Real TANKs in arma (internal views)

[Anunnaki 0]

Hi all, i am searching for some "real" tanks M1Ax, T-9x or T72 and maybe others. There is not needed special graphical model, but i need this:

a) all internal views from inside this vehicles, with functional periscopes or lcd displays, so player inside vehicles without view thru key "V" can drive or see something around/outside tank ? That was "normal" for old good OFP but in arma not. From "bugtrucker" they told us, that arma support that same way as OFP, only they dont have in arma finished internal views in their models.

b) there can be some special controls for GUNNER or COMMANDER in vehicle, like automatic targeting/locking targets and other functions, like are normaly in real tanks. I find this (NWD_TankFCS v0.2) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=69123

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Arma supports everything ofp supported and lots more. Internal LODs fot tanks were just not made to save some money for developers

Quote[/b] ]with functional periscopes or lcd displays, so player inside vehicles without view thru key "V" can drive or see something around/outside tank ?

i never saw ofp addon with such possibilities. Examples ? Periscopes can be done but without optics key you won't see much in in.

[Guest]

if you want to move something in arma while looking somewhere else just go buy you a natural point Track Ir ... (btw in driver position ... you can drive and see around (ok like in a real one ... but can look around)

[Pillage 0]

if you want to move something in arma while looking somewhere else just go buy you a natural point Track Ir

As a free alternative you can just press/hold Alt or as a ghetto alternative you could build/use FreeTrack (I did however read somewhere that this software uses portions of illegally reverse engineered TrackIr software) . Without testing I'd assume the performance of this tool would be far below TrackIr.

As for there being no internal models for ArmA tanks I'm not really happy about this and would have just preferred straight rips from OFP over nothing.

[opteryx 1562]

I see no practical purpose for internals unless there's functioning panels for adjusting ballistics, TIS, indexing, reticle, selectable view ports (GPS/GAS/unity sight) etc etc etc.

Look at the Stryker, it has internals, but they have no purpose and only waste valuable time to look at when you should be scanning for TGT's.

-edit-

is what we should have. (bear in mind he's using manual range entry)

[liljb15 0]

I see no practical purpose for internals unless there's functioning panels for adjusting ballistics, TIS, indexing, reticle, selectable view ports (GPS/GAS/unity sight) etc etc etc.

Look at the Stryker, it has internals, but they have no purpose and only waste valuable time to look at when you should be scanning for TGT's.

-edit-

is what we should have. (bear in mind he's using manual range entry)

There's also no reason to holster/safety your gun but it's still nice to have in the game.

[Guest]

Look at the Stryker, it has internals, but they have no purpose and only waste valuable time to look at when you should be scanning for TGT's.

lol ... when i bought arma, install/launched, put a m113 in the editor, launch the game, get in the m113, i saw the interior, even the gauges dont work ... i though ill take throw the game in my toilets ... not professional to sell this kinda stuff ... wip stuff ...

just check on the box ... use more than 30 vehicles ...

Quote[/b] ]As a free alternative

some are useful, but there technology is better, dont hold any key, just move your head

[max power 21]

As far as I know, this engine doesn't have render to texture support, so having working lcd screens (and magnified optics where you can actually look through the rifle scope, a la Ostfront) are not possible.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] this engine doesn't have render to texture support

I suggested this feature about 2 years ago and highlighted the use for various means like security monitors, onboard monitors, weapon cams, HUD displays, TV sets, etc, etc.

For me it´s a miracle why they haven´t implemented it.

The gameplay features would have been countless and the effect would have been very cool and usefull.

It would have even allowed the implementation of ingame video-briefings and sat uplinks within vehicles or on military laptops.

Sorry to say so, but BIS simply failed here.

[dab_burns 0]

yeah BIS failed alot with Arma but this is the wrong section of the forum to moan.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ] this engine doesn't have render to texture support

I suggested this feature about 2 years ago and highlighted the use for various means like security monitors, onboard monitors, weapon cams, HUD displays, TV sets, etc, etc.

For me it´s a miracle why they haven´t implemented it.

The gameplay features would have been countless and the effect would have been very cool and usefull.

It would have even allowed the implementation of ingame video-briefings and sat uplinks within vehicles or on military laptops.

Sorry to say so, but BIS simply failed here.

I don't think such a thing is a simple matter of plugging in the render to texture module.  Extensive redesign of their rendering algorythms may not have been within the scope of their project or resources for arma.  Everything takes time, and time is money.  So, I don't know what to tell you.  A good project design requires strict management of your resources and knowing their limits.  I'd imagine that if BIS could make a program that could do everything and run on any system, they would.

And this 'sorry to say so' rhetoric isn't effective. Nothing else in your post even leans towards you being sorry. Since it's hard to believe that you're actually sorry, that tact comes off as insincere and full of spite.

[Grinman 0]

Try the spanish mod M60s :>

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And this 'sorry to say so' rhetoric isn't effective. Nothing else in your post even leans towards you being sorry. Since it's hard to believe that you're actually sorry, that tact comes off as insincere and full of spite.

I´d suggest you come back to planet earth. Why should I be sorry for something BIS didn´t implement ?

I´d say you better pack your tongue elsewhere as I fail to see what you are relating to. Make up your stories, but not with me.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]And this 'sorry to say so' rhetoric isn't effective.  Nothing else in your post even leans towards you being sorry.  Since it's hard to believe that you're actually sorry, that tact comes off as insincere and full of spite.

I´d suggest you come back to planet earth. Why should I be sorry for something BIS didn´t implement ?

I´d say you better pack your tongue elsewhere as I fail to see what you are relating to. Make up your stories, but not with me.

You said, 'sorry to say so, but BIS simply failed here' or some iteration.  I said that feigning to be sorry to inform us of something that you're more than happy to say makes you sound like an ass.  Is that clearer?

[benreeper 0]

I have to agree with plaintiff1 on this. I sense a lot of hate and spite toward BIS because the game isn't everything.

If they could have done it, they would have done it; you don't know anything they don't know already. They created a game, you created a forum posting. I don't fully know your credentials Balschoiw but I do think that they know more about game programming than possibly you?

--Ben

[dk-vcb 31]

m8 if u really want tank reallism go an buy steel beast pro instead... remember arma isnt a tank sim its a game and of course bis couldnt/ rulled out implementing some stuff.

kind regards dk

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If they could have done it, they would have done it;

Of course I don´t know the reasons why they haven´t done it, but "Render to texture" is a Direct3D Option that can be implemented. I don´t know the Arma source but I made a realtime 3D project with Quest 3D and had no problems whatsoever to implement a "render to texture" feature for displaying videos on artifical monitors in a factory setup.

As Arma is using Direct3D I can´t see why it shouldn´t work here.

[Kristian 47]

m8 if u really want tank reallism go an buy steel beast pro instead... remember arma isnt a tank sim its a game and of course bis couldnt/ rulled out implementing some stuff.

kind regards dk

well OFP wasnt a tank sim too, but it still had the interiors, it is the fact that it makes each tank more unique and its own way beautiful, AND ralistic, arma is more lazierly done than OFP but still great game

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]If they could have done it, they would have done it;

Of course I don´t know the reasons why they haven´t done it, but "Render to texture" is a Direct3D Option that can be implemented. I don´t know the Arma source but I made a realtime 3D project with Quest 3D and had no problems whatsoever to implement a "render to texture" feature for displaying videos on artifical monitors in a factory setup.

As Arma is using Direct3D I can´t see why it shouldn´t work here.

Well, the fact that they cheated the front view monitor on the stryker to be a window rather that a RTT would hint at the fact that it's no easy feat to incorporate into their engine. I don't see the logic that it's easy in one engine therefore easy in them all, but maybe you can email Maruk and teach him a thing or two about programming. I say go for it.

[Balschoiw 0]

If you don´t see the logic, you know little about Direct3D programming and channelworks.

You´re playing advocate for something you don´t know as you don´t have the insight to Arma source, do you ?

For me it is not implemented because they scrapped it for time and money reasons. As for the other things missing aswell. Furthermore I´d suggest you tone down a bit. For you there is absolutely no reason to go rampant and offensive just because you do not agree with someone. If that is your favourite way of "debating" an issue you should better stay away from such discussions.

I am in no way attacking BIS so there is no need to by cynical or offensive. If you can´t debate issues in a grown-up manner, you better don´t post at all.

Missing tank interiors and working gauges are bad. I´m not even asking for extended features like working render to texture features. It would have been cool to have such, but not even having working interiors is simply lame.

[max power 21]

If you don´t see the logic, you know little about Direct3D programming and channelworks.

You´re playing advocate for something you don´t know as you don´t have the insight to Arma source, do you ?

For me it is not implemented because they scrapped it for time and money reasons. As for the other things missing aswell. Furthermore I´d suggest you tone down a bit. For you there is absolutely no reason to go rampant and offensive just because you do not agree with someone. If that is your favourite way of "debating" an issue you should better stay away from such discussions.

I am in no way attacking BIS so there is no need to by cynical or offensive. If you can´t debate issues in a grown-up manner, you better don´t post at all.

Missing tank interiors and working gauges are bad. I´m not even asking for extended features like working render to texture features. It would have been cool to have such, but not even having working interiors is simply lame.

I'm not sure what you mean by cynical and offensive, but we'll go with that.

I'll not really get into the tank interiors comments as it's not relevant to what we were talking about.

Your initial post said that RTT was a simple matter. I was merely calling that into question. You were saying that you had done it before on another engine with few problems. All I was saying is that maybe it's not so simple, as all of their HUDs and other indicators seems to be polygonal and / or alpha layering tricks and the engine you were working with may not be analogous to this current engine. I don't have the source and neither do you, but you have the burden of proof and I don't because I'm not making any claims.

edit: I suppose dxdll rendered reflections in ofp... but this begs questions regarding whether doing something outside of the engine means you can do something inside of it... and the reflections only require one active camera.. you're rendering the scene from one camera and flipping it upside down to apply it to the water. Rendering an external camera view onto your video screen would require two cameras.

[Heatseeker 0]

Addon and mod discussion... i believe requests should go here.

The missing interiors are not the only thing i dislike in Arma's MBT's and tracked vehicles... i find myself avoiding or using them only as stationary, pretty targets.

Their handling is bad, the a.i. themselves have trouble driving tracked class vehicles without demolishing walls, crashing into objects or running over their own men.

The car class is much better all around, unfortunetly there are no wheeled APC's for the OPFOR side (BTR's) .

[andersson 285]

The missing interiors are not the only thing i dislike in Arma's MBT's and tracked vehicles... i find myself avoiding or using them only as stationary, pretty targets.

Yes, I miss tankbattles. I need internals to enjoy it..

[BraTTy 0]

I miss the interiors too, that was what mainly distinguished OFP from other games that called themselves simulators.It just gives that extra feeling.

It is alot of work, but there is not as many vehicles in Arma compared to OFP

[max power 21]

I was reviewing the RTT situation a bit more, and was talking to a programmer friend of mine. He says that the biggest reason he can think of not to impliment RTT in a game like this is RTT is 'amazingly slow'. He called it somewhat of a 'pointless exercise in a game that big'.

Neither he nor I know how the game decides to render interior LODs, but it seems that it'll do it if you're close enough. Now, if this is always the case, if you were running between 2 vehicles with RTT monitors in them, you would be rendering the scene 3 times. If you in a convoy with such vehicles, everytime you got close to see into the interior, the game would slow to a crawl.