Tanks - tracked vehicles driving and handling

[Flax 397]

4 hours ago, oukej said:

The "autobrake" can be annoying, but atm we can't remove it in order to prevent vehicles from moving on their own (vehs atm are always "in gear"). You have to ask your dismounts to sweat a bit and run. And then use the limited speed (Ctrl+W) :/

 

Is there any chance of the autobrake being an optional config value, or have the ability to turn it off? Might even allow for the ability to tow things with ropes if that was turned off? 

[x3kj 1247]

7 hours ago, oukej said:

At this point we couldn't afford really any drastic changes. But there should now be a bigger difference between tarmac, dirt roads, grassy fields or beach sand. And the frictions should be slightly more consistent across similar surfaces on vanilla terrains.
Also when two objects collide it should be slightly easier to slide along each other (e.g. sliding along guiderails) at a low angle or bounce off instead of stopping on a spot.

Where is the friction of the materials defined? I saw friction values in some config class, iirc, but also in rvmats.

 

1 hour ago, Flax said:

Is there any chance of the autobrake being an optional config value, or have the ability to turn it off? Might even allow for the ability to tow things with ropes if that was turned off? 

These are different autobrakes to my knowledge. No passenger-> brakes apply. Speed below threshold when driven -> brakes apply. Threshold can be tweaked in vehicle config.  Problem is, that as very low speed the tire friction simulation appears to be inaccurate and inconcistent.

(Btw - even for towing in RL you'd want to have a driver in the towed vehicle...)

[dragon01 902]

Yeah, unless using a rigid tow bar, having a driver is mandatory. I think that the autobrake on everyone disembarking is a good approximation for setting a handbrake before dismounting (IRL, you don't really think much about it). I never had problems with the autobrakes, but then I use an analog throttle pedal.

[scotg 204]

12 hours ago, oukej said:

You have to ask your dismounts to sweat a bit and run. And then use the limited speed (Ctrl+W) :/

This is a non-solution, especially since the avatars are some of the most out-of-shape, complaining (via coughs, groans, grunts, gasps, and weezing), wriggling, exhibiting no military bearings whatsoever turds of soldiers. In terms of gameplay and balance, I wouldn't want them to be capable of running everywhere alongside a tank with the stamina of Superman, but at least make them a little more athletic - especially if it's a requirement for infantry tank support platoons. Not a tank fix, but since related to tanks I feel it's gotta be addressed.

[a_killer_wombat 120]

12 hours ago, scotg said:

This is a non-solution, especially since the avatars are some of the most out-of-shape, complaining (via coughs, groans, grunts, gasps, and weezing), wriggling, exhibiting no military bearings whatsoever turds of soldiers. In terms of gameplay and balance, I wouldn't want them to be capable of running everywhere alongside a tank with the stamina of Superman, but at least make them a little more athletic - especially if it's a requirement for infantry tank support platoons. Not a tank fix, but since related to tanks I feel it's gotta be addressed.

 

After the Nexus update, infantry can now run at 14kph indefinitely even if they are carrying 40kg of kit... hardly "out-of-shape". Many players including myself were disappointed with the new stamina system changes after Nexus since it does very little to penalise poor fatigue and weight management. You think it needs to be even more forgiving? I strongly disagree.

 

I agree that it's bad that the best method for infantry moving with an armoured vehicle is for them to run alongside it rather than walking but I really don't think weakening the stamina system is the right answer.

[x3kj 1247]

One thing that definitely is a big issue in Arma 3 with vehicles in general is the speed on _in theory_ rough terrain.

The Map grid is very coarse (because performance and memory footprint), so micro heigth variations (bumps) are not present.

Terrain clutter is also sparsely distributed for the same reason.

So if you manage to avoid the terrain clutter, it doesnt matter on what surface you drive. It's always as if you're on the highway. With wheeled vehicles, driving 80-130km/h over any terrain is a given, provided you evade the obstacles. Same for tanks, except they have lower max speed - with the difference that evading obstacles is an option. If you crash, you usually only lose speed if anything. 

 

This is really bad. Arma 2 and earlier did this somewhat better. They limited maximum speed, so off road or on non-tarmac roads you would be slowed down. In Arma 3 the resistance forces on the wheels could be increased by a factor, depending on how rough or difficult the terrain is to bring this function back. It's of course not that immersive, but for authenticity and also gameplay i feel it's very important.

Mobility is a key trade for vehicles, but real terrain can significantly inhibit their mobility - in some cases even removing any mobility in certain areas for certain vehicles.

 

In future (New Engine, new arma, as this is unlikely to be in scope for this dlc anymore) i'd like to see offroad driving issues expanded significantly, because it is a very important aspect of vehicles in non-urban warfare. I'd love to see a Spintires-esque simulation, but it might not be practical for large scale multiplayer game. But even then there is room for improvement. If wheels would be allowed to sink into the ground slightly (visually and in simulation), semi-random bumps could be generated on the fly and act on the wheels, to simulate the micro-terrain that is not modelled into the map. Depending on the surface material the sinking and bumps could have different severety.  If particle effects to the wheels are added the simple sinking below ground would be masked and it would look much better.

 

I tested the friction changes but i couldnt really notice any change. It seems to depend much more on vehicle if you slide around much or not, rather than the surface you drive on. Offroad jeep can slide at high speed on gravel roads a bit in corners, SUV and that car thing barely slide - altough that may just be less noticeable because of how terrible their understeer is.

 

14 minutes ago, a_killer_wombat said:

I really don't think weakening the stamina system is the right answer.

At least half the public servers have it disabled because people apparently complain if they cant carry MG with christmas tree addons, missilelauncher, vest with maximum protection and the largest backpack available and sprint all day long without their aiming or speed beeing affected. Dumbing it down further seems pointless. Those people will disable it regardless.

 

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

@x3kj 

 

Fantastic ideas. Very many good observations and suggestions here. Like you said, there is almost no reason to use roads in ArmA besides two facts: Less likely to wreck on obstacles, and easier to navigate by looking at map.

 

I agree that the next simulation should feature a terrain softness parameter. Terrain softness determines how far a vehicle will "sink into" /clip through the terrain mesh based on a factor of vehicle weight and ground contact area.

 

A coarse, hypothetical example would be:

 

A truck with 6x wheels that weighs 5 tons, on muddy surface would sink 15 cm into the ground.

 

An ATV that weighs 500kg with 4 wheels on same surface would sink only 5 cm into the ground.

 

Then I guess you could have some kind of friction coefficient that comes into play. More weight, larger surface contact area = more friction = better traction etc...

 

ArmA 4, do you hear me?

[scotg 204]

4 hours ago, a_killer_wombat said:

 

After the Nexus update, infantry can now run at 14kph indefinitely even if they are carrying 40kg of kit... hardly "out-of-shape". Many players including myself were disappointed with the new stamina system changes after Nexus since it does very little to penalise poor fatigue and weight management. You think it needs to be even more forgiving? I strongly disagree.

 

I agree that it's bad that the best method for infantry moving with an armoured vehicle is for them to run alongside it rather than walking but I really don't think weakening the stamina system is the right answer.

No I don't want it to be more forgiving; I was simply not aware of the changes you mentioned. Any time I am spending with ARMA3, I am 80% of the time working on my models and textures, 20% promoting the mod through various channels or on the BIS forums getting/giving editing support. "Playing ARMA" is limited to play-testing my vehicles in the editor, and how the characters interact with them. I never get a chance to take the troops out for some PT.

 

The last time I actually played ARMA was shortly after it went full release, so I would have no idea the nexus update uber-fied their stamina. I did notice the idle animations for soldiers are still way too frequent. People, especially soldiers, are not so wriggling all the time. They're not statues, either, but... do they need to check their shoe for gum/mud/poop every minute? No. Anyway, that, to me, was an indication that there was likely no changes in the characters, but it's all a matter of my opinion based on how I prioritize things.

So to clarify: NO, don't make the soldiers have more stamina. I wasn't aware of changes; I was wrong. All is is good. I made a hasty statement based on outdated experiences. I'm sorry; please forgive me. No, don't shoot! WAIT!!!! <BLAM!> hrr-gr-kr-krk. blehhhhh. X_X

[zilfondel 11]

Ground vehicles really need analog throttle controls.  Why can we use joysticks and steam/Xbox controllers to fly jets and helicopters, but not ground vehicles?  This technology is about 25 years old by now.

[x3kj 1247]

24 minutes ago, zilfondel said:

, but not ground vehicles?

Have you even tried? This is possible since release of the game...

[oukej 2910]

On 1/5/2018 at 8:03 PM, x3kj said:

Where is the friction of the materials defined?

in cfgSurfaces, property surfaceFriction
There's also maxSpeedCoef property that multiplies the maxSpeed of vehicle traversing the surface (depending also on the vehicle's terrainCoef.)
 

On 1/5/2018 at 8:03 PM, x3kj said:

Threshold can be tweaked in vehicle config.  Problem is, that as very low speed the tire friction simulation appears to be inaccurate and inconcistent.

(Btw - even for towing in RL you'd want to have a driver in the towed vehicle...)

The brakeIdleSpeed currently only works for wheeled vehicles :/

[nkenny 1051]

I just want to add I that I completely agree with @x3kj's remarks.  I wouldn't mind a simplistic implementation. The tactical and strategic ramifications of off-road vs on road and wheeled vs tracked  vehicles is just too interesting to ignore.  Besides, what is the purpose of IEDs or planned ambushes if on road travel is pointless? 

 

-k 

[SuicideKing 233]

In Wargame, taking units off road, especially wheeled units, sometimes causes them to take some randomised penalty. This is stuff like "broken axle" or "wheels stuck in mud" or something like that. I wonder if such a thing could be applied to Arma? i.e. Wheeled vehicles taking minor damage to wheels/other hit points per x km while going off road? This would be in addition to speed penalties.

[Strike_NOR 898]

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

Wheeled vehicles taking minor damage to wheels/other hit points per x km while going off road? This would be in addition to speed penalties

 

I think thats a cool idea, but it is very hard to define this for all terrain since some offroad areas are perfectly flat (salt lake, beach, meadow) while others are rough (mountains, rubble, forests).

 

Also if one were to implement such features, it would have to vary the amount of damage taken based on at least the following parameters:

 

-Terrain roughness/type

-Wheel/track durability

-Vehicle speed

-Some randomizer so that the wheels/tracks do not wear 100% synchronized.

 

And proper documentation would be mandatory so players dont get super confused of course and litter the bugtracker

[SuicideKing 233]

All very valid points! I was thinking about the messaging of the nature of failure to the player as well. Beyond a hint of some sort, or changing colour of hit point...not sure how to convey it.

 

The terrain roughness thing is probably the hardest given the sheer variation involved. But maybe it would be good enough to limit this to the roughest types of terrain?

[zilfondel 11]

On 1/7/2018 at 2:05 PM, x3kj said:

Have you even tried? This is possible since release of the game...

 

Oh wow, I didn't realize that analog controls enabled actual analog control.  Interesting!

[x3kj 1247]

On 11.1.2018 at 6:54 AM, zilfondel said:

 

Oh wow, I didn't realize that analog controls enabled actual analog control.  Interesting!

It's not explicitly communicated, so people coming from other games could simply assume that it's similar to other games - where such a thing simply wouldn't work.

It would help if it is communicated in the controls setting menu if an input supports analog input, or if it's binary (0 or 1). There are other examples, like lean left/right for infantry.

[scotg 204]

Since we're talking about analog controls and this is a tank driving and handling thread... What are the odds we'll have the ability to control each track separately with dual-stick controllers (e.g.: Logitech F310/510/710 or Xbox/MS Controllers)?

[xxgetbuck123 945]

12 hours ago, scotg said:

Since we're talking about analog controls and this is a tank driving and handling thread... What are the odds we'll have the ability to control each track separately with dual-stick controllers (e.g.: Logitech F310/510/710 or Xbox/MS Controllers)?

 

Well controlling each track separately would just make you turn on the spot, so I dont see why you'd need to do that when you can just turn? 

[scotg 204]

49 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

Well controlling each track separately would just make you turn on the spot, so I dont see why you'd need to do that when you can just turn? 

Not if it's analog. Analog implies that the user has control of how much input to give, and it can be adjusted continuously. In other words, he/she can give 100% power to the left track with the left stick, give 80% power to the right track with the right stick, which would result in a forward movement at a slight right curve. 

 

Different combinations of left:right power ratios would give the driver more accurate style of control over the vehicle, hence better immersion - the reason why we invest in analog controllers. Tank driving and dual-sticks are almost a perfect match! It's a no-brainer, if you ask me.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 hour ago, scotg said:

Not if it's analog. Analog implies that the user has control of how much input to give, and it can be adjusted continuously. In other words, he/she can give 100% power to the left track with the left stick, give 80% power to the right track with the right stick, which would result in a forward movement at a slight right curve. 

 

I understand your point, but you can already do that can you not?

 

When turning just don't turn as sharply like you would a car? Its practically the same thing, without the controller input for each individual track

[scotg 204]

I don't think you can do that. With a car, forward/reverse and steering are usually perpendicular inputs to one another. Proposed tank input would mean parallel stick movement, thus imitating most real life tanks. Maybe I'm explaining it wrong, but the point is there could be introduced a distinction between how you control a car and how you control a tank, for the sake of adding that extra bit of immersion. 

 

It's not a hard concept to understand, and I'm confident that there would be far less effort required in making such a thing happen than there was in creating a realistic (read: unnecessarily complex) helicopter system. 

 

Your argument is like giving a player an M240B and saying, "only shoot one bullet at a time and just pretend it's a sniper rifle." Why make the user adjust to the game by asking him limit or alter his use of items and vehicles, when it would be better to include the item and/or its expected functionality?

[dragon01 902]

Note, this kind of control is not how all tanks are controlled. Modern designs use a steering yoke, more often than not. Dual-stick controls are mostly used on older Soviet tanks, up to T-90. Armata, for instance, has a yoke, as does the Abrams. I don't know about Merkava, but given the timeframe, it's highly likely that tanks in ArmA3 are all equipped with a yoke and steer a lot like cars.

[scotg 204]

22 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Note, this kind of control is not how all tanks are controlled. Modern designs use a steering yoke, more often than not. Dual-stick controls are mostly used on older Soviet tanks, up to T-90. Armata, for instance, has a yoke, as does the Abrams. I don't know about Merkava, but given the timeframe, it's highly likely that tanks in ArmA3 are all equipped with a yoke and steer a lot like cars.

This is a very good point, but you seem to be coming from the vanilla A3 perspective, whereas I am "speaking" as a mod'er. Many other mod'ers have era-specific tanks and other tracked vehicles that would be great to control simply by allowing this method. We're not stuck in 2035, just because that's the timeline of the game. Even in the current day tank tech, levers are more the norm - considering all dual-tracked vehicles, big and small. Users have an option for helicopter controls, and so should it be for tanks. Therefore, why not build it into the engine, let the mod developer decide if it should or should not be a lever tank, and let the user decide if he/she wants to use lever controls on available tanks? Too easy!

[dragon01 902]

It's nice, but BIS has limited programming resources allocated to A3. This would be a mod-only feature, so I think that at this point, it doesn't make sense for them to work on it.