all. If you have a 2-seat vehicle, you only need two different animations:

 

A to B & B to A.

 

It just gets worse with 3 crew positions...

 

A to C & A to B & B to A & B to C & C to A & C to B.

 

In RO 2 you could not get in or out of the tank either... So no worrying about climbing in and out of the various hatches.

 

 

However, I get your point. The animation system, the interactions and roles you can play in RO2 are simply put immersive. For ARMA 3, it is a dream that will not happen. Who knows what ArmA 4 may bring.

 

I would however suggest the following alternatives to increase immersion/realism:

 

• Crew can only switch between seats that are physically available to them (no switching from gunner to driver, if driver is in a separate compartment)
• Crew seat switch takes more time (give it at least a few seconds delay with a fade effect and sound)
• Tank interiors so you can see if your crew have been killed
• Correct hatches open/close when using get in and out action, requiring the animation to finish before you actually exit or enter. (So before getting into a position, the hatch will open and player will enter after that).
• Hatches remain open once AI/Crew bail out (this as a visual indicator to other tanks that the tank has been abandoned.)

[en3x 209]

Personally I think its good to have inspiration even when drawn from others. Same could be said before Bipods dropped on dev branch. Is too ambitious,

can't work with animation system, yet they coded algorithm for surface detection coupled with good looking IK system.

 

Wouldn't want to be that guy that claims "that game did it, must be easy to implement" but showing off how older game tackled interiors and how it feels

does show its merits and advantages.

 

Oh and to clarify I don't claim BIS should do animation switching and everything that they had in red orchestra. More of a presentation how well it feels

and how good system works.

[kbbw123 115]

Wel.... this:

In preparation of the upcoming Tanks DLC, views of Picture-in-Picture screens are now linked in all vanilla MRAPs. By pressing 'RCtrl + N' even outside the optics view, it's now possible to switch the PiP screen's view mode. When locking back in to the optics, the selected view mode remains, making it more consistent when switching between these views often.

 

From the recent SITREP does make my heart race and my hope's go up for interior on tanks. Seeing as it is their last big bang we might get more than we hoped for.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, kbbw123 said:

we might get more than we hoped for.

 

Calm down Icarus! Dont fly too close to the sun ?

 

*secretly sneaks aboard the hype train while nobody is looking*

[mickeymen 324]

On 29.10.2017 at 12:03 PM, en3x said:

So among cons is often mentioned Time consuming effort to model. Well isn't every DLC vehicle time consuming to model? 3 helicopters with interiors 

from heli DLC.

I remember not new vehicles but new islands, that were created in the latest DLC!

This is Tanoa & Malden /

If we compare  the future interiors of armor with these two islands, then the work on interiors will be a mere trifle!

The main thing that the BIS wanted this!

[teabagginpeople 398]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:26 PM, Strike_NOR said:

 would however suggest the following alternatives to increase immersion/realism:

 

• Crew can only switch between seats that are physically available to them (no switching from gunner to driver, if driver is in a separate compartment)
• Crew seat switch takes more time (give it at least a few seconds delay with a fade effect and sound)
• Tank interiors so you can see if your crew have been killed
• Correct hatches open/close when using get in and out action, requiring the animation to finish before you actually exit or enter. (So before getting into a position, the hatch will open and player will enter after that).
• Hatches remain open once AI/Crew bail out (this as a visual indicator to other tanks that the tank has been abandoned.)

some really nice suggestions there NOR.

[en3x 209]

And BIS done have done it! After decade without interiors in Arma franchise we will be getting them and on all armored vehicles.

 

Pretty ambitious!

 

I wanted to do some constructive topic in terms of current periscopes and placement. Right now is really hard to see anything when you moving up the mountain. As far as we I know

from my experience I tend to move upwards as much as moving on flat terrain so this is pretty important. So moving uphill I can't see ground, neither can I see front very well.

 

One way to solve problem (at least in Slammer) is to implement forward looking PiP camera. The way I would imagine this technically is if vehicle is moving forward - show front

camera PiP. When vehicle starts backing switch to back Picture in picture camera. This would partially help with the issue at hand.

[jone_kone 158]

2 hours ago, en3x said:

And BIS done have done it! After decade without interiors in Arma franchise we will be getting them and on all armored vehicles.

 

Pretty ambitious!

 

I wanted to do some constructive topic in terms of current periscopes and placement. Right now is really hard to see anything when you moving up the mountain. As far as we I know

from my experience I tend to move upwards as much as moving on flat terrain so this is pretty important. So moving uphill I can't see ground, neither can I see front very well.

 

 

 

You can bind the "move head up/down" function in the view menu and adjust the head hight of driver to look more down during hillclimbs. Also freelooking in the vehicle allows you to adjust vertical view through the port a little bit.

 

[en3x 209]

Yeah I kept this in a back of my head but I never really used it until now. And I realize problems with "move head up/down" or Ctr + Page up/Page down.

 

The difficulty is to drive and keep pressing 2 sets of key to constantly adjust your view. Its like adjusting your seat in a car while you are driving. It doesn't make

sense because its too innaccurate and too sensitive and all that while you are already holding two to three keys for driving.

 

Freelooking in my case don't adjust vertical view. I can look up or down but I will still not able to see ground

for example for driving uphill.

 

-----------------------------

 

One of the options perhaps post launch would be to think about system that lets you arc your view when you look with your mouse. Think of like track IR does

but you would do that with mouse movement. The higher your mouse moves the higher your view angle is (the more ground you can see) and the lower it is

the higher you see.

[R3vo 2654]

On 27.2.2018 at 4:51 PM, en3x said:

Yeah I kept this in a back of my head but I never really used it until now. And I realize problems with "move head up/down" or Ctr + Page up/Page down.

 

The difficulty is to drive and keep pressing 2 sets of key to constantly adjust your view. Its like adjusting your seat in a car while you are driving. It doesn't make

sense because its too innaccurate and too sensitive and all that while you are already holding two to three keys for driving.

 

Freelooking in my case don't adjust vertical view. I can look up or down but I will still not able to see ground

for example for driving uphill.

 

-----------------------------

 

One of the options perhaps post launch would be to think about system that lets you arc your view when you look with your mouse. Think of like track IR does

but you would do that with mouse movement. The higher your mouse moves the higher your view angle is (the more ground you can see) and the lower it is

the higher you see.

Same here, guess the only fix for that is to buy a Track-IR unit or something similar.