Modern Tank Combat

[Ukraineboy 0]

Ehhh It's a game not a full blown tank simulator.

Did you read my post? I specifically said that there are SOME things that can be taken from T72 Balkans on Fire, but other things are a bit too realistic. They need to merge them together to have awesome tank combat.

[martinovic 0]

Can someone please show me a link to the Balkans on fire game? or is it an OFP MOD? anyway, please give me a link to the MOD or the GAME

http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72/demo.html

A little tip: the tanks don't behave like in flashpoint at all, you have to carefully choose what gear you will drive in, or the tank will stop.

If you can read/speak russian then i have a 630 MB beta download for you: http://www.3dgamers.com/news/more/1095861662/

[Stuntman 0]

Thanks a lot!

[DaSquade 0]

Sorry i don't want to be rude or blow your dreams, but euh...wasn't it announced like half year ago BIS didn't allowed suggestions or take user input for ArmA (unless i mist something and BIS is willing to delay the package an othe year or 2?).

Anyway, my point, we all know the tank/heli part of OFP is arcade and it was never BIS plan to sim that out. AFAIK this won't be changed in ArmA, so feel free to put your suggestions and dreams in the 'Game2' section. Sorry to be rude again and don't misunderstand me, i'm all up for improvement, just don't hope on this for ArmA...

Quote[/b] ]Second

Group: Members

Posts: 29

Joined: June 2006

Posted: July 27 2006,10:15

From info what i've gathered of VBS, there is ballisticcomputer and laserrangefinder in tanks.

Euh, well can i ask you were you got that info or in what dream you might seen that, as my VBS still has the same (arcade) tank behavior as OFP. But it wouldn't be the first 'info' or 'conclusion' peolpe make of someting they don't have... .

My appoligies if i misunderstood you and for my behavior, but before we know it there is a new hoax (like:... VBS users have destructive buildings...it should be only normal we have it in ArmA...NOT! ).

[M9ACE 0]

Anyone who has played OFP with me for any amount of time knows that I am always up for a game of Anderson deathmatch or any adversarial/coop mission that features armor.

Wouldn't mind an optional manual gear shift for all vehicles, to be honest. I don't mind playing multiplayer with manual shift while others used autoshift either. Having an easy switch like most racing games has wouldn't be totally off either.

Being dedicated driver is a bit boring in slow vehicles, like a tank or a truck, so manual gear shift might add an extra dimension that might be fun to manage. I wouldn't force it on everyone though.

Only as long as vehicles that are automatic in real life are automatic in game.  In other words, I do not want to see vehicles that are automatic in real life (i.e. M1 series, US M900 series trucks, etc.) have a “manual mode†just for the sake of “balanceâ€.  I love driving armored vehicles in OFP, even if it happens to be one of the slower ones.

I agree with tankieboy as I to am happy with the reload system as it is now in OFP.  I to would like to see LRFs (laser range finders) and thermal sights implemented in Armed Assault.  Perhaps this could be accomplished by creating an additional LOD for all objects called the “temperature LOD†that would be visible only when the vehicle you are in has the appropriate equipment present.  It would be great to have thermal sights that can allow you to view objects through some types of smoke.  However, something like this might be a way to cheat in a multiplayer environment if not carefully implemented.

[Pierrot 0]

@ July 29 2006,01:24)]I agree with tankieboy as I to am happy with the reload system as it is now in OFP.  I to would like to see LRFs (laser range finders) and thermal sights implemented in Armed Assault.  Perhaps this could be accomplished by creating an additional LOD for all objects called the “temperature LOD†that would be visible only when the vehicle you are in has the appropriate equipment present.  It would be great to have thermal sights that can allow you to view objects through some types of smoke.  However, something like this might be a way to cheat in a multiplayer environment if not carefully implemented.

The temperature of a vehicle depends on whether its engine is on or off. Moreover the temperature varies not discretely but continuously. Like this ->

[j w 0]

Yeah, and the same system for anti-air missiles (or simply just AAmgs).

Thouhg, a stealth may give away much less heat, and also no visibilty on radar (about a seagulls radarprofile), so that must be taken into count to...

[GBee 0]

Passive IR is unlikely in Armed Assault and even if it is included it's likely to be very basic in implementation.

More likely, or certainly easier to code/create, is active IR using IR searchlights (e.g. on T72). This would work in a very similar way to the NV in OFP, only the resulting image would be grey and a new class of light would need to be added (invisible to those without the proper equipment).

[max power 21]

Well, passive ir would only really require a seperate texture for all things with an infrared signature. Aliens vs. Predator didn't look amazing with its thermograph but it was a passable attempt, especially at long ranges. I'm sure you could even code fancy effects like having a 'heatmap' to be translated into some kind of pixel shader effect. You could even make some use of the HDR algorythms for how explosions look in IR.. and instead of cleanly decreasing the brightness of the darker regions of the screen, you could pass it through a dissolve filter to make that grainy noise like transition to dark. I don't think it would be that hard to do functionally. Having it look like/behave like actual IR is another story, but it would certainly be a lot more useful than the current NV filter. Apparently, american tank crews consider the day sights as a secondary back up, and use the IR sight to the exclusion of other sighting methods.

[tankieboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently, american tank crews consider the day sights as a secondary back up, and use the IR sight to the exclusion of other sighting methods.

I preferred using thermal for scanning and to engage targets in Chief, CR1 and CR2 whilst gunning.

Quote[/b] ]The temperature of a vehicle depends on whether its engine is on or off. Moreover the temperature varies not discretely but continuously. Like this ->

Do not forget that people also have a heat signature.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently, american tank crews consider the day sights as a secondary back up, and use the IR sight to the exclusion of other sighting methods.

I preferred using thermal for scanning and to engage targets in Chief, CR1 and CR2 whilst gunning.

Striaght from the horse's mouth The other information I presented was given to me by an infantry Major.

What is CR, btw?

Quote[/b] ]

The temperature of a vehicle depends on whether its engine is on or off. Moreover the temperature varies not discretely but continuously. Like this ->

Animated texture support would be useful for this. I'm sure if ofp has this or not.

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]What is CR, btw?

Challenger 1 and 2 Main Battle Tanks? I'm guessing CR is just the designation and doesn't stand for anything.

[tankieboy 0]

Bingo, oh and plaintiff1 leave my teeth out of it

[max power 21]

Oh, I see. I thought CR1 and CR2 were sighting modes.. like you preferred using IR for scanning but CR1 and CR2 for gunning.

[M9ACE 0]

The temperature of a vehicle depends on whether its engine is on or off. Moreover the temperature varies not discretely but continuously. Like this ->

Yes I understand that, but for the sake of implementation in game maybe it could be simplified.  Even if a vehicle is static for a year, it still can be detected due to different rates of cooling of assorted vehicle parts as compared to the surrounding terrain-assuming that additional measures are not taken to cover the vehicle up.

[Second 0]

Euh, well can i ask you were you got that info or in what dream you might seen that, as my VBS still has the same (arcade) tank behavior as OFP. But it wouldn't be the first 'info' or 'conclusion' peolpe make of someting they don't have... .

My appoligies if i misunderstood you and for my behavior, but before we know it there is a new hoax (like:... VBS users have destructive buildings...it should be only normal we have it in ArmA...NOT! ).

SO they don't have... I had this info from VBS's homepage:

"VBS1 allows armored vehicle gunners to turn the turret by joystick and lase a target to resolve a firing solution (which then aims the weapon as appropriate). Commanders can also override the gunner with a joystick."

If this isn't ballisticcomputer then i'm wrong, as english isn't my motherlanguage and i'm not much intrested to get to know of tankers job, mainly only to kill the tanker.

My idea was that if this feature would be in VBS then it should be easy to import to ArmA, IF THAT IS WHAT BIS WANTS. Appoligies granted

[j w 0]

nvm, me -> stupid

[mattxr 9]

Infared Googles would be nice   for inf/air/amoured

[martinovic 0]

Well if the elctronics are on the level of OFP then i won't be driving tanks too much. But BIS is already having a lot on their hands so maybe they just don't have the time to implement this stuff.

[EiZei 0]

At least the version featured at E3 had WW2 style tank operation.

[bravo 6 0]

some said tanks could not be up side down so easy..

.. is it easy to explain this?

pic (177.64 KB )

pic (107.05 KB)

pic (250.14 KB)

Maybe we could see more realistic things in ARMA about tanks..

[westy159 0]

Wow. Never thought I would see pictures of tanks weighing several tonnes each completely upside down. Nice find.

But yes, as great as Operation Flashpoint is, there are some aspects that are far from realistic. This can be a good thing however if it means much better gameplay.

[tankieboy 0]

Pic 2 I know someone died. Canada (BATUS) British Army CR2.

Lets atleast hope the code is there for the community to mod our wishes.

[Ukraineboy 0]

some said tanks could not be up side down so easy..

.. is it easy to explain this?

pic (177.64 KB )

pic (107.05 KB)

pic (250.14 KB)

Maybe we could see more realistic things in ARMA about tanks..

Actually yeah, try playing T-72 Balkans on Fire and drive around on bumpy terrain at 40km/h. Or ride into a ditch and turn, you'll flip.

[funnyguy1 0]

Played the demo of T72 Balkans on Fire demo, and I must admit that the driving part is nice and much better than in ofp, you have the feeling that you`re driving a tank not just a very heavy car, the same goes to the above mentioned jumps over some bumpy terrain, looks really like a couple of tones just jumped and fel down, although I`ve manage to perform a nice ofp physics-like manoeuvre durring a t-55 downhill, so It`s not perfect.

Of course other "parts" of the game are worst than SB.

The driving, however is nice because the terrain is modelled to fit the needs of realistic tank driving. In ofp roads aren`t elevated, there`s no holes in the ground, no trenches and other stuff that would make the tank ride less borring. Of course the terrain at high detail is nice, but you still got the feeling that It`s a random thing.

I`ve suggested a couple of times that the details levels of terrain should be created precisely, not just...be.

Another thing are swamps, or mud that would immobilize your tak/vehicle durring a careless ride.