Tanks - tracked vehicles driving and handling

[mickeymen 324]

On 09.10.2017 at 5:39 PM, oukej said:

 

• updated PhysX libraries to 3.4 and switched wheel contact queries from raycast to sweep. We believe the precision and reliability of terrain traversal has improved quite significantly. On the other hand it's been a change that undoubtedly affects already released content. Especially the n-wheeled vehicles and tanks. Watch out for new issues with us, please. Report anything suspicious. And if your own mod got negatively affected by the update - get in touch with us asap ;)
• revisited physics configuration of individual vehicles, their engines, drivetrains and suspensions. Together with new config. properties and options.
• revisited sound configuration, with new samples and new approaches
• AI tank driving -  AI driving feedback topic, following up on previous AI car driving refactoring
• player tank commanding changed to direct control over the vehicle (test)

 

Most of these changes are WIP, to test things and get feedback from you!

 

Good news. @BIS, Thanks for tank-updates. All updates please the my soul, except the last - "player tank commanding changed to direct control over the vehicle"  Hmm. Maybe I do not understand this correctly!?

Does it mean, the player operate the tank without voice commands, as if he was sitting on the driver's seat?  If the commander turned into a driver, then it's not good.

If the player is on the commander's place, he must control the tank only by means voice commands, as it was before IMHO.

Otherwise, the feeling of controlling the tank from the Driver / Commander position will not have a difference. 

 

[scotg 204]

1 hour ago, reyhard said:

since 1.74 viewDriverInExternal is working properly

 

Same as above, since 1.74 you can use TankX + drivingstickLeft/Right or drivingWheel for steering wheel rotation. It wouldn't be 100% correct but visual thing should be at least acceptable. I've seen before those new animation sources that some folks from IFA made workaround with using gmeter instead.

 

Certainly mods are not forgotten and in fact some of us are modders. ;)

@x3kj

 

All good news! I'll have to add that line for the driver! I still have concerns re. the steering of half-tracks. I don't think that traditionally they had the ability to turn in place, or neutral steer as it were. The tracks simply kept the heavier weight of the vehicles from sinking into soft ground, while the vehicle more or less performed and was controlled as a truck would have been. It seems like enabling steered wheels on tankx would just make it steer in place like a full tank while the front wheels pivot. I hope I'm wrong; I hope it attempts to drive more like a truck.
 

42 minutes ago, x3kj said:

You say like it is easy or minor thing, but i can assure you that it isn't. I have looked at the physx sourcecode. There is a lot of optimisation for tracked vehicles to reduce performance impact of 20 simulated wheels.

 

Doesnt matter if they "just bounce and turn". They still require raytracing and simulation.
@reyhard

You're right; I don't know how hard or easy it would be. I just wonder if there is a work around that fakes it with visually acceptable results. The flex-band tracks method is a work-around to having 50-150 individual links following a shape-changing line in a loop. Functional individual links are in other modern games, so that wouldn't be an unreasonable request. It's one of those things that can be overlooked, though, because in this game if you're watching the tracks too much then you aren't really gonna do well in the game. So then, regardless of my lack of knowledge on the matter, it is okay to try helping think outside the box. I'm sorry if I seem pushy; I can maybe see that after re-reading. Hey man, I get excited about all these improvements and hypothetical talk, but I also get a little annoyed that I'm only just now getting excited about these things. When people like something a lot, they can get critical. It stems from a passion, and that's a good thing.

Also, please excuse the tags if they are still there when I submit. I couldn't edit them out of the quoted sections for some reason.

[lex__1 422]

33 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

If the player is on the commander's place, he must control the tank only by means voice commands, as it was before IMHO.

Otherwise, the feeling of controlling the tank from the Driver / Commander position will not have a difference.

This works better than before. AI did not always execute your commands correctly, and accuracy in its driving or cornering was not enough. Now this is under your control, and is accompanied by commands in the chat line.
Driving a tank without an AI driver can be turned on and off as required by the nature of the mission.

[mickeymen 324]

8 hours ago, lex__1 said:

This works better than before. AI did not always execute your commands correctly, and accuracy in its driving or cornering was not enough. 

 

Of course, I understand that the new control of the tank is directly more convenient, but as seems to me, the old control was more realistic. In this case, the inaccuracy of the AI driver, demonstrates the fact, that the tank is managed by another person and he can not understand the accuracy of movement with the help of telepathy! This is how it should be in real life.

Earlier, on the commander's place, if I needed accuracy for driving a tank, then I used the Ctr + W (Slow move command) or sat in the driver's seat and drove the tank myself. No problems!

 

Now, If I could influence the game, for more precise tank-control on the commander position, I would add additional voice-commands for the AI-driver and would remove contlol directly.

Thus, the player-commander could have not only Ctrl + W (slow foward voice command), but also more accurate -
 Ctrl + D(slow right), Ctrl + A(slow left), Ctrl + S(slow backward), which would mean more fine control of the tank through the AI driver.

 

I really hope, that the new control(directly) of the tank will remain only a test.

[R3vo 2654]

25 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

or sat in the driver's seat and drove the tank myself. No problems!

 

and you believe that is realistic? I don't think any commander in real life will switch seats...

 

26 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

and he can not understand the accuracy of movement with the help of telepathy!

The accuracy wasn't the issue, at least not for me. It was rather the way AI turned left a bit, then moved right again. More like a drunk.

I believe the way it is now is the right direction. Milsim communities can still play their tank missions properly and singleplayer missions are much more fun.

 

However, there are also some issues I noticed during my latest tests. It seems that sometimes when I order my tank to move forward or backwards, it continiously moves in the ordered direction, sometimes however it only moves in the ordered direction as long as I press the corresponding key.

Ideally, the tank would turn as long as I press left/right, but move forward or backwards /slow/fast continiously.

 

On a further note, there are also some serious issues with tank speed, (speed control).

 

When pressing Q (slow) the tank moves 15km/h on flat terrain, however, downhill it moves ~40km/h +. I ideally, the tank would downhill also 15km/h same as on flat terrain. Also, when switching from fast/normal speed to slow speed, it doesn't reduce its speed quickly enough, if at all. I believe this needs to be tweaked.

 

Furthermore, as already mentioned above, the slowest speed of 15km/h is too fast. Ideally it should be around 5-6km/h so infantry can move besides the tank.

[teabagginpeople 398]

37 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

 

Of course, I understand that the new control of the tank is directly more convenient, but as seems to me, the old control was more realistic. In this case, the inaccuracy of the AI driver, demonstrates the fact, that the tank is managed by another person and he can not understand the accuracy of movement with the help of telepathy! This is how it should be in real life.

Earlier, on the commander's place, if I needed accuracy for driving a tank, then I used the Ctr + W (Slow move command) or sat in the driver's seat and drove the tank myself. No problems!

 

Now, If I could influence the game, for more precise tank-control on the commander position, I would add additional voice-commands for the AI-driver and would remove contlol directly.

Thus, the player-commander could have not only Ctrl + W (slow foward voice command), but also more accurate -
 Ctrl + D(slow right), Ctrl + A(slow left), Ctrl + S(slow backward), which would mean more fine control of the tank through the AI driver.

 

I really hope, that the new control(directly) of the tank will remain only a test.

Wow.. I thought it was like the myth of Kim un Jongs love of Katey Perry. But no it seems there is someone that loves arma tank ai.  

 

Yeah lets keep it a test. So when the dlc drops and the showcase mission "tank christ"  players can suffer the insufferable ai driving them into houses. 

 

Agree with Revo slow should be 5kpm great for urban clear outs. Also like to add audio when tank canges from slow rapidly to high speed can the be a loud " growl". 

[lex__1 422]

In the DEV version, switch to tactical view.
The sound of the running motor and the sound of the wheels sounds like the main background sound. It does not depend on how close or far, the tactical camera is from the sound source.

 

 

2 hours ago, mickeymen said:

Earlier, on the commander's place, if I needed accuracy for driving a tank, then I used the Ctr + W (Slow move command) or sat in the driver's seat and drove the tank myself. No problems!

This most of all did not suit me. What would definitely go to the fighting position, for an optimally good review, it was necessary to waste time and distract from their tasks.
Between the commander of the tank and the crew there must be an understanding and well-functioning actions, then they can be called a crew.
Prior to this change, it did not work as a coherent coached crew.

 

@oukej Are there any plans or opportunities to change this issue?

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120784

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126270

 

[johnnygitarr 7]

hi,

 

1.)

is it planned to integrate the new driving physics to all vehicles (not only the tracked vehicles)?

 

2.)

i have an suggestion for a speedcontrol solution:

the jets engines in arma 3 are controlled via percentage (0-100 % power).

 

if we port this solution to the vehicles, then we can choose every driving speed we want.   

0% = no power, means 0 km/h

100% = maximum driving speed of chosen vehicle, for example 80 km/h of a tank

(every vehicle have different max. speeds and different acceleration depends on enginepower)

 

we can set the desired driving speed, and the vehicle starts to accelerate to this speed (as fast as

possible (depends on uphill, downhill, driven surface, vehicle weight and so on).

so we can choose for example 5 km/h and drive slowly next to walking soldiers, or also

helpfull for formations: all drivers can drive comfortable next to each other with the same speed.

 

button w on the keyboard for speed up

button s on the keyboard for speed down

button x on the keyboard for break (all enginepower is set to 0, the vehicle decellerate)

 

cheers

johnny  

[oukej 2910]

10 minutes ago, johnnygitarr said:

is it planned to integrate the new driving physics to all vehicles (not only the tracked vehicles)?

PhysX update affects all objects that use the PhysX simulation. The change of wheels contact queries from raycast to sweep has already affected all wheeled and tracked vehicles. But otherwise there's no plan to globally revisit cars' configurations at this moment. Individual changes may still happen.

[x3kj 1247]

4 hours ago, R3vo said:

When pressing Q (slow) the tank moves 15km/h on flat terrain, however, downhill it moves ~40km/h +. I ideally, the tank would downhill also 15km/h same as on flat terrain. Also, when switching from fast/normal speed to slow speed, it doesn't reduce its speed quickly enough, if at all. I believe this needs to be tweaked.

 

Furthermore, as already mentioned above, the slowest speed of 15km/h is too fast. Ideally it should be around 5-6km/h so infantry can move besides the tank.

PhysX default drive model is incapable of inhibiting movement of the wheels by the engine (no engine braking) to my knowledge. The resistance of movement is also pretty low on tanks compared to their engine power - i would say. To drive at very slow speed you have to apply thrust in the range of 0.001 to 0.02 iirc. Almost impossible to do reliably with a gamepad for example, even with maximum exponential behaviour in controller settings.

If i had to guess it's propably also deeply connected to how movement resistance is implemented for tanks by BIS (does not use the standard PhysX parameters for damping).

 

At slow speeds the simulation is also pretty inaccurate for whatever reason. This is why there is a specific speed that counts as "slow enough" to enforce a stop and set all velocities to 0 (which for BIS vehicles is default of 10km/h iirc). Core reason is the change of sticky friction and dynamic friction, that they've (Nvidia) hardcoded to prevent vehicle sliding when wheels are at speeds close to zero. Transition from sticky to dynamic friction isn't really performant to compute. I know it can be implemented fairly well technically by using a tanh^2 function, but idk how much more performance that would cost compared to current version. Also, it would require major rewrites of the physx library by BIS - and i doubt they have the time to invest there.

 

1 hour ago, johnnygitarr said:

the jets engines in arma 3 are controlled via percentage (0-100 % power).

 

if we port this solution to the vehicles, then we can choose every driving speed we want.   

0% = no power, means 0 km/h

100% = maximum driving speed of chosen vehicle, for example 80 km/h of a tank

(every vehicle have different max. speeds and different acceleration depends on enginepower)

Bad idea imo. And no if you port to tanks you would have thrust instead of speed as controll. If you want like you say speed controll BIS would have to provide an algorithm that brakes/accelerates whenever you are not at the desired speed. This is very tricky to get right. You would likely have the same dilemma as with the current auto gearbox - constantly switching up and down even if you don't want to. The algorithm would likely constantly break/accelerate to keep desired speed, leading to choppy action. Both methods (thrust and speed % controll) makes precision driving very counterintuitive as well with M+KB. Just to highlight: VTOL landing has become much trickier to do accurately with the new controll method and M+KB, because you cant finely controll the increase/decrease of %.

[SuicideKing 233]

Some observations:

1. When the tank commander turns out, the gunner turns out too.

2. Some road sections cause the tanks to start driving in an "8" pattern for a prolonged period or even indefinitely

3. Convoy driving is still terrible. If lead vehicle gets stuck somewhere and does an "8", vehicles following it do the same. One tank (convoy of 4 kumas) got stuck at a building, didn't reverse or anything. Rest of the convoy halted a kilometer away, waiting for last to catch up. This resulted in an indefinite halt of the convoy.

4. Driving is much better! Had fun. However sometimes it feels like the front half or even 2/3rd of the tank doesn't come back down quick enough when going over rocks.

 

5 hours ago, R3vo said:

When pressing Q (slow) the tank moves 15km/h on flat terrain, however, downhill it moves ~40km/h +. I ideally, the tank would downhill also 15km/h same as on flat terrain. Also, when switching from fast/normal speed to slow speed, it doesn't reduce its speed quickly enough, if at all. I believe this needs to be tweaked.

 

.This is a problem with all vehicles, probably for the reasons x3kj mentioned (lack of engine braking)

[Variable 322]

On 10/11/2017 at 10:58 AM, belbo said:

I don't even know why it's in there. If I'm commanding a tank, I don't have direct control. If I want direct control, I change to the driver's seat - otherwise I give my commands to the AI driver and anticipate the delays and inaccuracy of the vehicle's movement.

Exactly. BIS please don't break a wonderful feature (simulated tank commanding) for the sake of Battlefield-esque direct control bullshit. This goes directly against the Arma spirit. If there are issues with commanding subordinate AI in a tank, please fix the issues instead of replacing the whole system with an unrealistic, gamy control scheme, that yells "you are playing a game". OFP did tank controls as commander wonderfully, I don't understand why would you want to change it. It feels yet another one of those moves that take away from Arma the aspects that make it what it is.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Just now, SuicideKing said:

Some observations:

1. When the tank commander turns out, the gunner turns out too.

 

Is the gunner in Combat mode? Crew will only turn out when in Aware or Safe if I'm correct. 

[lex__1 422]

Thanks for the correction, many questions have been resolved.

 

[lexx 1363]

17 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

Is the gunner in Combat mode? Crew will only turn out when in Aware or Safe if I'm correct. 

 

They always turn out with the player. That's the case since ever.

 

I can understand people who don't like the direct driving from commander perspective, but the simple truth is, otherwise the commander perspective is extremely unattractive in singleplayer. If you're really hardcore like some other folks and me, then you can work with how it was before, but it sure as hell has never been a very pleasant experience.

As far as I could tell, the original behavior was unfixable anyway. There is just no good way to make it really work, and it would always have been slow and imprecise.

[R3vo 2654]

Here's some feedback for today's update:

 

 - Kuma recoil isn't present when firing at 12o'clock or 6 o'clock

- Slammer, almost no recoil in 12 and 6 o'clock direction (When standing still)

- Side panels of the Slammer move very weirdly (not fluent)

- Default weapons of all tanks should be main cannon not MG

 

 

I collected some data. Quite interesting to see the difference in acc between the 3 tanks. T100 feels like a Ferrari. I like that!

Time 0 - 60 km/h: 18.6123 s\nDistance: 226.828 m\nAcceleration:0.895465 m/s² //Kuma

Time 0 - 60 km/h: 13.7529 s\nDistance: 151.004 m\nAcceleration:1.21186 m/s² // T100

Time 0 - 60 km/h: 25.126 s\nDistance: 306.297 m\nAcceleration:0.663324 m/s² //Slammer

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 minute ago, lexx said:

They always turn out with the player. That's the case since ever.

 

The reason I brought up the stance solution was because this never happens to me when I command. I just put my gunner into combat and he never ever turns out. Doesnt matter whether were actually in combat or not. 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I've noticed strange behaviour with being turned out. Interior audio plays when turned out, and I can't really describe all of it but just drive around with AI turned out. The turret is no longer locked into position, for one.

 

Also not sure about the newest update but direct control (amazing feature btw) is kinda bugged in that you can control say a Prowler from the gunner seat with no other AI inside.

 

Lastly there's a pop-up issue with the Kamysh related to steering of wheelLF2 iirc.

[Alwarren 2767]

So, from what I can see on dev the behavior is practically the same except for the fact that you need to hold down the W or S key and the tank will immediately stop (or rather, will start to stop) once you release the key. The rest is basically the same as before.

 

My personal opinion is that this isn't much of an improvement really, but it is a change that I can live with. Personally, I would have preferred to see this handled differently:

• extra keys (say, CTRL-W and CTRL-S) for the "fine tuning" movement. That way you don't have to hold down W all the time
• remove the "stop" voice commands when turning left or right, they are very annoying.
• Have two extra controls:
  - Driver turn to my heading, making the driver immediately orient the tank towards the direction the commander is watching
  - Gunner turn to my heading, doing the same for the gunner
  These controls are more in line with how you would control the tank as a human commander in a tank staffed with humans, and would be much more useful since it makes it easier to immediately get a result instead of having to use the keyboard.

 

EDIT: One more thing. The tank still moves when the driver and gunner is out, that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Even with this change the AI driver MUST be a prerequisite for the tank to drive, otherwise... ugh

[SuicideKing 233]

1 hour ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

Is the gunner in Combat mode? Crew will only turn out when in Aware or Safe if I'm correct. 

Ah that must be it, thanks.

 

24 minutes ago, Night515 said:

I've noticed strange behaviour with being turned out. Interior audio plays when turned out, and I can't really describe all of it but just drive around with AI turned out. The turret is no longer locked into position, for one.

 

Yeah i noticed the audio too, although it seemed louder than the interior audio but different from the external audio. In a way I liked it, but of course not sure whether this is intended. The turret did lock for me, but the gunner turned out in my case.
 

26 minutes ago, Night515 said:

Also not sure about the newest update but direct control (amazing feature btw) is kinda bugged in that you can control say a Prowler from the gunner seat with no other AI inside

 

This may be the case with all cars then, I noticed it with the service off road too.

 

13 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

EDIT: One more thing. The tank still moves when the driver and gunner is out, that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Even with this change the AI driver MUST be a prerequisite for the tank to drive, otherwise... ugh

 

Yeah this is probably not a great idea - at least not by default. I assume this is because of hasDriver = -1, but please make this off by default. Mostly undesirable for multiplayer especially, unless people specifically want this functionality.

[R3vo 2654]

59 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

• Have two extra controls:
  - Driver turn to my heading, making the driver immediately orient the tank towards the direction the commander is watching
  - Gunner turn to my heading, doing the same for the gunner

 

EDIT: One more thing. The tank still moves when the driver and gunner is out, that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Even with this change the AI driver MUST be a prerequisite for the tank to drive, otherwise... ugh

 

Three very good suggestions. Furthermore, I'd suggest that we get a shortcut to tell the Gunner to watch a specific position e.g a house or a hill-site. If no proper position can be found then it should default to the heading of the commander.

59 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

remove the "stop" voice commands when turning left or right, they are very annoying.

Yes, please. The less spam the better.

[oukej 2910]

You've already noticed...just in case ;)

On 10/12/2017 at 2:05 PM, bis_iceman said:

12-10-2017 
EXE rev. 143275 (game)
 
DATA 

• Tweaked: Handling of the FV-720 Mora, BTR-K Kamysh & the M2 Slammer family vehicles has been overhauled   
• Tweaked: Handling of the T-100 Varsuk has been overhauled  
• Tweaked: Increased recoil of tank cannons, decreased recoil of Neophron's cannon 

ENGINE 

• Tweaked: Grenade collisions with car/tank wheels are now disabled 
• Tweaked: The muzzleImpulseFactor was changing only torque of impulse, there is a new format now: 
  • Old: "muzzleImpulseFactor = 0.8"  
  • New:  "muzzleImpulseFactor[] = {torqueFactor, forceFactor}" 

 

 

Known issues at this point are:

• occasional RPM spikes during turns that can abruptly "accelerate" the vehicle
• occasional loss of control in turns on some tanks (move fwd or back to get out of the broken state)
• sometimes climbing onto vegetation before destroying it
• int. sound in turn out and commander view
• tank (hasdriver=true) can be driven from commander even without AI driver
• less pronounced recoil ('frozen' suspension) when stationary
• possibly too high neutral turn rate

[x3kj 1247]

@oukej

could you explain where and how the recoil force is applied? Is it the hull?  I find this factoring and stuff totally arkward, especially torque.. imo this has no justification for beeing so obstruse. All the information about firing direction and muzzle position is defined in configs. These can easily be used as application point for recoil forces. Instead of fudging it with torque and force on the hull it's much easier and reliable to just apply the force directly at the point where it originated (the barrel / muzzle).

 

Currently with muzzleimpulse, everytime you change hit values you have to re-trial&error the "fudge factor". It'd be much easer to define an absolute force in the bullet (or magazine) and then apply a factor to the muzzle class of a weapon (to be able to allow different firing modes with different recoil - e.g. artillery).

 

Case in point - i had converted back to muzzle impulse after it was configurable. But i noted that vehicles sometimes just stayed in the air for prolonged time for whatever reason. And i didn't have the impression that the direction of the force was accurate to the firing direction at all times. Configuring was also a pain. So i re-converted back to applying setforce script on the barrel via fired EH... works much much much better. Plus you can easily "preview" it via script whereas with that fudge factoring you have to constantly reload the config via diag.exe.

[Alwarren 2767]

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

Yeah this is probably not a great idea - at least not by default. I assume this is because of hasDriver = -1, but please make this off by default. Mostly undesirable for multiplayer especially, unless people specifically want this functionality.

 

No, this is with the Slammer, it has hasDriver=1. From what I see, these are two different features. hasDriver = -1 is not the default on normal tanks. Any tank will automatically be steerable from the commander position in very much the same way that it used to be, just with the change that the control is direct - you don't have to order stop explicitly. 

Thanks @oukej for pointing out that the issue is known.

[R3vo 2654]

Talking about tanks. Would it be possible to maybe improve this command https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/weaponDirection so it also returns the direction of secondary vehicle weapons? There seems to be no easy way of getting the direction of the commander's weapon.