Tanks - tracked vehicles driving and handling

[R3vo 2652]

I personally don't think the drifting is over exaggerated. It defintely better than having a tank suddenly stop or tip over when making fast and narrow turns. Besides, it makes driving a tank more challenging and more fun.

 

7 hours ago, chompster said:

At higher speeds on bumpy roads or off-road in 1st person it does seem like the suspension is too soft with your view constantly bobbing up and down(though this could be due to that awful, single slot, narrow FoV, driver view..)

 

I noticed that too and I believe that's something that needs to be improved butDefinitely not by making the suspension more stiff. In RL the eyes of the driver would compensate the wobbling, not sure how that would be done in game.

[Belbo 461]

On 9.10.2017 at 3:39 PM, oukej said:

• player tank commanding changed to direct control over the vehicle (test)

There we have the culprit for the turning problem. If you steer the vehicle with the mouse, the vehicle will turn when you turn your turret. Removing the mouse from the "Car left" and "Car right" controls solved the problem - but now no vehicle can be turned with the mouse, effectively removing mouse controls from ground vehicles.

Additional problem is that the body's turning is not exactly congruent to the turret's turning - that makes movement while in commander or gunner view in first person very difficult.

There's a difference in turning between 3rd person and 1st. Additionally: If using the "look"-key to just turn the camera, the vehicle still turns.

Enabling vehicle freelook in the game settings has another weird effect for the Kuma only: Looking around while driving yourself still turns the vehicle - as does turning a turret while commanding the AI driver.

There's just no consistency to the relation between mouse movement and vehicle - if commanding an AI driver your mouse probably shouldn't input anything.

 

Either the direct control has to be overhauled to just using keyboard input (or just use the "command DIR"-controls instead of the "Car DIR"-controls, since you're, direct control or not, still not driving but commanding) - or, as it was before, left to the modders, so players have the choice. It's a little bit strange to have a setting for vehicle freelook, but not for direct control over commanded vehicles.

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.

[R3vo 2652]

16 minutes ago, belbo said:

otherwise I give my commands to the AI driver and anticipate the delays and inaccuracy of the vehicle's movement.

Good luck with that. Until now it has always been like the whole crew was drunk. Impossible to park a tank behind cover precisely.

[boberro 19]

Please, please, please. Do something about tanks getting stuck on road barriers (and 10cm high "mines!" signs, when we're at it).

[lex__1 422]

Problems with some obstacles

Problems with the bushes often appear when the car hits the bush with a back motion. And rarely when the car hits the bush with a forward motion.

 

Thank you for your attention to the issues that we raise. These are good improvements in the physics of the movement of machines and the sounds expand the immersion.

[chompster 29]

2 hours ago, R3vo said:

I personally don't think the drifting is over exaggerated. It defintely better than having a tank suddenly stop or tip over when making fast and narrow turns. Besides, it makes driving a tank more challenging and more fun.

 

 

I noticed that too and I believe that's something that needs to be improved butDefinitely not by making the suspension more stiff. In RL the eyes of the driver would compensate the wobbling, not sure how that would be done in game.

You're right making it more stiff wouldn't fix that(if anything might make it worse). I guess it just doesn't compensate/absorb enough of the movement when going over rough terrain, which I would imagine is the whole point of such a suspension system on RL tanks.

 

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

Problems with some obstacles

 

Yeah I noticed that strip on the airfield was an issue for me as well. Going full speed over it would bring me to an almost complete stop before even getting over it.

[G.Gonzalez 21]

Got no big issues by now... Just want to share this shot :D

 

Those bags are  too OP :D

[teabagginpeople 398]

Like the AI commander change.  saying that noticed the tank turning ( when I was alone in the tank) when ever I used free look hmm not so good. 

 

The KUma sounds are a nice change still needs more umph. has a bit more feel of a 60 ton monster.  but all this is ruined when the sounds disappear some 60 meters away. or you are in a side alley it drives by on the road the sound pops in so unnaturally like its bugged then pops out like it has gone off down the road when in reality it only passed you.

 

compare this to a sound mod Jsrs were it is blended.  you hear the tank in the town from way out or driving towards you from the distance. no comparison in the immersion stakes. cost of his dlc 0 dollars. 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

5 hours ago, danil-ch said:

 

Collision sounds are too quiet

 

 

omg, this highlights the difference in sound quality. The Kuma sounds so sexy meanwhile the Slammer has that horrific "popping".

[R3vo 2652]

5 minutes ago, Night515 said:

 

omg, this highlights the difference in sound quality. The Kuma sounds so sexy meanwhile the Slammer has that horrific "popping".

 

I accidentally started stable yesterday to do some tests with the Kuma. Had to rage quite immediately. The new sounds compared to the old ones are superiour in every aspect.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The Kuma is much better to drive now.  Was playing around with it and then went back to a Slammer and couldn't stand it.

[lex__1 422]

Quote

ENGINE 

Added: Vehicle commander can now control his vehicle directly by the WASD keys without AI responsibility delay (there should be no difference by driving from driver or commander position, AI crew still needs to be present)  

Added: Using the 'hasDriver = -1' parameter will now create a vehicle without a driver and commander can drive the vehicle directly by the WASD keys 

This works well, and it was not enough for accurate parking or driving in tight spaces.

It is very good that this is a configurable parameter, and can be turned on or off. Thank you

 

[jone_kone 158]

21 hours ago, R3vo said:

 

Those dirt humps seem to be 100% deadly... o_O

 

 

 

 

Don´t get all the Hype around SpaceX and Elon Musk. BI has been launching tanks into space already since 2013. :D ... 

 

 

[lex__1 422]

There are still some dangerous objects

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120795

 

[R3vo 2652]

8 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

There are still some dangerous objects

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120795

 

 

Just tested with the Kuma. Same issue. Catapulted into space.

[teabagginpeople 398]

1 minute ago, R3vo said:

 

Just tested with the Kuma. Same issue. Catapulted into space.

ha I was wondering why he using the other tank.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Added: Vehicle commander can now control his vehicle directly by the WASD keys without AI responsibility delay (there should be no difference by driving from driver or commander position, AI crew still needs to be present)  

 

Gorgeous! 

 

Added: Using the 'hasDriver = -1' parameter will now create a vehicle without a driver and commander can drive the vehicle directly by the WASD keys.

 

Beautiful!

 

However does the above 'hasDriver = -1' work for the gunner or ultimately can it be applied to the gunners position? Just thinking of the possibility of some Battlefield/War Thunder/World of Tanks style games modes being made. 

[x3kj 1247]

17 hours ago, chompster said:

The handling feels much more believable and weighty, though at full speed it still feels a bit too maneuverable.  [...]At higher speeds on bumpy roads or off-road in 1st person it does seem like the suspension is too soft with your view constantly bobbing up and down(though this could be due to that awful, single slot, narrow FoV, driver view..) [...] Another kinda odd thing was how fast the actual wheels turned.

A tank is not sluggish at fast speeds. You have extremely short stopping distance due to the high traction forces (compared to wheeled vehicles). What works for both tracks also works for a single track. The only thing that is a concern for not doing it constantly is safety... If you block one side at full speed, you have a high chance of throwing a track or maybe even flipping over if your track catches something while drifting (reference). The suspension of tanks is not magical - it won't keep the hull perfectly still. In rough terrain it will bounce significantly IRL. That's why stabilizers for guns and sights are needed in the first place. Realistically it should bounce even more off road, but given that Arma terrain is basically "flat" all across (no micro variations in terrain heigth) it's better to keep it that way i guess.

 

Visual wheel animation is not automatically synched to actual simulation - so yeah that's just something they have to re-tweak.

 

Quote

As mentioned above, the 'drifting' and rear spin seems over-exaggerated.

Even though tank tracks can create high traction forces, it's still not infinite. Tanks have very high kinetic energy at higher speeds - so changing direction sharply will lead to drifting even with high traction. Example. In games people generally steer extremely sharply - IRL you would never do that (e.g. driving a cargo truck at 70kph 90° around a T-junction ).

 

3 hours ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

However does the above 'hasDriver = -1' work for the gunner or ultimately can it be applied to the gunners position? Just thinking of the possibility of some Battlefield/War Thunder/World of Tanks style games modes being made. 

Maingunner can be primaryGunner and primaryObserver(=commander) at the same time from configuration point. So yeah, that should be doable.

[G.Gonzalez 21]

4 hours ago, jone_kone said:

 

 

Don´t get all the Hype around SpaceX and Elon Musk. BI has been launching tanks into space already since 2013. :D ... 

 

 

I think tank launching has been since ArmA 2 but i might be wrong... in any case ,if you want to launch anything in ArmA 3 you just need to place this in the debug console =  unit setvelocity [0,0,10000]

 

I gotta say i got rid of some PKillers in coop servers this way :D nothing like "ejecting" people from your game :D

 

ON THE MATER I feel like some objects needs to have some collision rework while i Can get over a truck if i have a car in from of the barricade  I cant get over the junk barricade object (that is shaped like a somewhat ramp, "Land_Barricade_01_10m_F")  I just like to point that out...

[scotg 204]

A lot of these issues, while valid, are mere config adjustment issues pertaining to the ArmA 3 tanks. As a mod-er, I'm more concerned with solutions that might help imported and custom made tanks as well. Not all tanks are the same, and when creating fictional tracked vehicles the parameters are limited to the very basic, narrowly conformed layout of the game tanks. There are work-arounds for issues such as variety of wheel sizes on a single tank, but what about visible drivers? If I wanted to make a bulldozer or crane with tracks, the driver wouldn't be seen. In fact, I DO have an armored, tracked vehicle with a glass canopy for the driver, but I have to "turn out" just to see him at the helm from outside.

Semi-related to tanks are half-tracks, and the best mods with these don't handle at all like half-tracks should IRL. Since half-tracks are supposed to be as easy to drive as a regular truck, more or less, having tracks enabled in carx makes the most sense. I dare say it would be nice to see even Quad-Track vehicles working, such as snow/mud-enabled pickups where all four wheels are each replaced with track assemblies.

I'll have to agree with the destructible environment issues, although I do realize that's a huge task. My main gripe on tanks vs. obstacles is doing things like plowing through trees, fences, tents, and telephone poles - only to get stopped dead in my tracks by a chicken coup. Sections in stone walls and roadside guardrails should be getting mangled by smaller vehicles and utterly destroyed by tanks. Speaking of bulldozers, a big heavy vehicle shouldn't have to depend on its momentum to knock down trees. E. G.: if I drive a 35,000# tank into a tree at 1mph, it should still be able to push that sucker down, rather than having to build up speed first.

I'm glad to see that some issues are getting addressed and corrected, but I also fear that mods have been forcibly homogenized in the process, which could potentially stifle creativity and variety in vehicle addons.

[x3kj 1247]

Here is the first issue i have (other is still uploading)

Note the bounding boxes of both vehicles (as result of having some memory points far below for testing purposes).

The small vehicle flips over immediately. The larger lifts up only a bit at times, so the force acts only a short time. But sometimes it goes "all the way" and raises the entire vehicle. This happens reliably when accelerating from stand uphill, but also frequently when driving reverse first and then forward.

I conclude that the new force is

1) applied inconsistently - indicated that the large tank does not always flip up, only sometimes

2) applied to center of bounding box, instead of center of gravity- otherwise the tanks would not flip.

I would suggest applying the force at a defined point (either memorypoint or coordinate in config), instead of center of bounding box or gravity. It's helpfull to tweak this in case application on center of gravity leads to issues - because otherwise you would have to shift CoG in order to fix some fake force -> leads to a rat tail of other problems.

In case there already is a point definition in config then these vehicles would of course miss it - so it might as well be a non issue.

 

1 hour ago, scotg said:

but what about visible drivers

its there since quite a while in DEV...

 

Quote

I also fear that mods have been forcibly homogenized in the process

They took the standard physx drive model and implemented it. If half-tracks or different track tanks are wanted then they require a nonstandard drive simulation. Considering that there have been several issues with tank simulation already i rather prefer refinement of what's already there over having another semi-working simulation class.

[reyhard 2082]

8 minutes ago, scotg said:

There are work-arounds for issues such as variety of wheel sizes on a single tank, but what about visible drivers? If I wanted to make a bulldozer or crane with tracks, the driver wouldn't be seen. In fact, I DO have an armored, tracked vehicle with a glass canopy for the driver, but I have to "turn out" just to see him at the helm from outside.

since 1.74 viewDriverInExternal is working properly

 

9 minutes ago, scotg said:

Semi-related to tanks are half-tracks, and the best mods with these don't handle at all like half-tracks should IRL. Since half-tracks are supposed to be as easy to drive as a regular truck, more or less, having tracks enabled in carx makes the most sense. I dare say it would be nice to see even Quad-Track vehicles working, such as snow/mud-enabled pickups where all four wheels are each replaced with track assemblies

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.

 

11 minutes ago, scotg said:

I'm glad to see that some issues are getting addressed and corrected, but I also fear that mods have been forcibly homogenized in the process, which could potentially stifle creativity and variety in vehicle addons.

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

 

@x3kj have you tried modifying accelAidForceYOffset? I've played a little bit with it and I got pretty interesting results https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY96PmNepBw

 

[scotg 204]

4 minutes ago, x3kj said:

its there since quite a while in DEV...

 

They took the standard physx drive model and implemented it. If half-tracks or different track tanks are wanted then they require a nonstandard drive simulation. Considering that there have been several issues with tank simulation already i rather prefer refinement of what's already there over having another semi-working simulation class.

I didn't know it was there in DEV, but anyway can I implement what they've done in DEV into standard mode?

It seems like the simulation for non-standard tracks is already there, or could be there with a few minor tweaks. For half-tracks it would work fine if I could figure out how to make the visual effect of texture panning work in carx as they do for tankx. I'm not even sure if it's isolated to tankx, but that's the only way I've seen the tracks move. I can already make the model attach to the dampers, but the texture is static. As far as the track effectiveness, that's just a matter of wheel config.

For quad-track vehicles it simply means coding the visual effect to work on steerable wheels and not dependent on the motion of the non-steerable tracks (i.e.: four independent animations). Here's how I'd see a viable work-around going:
- Allow for more than 4 wheels to steer, if it isn't already possible.
- allow the track texture animation and more than two tracks to apply to carx, as I mentioned above.
- mod-er gives all steered wheels on each side the same steering axis. If having axes take up the same location is a problem, then maybe try stacking each wheel's axis in line vertically so that they can turn without wonkiness.

- If having too many wheels trying to keep the vehicle in position is a problem, then perhaps fake it. Keep the original four (or up to eight as per APCs) wheels doing all the work, while the other "wheels" just slide and bounce and turn. Adjust the wheel config for better grip and such.

In a nutshell, it would require possibly minor visual effects tweaks on BI's part, and some creative config parameters on the moddeler/mod-er/configurer's part.

I agree that there have been several issues with tank simulation already, and that the preferred trade-off is to have more common tank issues fixed. However, I feel like it should have been mostly fixed with the gigantic patch called ArmA3, so that we can start to tackle more interesting vehicle creations that attempt to add variety to this world when these updates come. Not that we have to buy the DLC to benefit from the improvements of existing tanks (and the configs that enable them), but it should be raising the bar - not just now approaching it. Compounded that the anticipated release for the DLC and the "improvements" it brings is still far off into next year, I'd say we are settling for mediocrity. I want to get excited about something cool and unexpected - something extraordinary. The Jets DLC was a mixed bag of coolness (mostly in model assets) and disappointment. The best example of both these in swoop is the throttle system, which makes standard flying more realistic (a plus) but also makes VTOL flying a nerve-wracking chore (a minus).

Here's another thing I just remembered for the tanks, and again maybe it's already do-able, but when I tried doing this in the traditional sense I got wonky results: tank movement for analog controls could be nice. I don't know how this would work with WASD, but for dual-stick gamepads it would be amazing! Each stick could control a track individually.

[dragon01 902]

I think that it'd be a good idea to provide options for both dual-stick and wheel-and-throttle setup, actually. The latter is used by both Armata and US tanks, while the former is the standard arrangement of older Russian tanks. Right now, analog control doesn't seem to work at all with tanks. 

 

Also, IMO this would be a good time to experiment with manual gearbox control. I don't know how well the gearbox is actually simulated right now, but I believe it could add to the experience. For cars it'd be more or less a gimmick (and most military cars in game seem to be automatics, anyway), but tanks could use this as an extra measure of control.

[x3kj 1247]

18 minutes ago, scotg said:

- Allow for more than 4 wheels to steer, if it isn't already possible.
- allow the track texture animation and more than two tracks to apply to carx, as I mentioned above.

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.

 

Quote

- If having too many wheels trying to keep the vehicle in position is a problem, then perhaps fake it. Keep the original four (or up to eight as per APCs) wheels doing all the work, while the other "wheels" just slide and bounce and turn.

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

 

@reyhard No i haven't yet. It's good to know that it is adjustable - however, i'f i'm correct in my conclusion then it's pretty inconvenient if the "base" for application is the center of bounding box. As soon as you add something somewhere that affects the bounding box you have to re-trial&error the offset. Regarding the BMP jerking on acceleration - the reason IRL why it is jerking is because the sprocket is at the back. Whenever it accelerates, the sprocket pulls the track upwards. Since the track and the vehicle have inertia that needs to be overcome, the same force that is applied to the track is also applied to the sprocket in opposite direction. Means that the rear end is pulled downwards, instead of the front beeing lifted upwards.