STRYKER driver view

[orson 0]

@ pong2cs

this pic here

is this a moded version .. or am i to understand that its the finished version as seen in game ?

anyone else see a missing texture ?

[frederf 0]

I don't know why BIS designed the "turn out" option to have a fully open hatch. We NEVER NEVER drive with the hatch completely open. When we are driving the hatch is usually only open to about 15%. There is actually a locking bar to lock the hatch to that position. We even call that the "travel position". As for driving DVE, we usually only use soley the DVE when we are driving with the hatches closed at night, during the day it is easier and much more practical to use the periscopes. C Trp 1-2 Stryker Cavalry Regiment.

Haha, this is why military games need military advisors.

[Beagle 684]

Same here...!

I had been assigned as Radio Operator in the M113 TOC.

Tried the Drivers position out of couriosity some times.

The pericopes provide a quite good view in the front Quarter, and are the primary tool for the Driver.

Same in the "Luchs" Armored Recon vehicle, which is much more similar in it's layout to the Stryker.

[tonik_tzw 0]

So what was the outcome of the original question on this thread? Ive tried iron sights button (still no perisope view) and also zoom option (but the screen view is terrible).

Even trying to get around in 3rd person view, the camera is set so low that you cant really see anything either.

All I can say is yay, big island but f**k me, what the hell of an abortion have BIS dropped into my CD drive??

I'm sorely disappointed in this game so far

[Taurus 20]

I'm sorely disappointed in this game so far

Some vehicles are just bugged.

I guess you've found out what was causing all this.

"optics" doesn't work if you have them bound to the mouse in vehicles

However if you have them bound to a key like O or the like it works.

[Col.Flanders 0]

"optics" doesn't work if you have them bound to the mouse in vehicles  

However if you have them bound to a key like O or the like it works.

hang on a second...

I'm not sure I understand the problem at all here. I'm using 1.05 and my optics are bound to the mouse and work perfectly in vehicles. I use the mouse3 button (button on the mousewheel)

When you get into the driver's seat you get :

When you press optics you get:

When you turn out you get:

With optics and 'turn out' I can see perfectly well where I'm going. Granted, you have no peripheral view when in optics mode but when you're turned out, just use freelook or TrackIR , and Bob's your muvva's bruvva.

[frederf 0]

Problems with the default BIS Stryker

Driver station

TV camera view in the real Stryker has 130 degree FOV. The one in game? 45 deg.

Hatch opens all the way in ArmA. In real life people only open it a little bit. Oh and the thing in your vision when you turn out as driver shouldn't be there. It's a pop up IR view port or something. Normally it's down in the flush position.

Periscopes Missing from ArmA entirely.

Vehicle commander station

Weapon not zoomable unlike real life which provides 30x (thirty!!!! magnification.

Weapon ammo is too low. A real Stryker carries 2000 rounds .50 cal (not the piddling 500 in game) or 430 rounds Mk19 (not the 240 in game) of LINKED ammunition. No reloads.

Smoke launchers are fitted to the real Stryker but are very absent in game.

General vehicle data

Hull armor is too little in game compares to real life. It's not invincible in real life but it's slightly more survivable than in game.

Wheel armor is far more resilient to small arms fire in real life than in game. In ArmA you can immobilize a Stryker with 1 mag of Ak74 ammo

Passenger hatch-ramp doesn't open/close in game like real life. Not a detriment just a missing feature.

======================

Give ArmA players a Stryker with the above improvements and watch it go from zero to hero. The real thing has superb crew and passenger survivability even if not super-resistant to being disabled. A satchel going off 10m away from this thing should only injure the passengers at worst. Stand off weapons capability as infantry support would be very greatly desired.

[xnodunitx 0]

Yeah but that would upset the balance of the game. Sounds more like a community project, in honesty I prefer more realistic vehicles, however there are some that prefer balance.

I think BIS was trying to cater to them and us at the same time but not necessarily in the same area's, similar to why the M1A1 has only one machine gun ontop, balance purposes as the T-72 has only one as well.

That said, to be with the topic, I'm not exactly too sure what's wrong with the stryker's driver object in terms of visual, it takes alittle bit of practice sure but once you get the hang of it it's easy.

[Heatseeker 0]

I have no problems with the stryker, its not perfect but consider all the other vehicles too... most dont even have interiors!

The stryker and M113 are ok visibility wise, much better than the tanks, the BMP or the shilka.

Before asking for a high realistic stryker i would consider bringing the other vehicles a little more up to standard...

[xnodunitx 0]

Yeah..I really miss vehicle interiors, people say they aren't helpful but they are more then they think. A bit off topic but this might be a little interesting.

For the heck of it I was reading on the biki and noticed something titled

Description: Forces the gunner to use optics while turned in.

gunnerForceOptics=1;

In the Turret Config, then in the CfgVehicles Config Reference I spotted a similar

driverForceOptics = true;

Somebody experienced with this kind of thing may want to check it out, I trid tinkering with it last night but somehow I managed to cause OPFOR to lose most of their vehicles, all they have in terms of armor was the BRDM and SA-9.

[Heatseeker 0]

Well, thats how it works with vehicles that dont have interiors, they force you with the optics .

Its bad if you like to play in full vet mode with 3rd person off...

The M113 is ok, atleast you have good visibility in the driver seat.

If you look at the OPF M1 interior you might see where im getting at...

[frederf 0]

Yeah but that would upset the balance of the game. Sounds more like a community project, in honesty I prefer more realistic vehicles, however there are some that prefer balance.

I think BIS was trying to cater to them and us at the same time but not necessarily in the same area's, similar to why the M1A1 has only one machine gun ontop, balance purposes as the T-72 has only one as well.

That said, to be with the topic, I'm not exactly too sure what's wrong with the stryker's driver object in terms of visual, it takes alittle bit of practice sure but once you get the hang of it it's easy.

It's balanced right now? Strykers fit in the game's rich layered tiarramissou or are they avoided useless items?

The reason the M1A1 has only one MG on top isn't for balance, it's because that would require turrets on turrets that don't share an axis. That's a VBS feature that is lacking in ArmA.

I could understand capping the zoom to avoid raping dumb AI in the distance but the rest isn't drastic in terms of balance.

[rgndrock 0]

As a driver in a RL Stryker unit, I have to tell you the vehicle is almost spot on.  That was ultimately drew me to Arma.  Every gauge in the cockpit...every display.  The only things missing is our "sensitive" equipment.  When you are turned out, it is how it looks to drive the vehicle with head out the hatch.  The only flaw I have seen in the vehicle, is a rendering flaw of a small piece of equipment, that is actually how it used to look until the soldiers requested a modification.  That is that thing in the field of view when turned out.  It is not pop up like mentioned but now it is located in another location for the same reason you see in game.  As to the turn out hatch flaw someone referenced before, he is partially mistaken.  The hatch actually opens to multiple positions in RL.  It is driver/secutiry preference as to where you are set.  The game can't implement all settings, so they took the highest and the lowest.  Yes, periscopes aren't there, but having driven with them, they would only make things worse.  I don't think I have seen a game use for them yet.  As far as the gunner station stuff, there is no magic number as to how much a vehicle carries for ammo.  Yes, 500 does seem low.  The zoom is kinda off as is the rotation but I can see how these features if put into the game could imbalance.  The weapon system is sick in RL and killing people at 2000 meters would be imbalancing.

As far as RL usefullness, don't question the vehicles mobility or power.  There is a reason why the Army is standing up one of these units after the other.  It is currently one of the fastest pieces of armor in the world and has about a dozen of designs including the MGS as someone mentioned before, which is the "Tank" version of it, which stands as a testament to it's versatility.  You only see 3 of them in Arma so far.  I won't get to deep into specifics as I think there is already enough out there on the net and I don't feel it is in my units best interest to be giving details.

As far as in-game implementation, I think people just don't get how use them.  They are not tanks.  When used as infantry support in the city areas they can be devastaing.  This is, after all, their primary function in RL.  I think biggest the thing that makes them weak in-game, is the fact that everyone in the game that isn't carrying a saw is carrying some sort of anti-tank.  For all the crying I see about the amount sniper rifles nobody takes issue with unlimited RPG/AT4/Javelins.  Granted our enemy today has a strange ability for being able to "find" explosives this amount of anti-tank is a sort of imbalance.  Depending on the modder I am sure maps will be released down the road that will showcase the vehicle, if nobody has made one yet. I for one would love to see the mortar variant added to the game.

more pics and vids of my beloved vehicle can be seen here:http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_serv/combat/Stryker/strykergraphics-new.htm

[-Puma- 2]

Yeah but that would upset the balance of the game. Sounds more like a community project, in honesty I prefer more realistic vehicles, however there are some that prefer balance.

I think BIS was trying to cater to them and us at the same time but not necessarily in the same area's, similar to why the M1A1 has only one machine gun ontop, balance purposes as the T-72 has only one as well.

That said, to be with the topic, I'm not exactly too sure what's wrong with the stryker's driver object in terms of visual, it takes alittle bit of practice sure but once you get the hang of it it's easy.

It's balanced right now? Strykers fit in the game's rich layered tiarramissou or are they avoided useless items?

The reason the M1A1 has only one MG on top isn't for balance, it's because that would require turrets on turrets that don't share an axis. That's a VBS feature that is lacking in ArmA.

I could understand capping the zoom to avoid raping dumb AI in the distance but the rest isn't drastic in terms of balance.

don't abrams have 2 mg's?? 1 along with the turret, and 1 on top for the commander??

[frederf 0]

I think he meant 2 MGs other than the coaxial.

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

@Puma

M1A2 Abrams (big)

The Commander has his M2 Browning, the Gunner has a M249 I think.

[4 IN 1 0]

seems more like an A1HA to me

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

dunno. I'm not such an expert

That is what I found on M1A2 on google Pictures.

anyway, it shows the Commander and Gunner MGs

[4 IN 1 0]

well with the OFP/ArmA system adding a loader seems more or less usless, all they are doing is to sit there, load the gun(dont even need to as it is "auto loaded"), and man the M240B, which only when he is turn out.

BTW

[slick_j_2002 0]

I know you've already got some pictures, but here are a couple more that I took during training. The comments about driving with the hatch at 15 degrees or using the periscopes are correct.

Images removed

The other problems I've found with the ArmA Stryker are:

- WAY too easy to disable or destroy.

- Vehicle commander/gunner position seems dumbed down.

- Feels way too light on bumps and such. I've gone 40 mph over heavy bumps in a real Stryker and you can't even tell the ground is uneven.

- C130 Trans?

- Troops should be able to pop out the back hatches or squad leader hatch on IEV. Technically, that's extra firepower you'd have. Especially with a 240B on the back and some sandbags.

[maddogx 13]

EDIT

[slick_j_2002 0]

Roger that. My mistake.

[opteryx 1562]

Quote[/b] ]Vehicle commander/gunner position seems dumbed down.

AGREED! I want armor to equally complex as SteelBeasts in ArmA, but I doubt I'll ever be seeing that

[rgndrock 0]

http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_serv/combat/Stryker/Stryker%20Offloading%20From%20C-130.jpg

Once, again the comment about only 15 deg on the Stryker hatch is flat out wrong.  I live this vehicle.  Haven't just seen it once or rode in it once.  For the love of god, look at my sig.  Here is a pic of the hatch while being unloaded set at about 30-45 deg.  Forgive me, but you have to copy  and paste the link , I am not a forum pro.  Notice the verticle green bar that is just to the right of the drivers head.  It has multiple notches for multiple settings and a locking mechanism so it don't slam your head by falling.  Notice that the driver is out almost to his shoulders.  It all depends on safety, security and preference.  The drivers seat actually raises on a piston to comfortably fit your size as well. That is why in some pics you see just a head but in others your see more.

Here is a sweet vid link featuring 3rd Bde SBCT, the unit I was with prior to coming to 5th.  http://www.gdls.com/images/stryker.mpg

But yes you can actually lay down in one and take a nap because of the air ride.

It would be nice if the sentry hatches did open though, like you said.

[xnodunitx 0]

dunno. I'm not such an expert

That is what I found on M1A2 on google Pictures.

anyway, it shows the Commander and Gunner MGs

Many people don't really pay attention to study some of the details that differentiate certain tanks of the same kind, even if the differences are most obvious, most common are Abrams and Apache's.

That image is an M1A1

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9705/Montgomery-9705.intro.lg.gif This is an M1A2.

also that is the loaders MG, not the gunner, the gunner sits infront of the commander while the loader sits beside the commander, so basicly the gunner doesn't have their own hatch to turn out of, but adding a loader into the game would be a death wish.

Anyway, back to the topic, I too would like to see more realistic vehicles but again, done for the sake of balance for what they could get, although its rather strange to me because the SLA has the BMP-2 which can carry soldiers, has a explosive rounds and an AT missile whereas the US forces have to choose between TOW,MK19 or 50cal, Ah well.

Perhaps future community addons will add more realistic aspects.