[Petition] Tank Interiors

[mr.g-c 6]

Petition to BIS to bring back working Tank-interiors into Arma2.

I remember from the footages of the GC '08, as Maruk said that there will be no Tank Interiors in Arma2 like they were in OFP1    

I personally think that is some sort of "wrong decision".

In OFP1 this was such an awesome immersion-bringer - you really felt like be in one of that beasts... it was simply AWESOME!

I don't know anyone who not loved that feeling inside a M1 Tank...

In Arma1 they were missing on most MBT and killed for many many people the "big Tank feeling" - but OK most guys in the communities around BIS games thought, that it has been discarded like many other things for Arma1....

However, basically everyone i know of was somehow convinced that they will come back for the full product (Arma2) - well at least until Maruk said they won't be in Arma2.....

For everyone not familiar with OFP1 Tank Interiors (ie. not played OFP1) - watch that footage from OFP1 in M1A2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridctOCD1iA

Not to try to teach you or such, but:

No one demands them in some "Ultra-Killer-Detail" Quality...

You could for instance use the OFP1 Interiors and just upgrade the Models a little bit, make some better textures with some simple shading and its good to go IMHO.

Also you had Interiors in M113/BMP2 Already in Arma - and they looked+felt very good IMHO...

When time is critical for final Product, then maybe you could deliver them through patches/expansion packages as some surprise?

I really hope many people will sign it and that BIS will change their minds on that issue.

Arma2 with its beautiful landscapes, models, houses, trees, whatever - and NO MBT tank interiors??? Please not....

Thank you for signing that petition and if you are from BIS, thank you for reading (and maybe considering) this.

Best Regards, Christian

[Mr_Tea 0]

There have to be interiors for armored vehicles, not photo realistic but more than only weapon optics that you are glued to once inside an tank.

It should not be that much work, nor did it has to be. The interiors could be further improved by modding ArmA2, but there has to be a base to build upon.

[raedor 8]

Haha, sure, and when there are the interiors, but there's a bolt painted in the wrong colour, there will be x posts "Arma wants to be realistic? Why does this bolt have the wrong color? Why didn't they do it the correct way?"

There's no "half way". Either they add them completely, as realistic as possible and in the quality of the rest of the game or they go without.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ] there will be x posts "Arma wants to be realistic? Why does this bolt have the wrong color? Why didn't they do it the correct way?"

Thats not true raedor!

Was there any post about that during OFP1 times???

Was there any post about that during time were Arma1 was released until now?

I can't remember of a single one - and i read here + in many german forums very very frequently (multiple times every day starting at 2002).

Furthermore as soon as the Mlods + Tools get released for Arma2 (and if Arma2 will be successful like OFP1 was - ie attracting many "modders"), the Modders will "correct" stuff that wasn't 100% correct if they feel the need to.

I think others would rather agree with

"Better some average Tank interiors than none at all" - rest can modders fix when tools get released.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Id have to agree with raedor. Either all the way or no way. Besides the interiors were removed for a reson. They do not justify the time and effort spent making them. They are cumbersome (as you have to model in inverted space) and take as much time as the primary exterior lod to do (sometimes more as the detail is up close. And for the purpose of gameplay they are completely useless as a gunner u will spend 99.9% of time looking through the sights. So unless you have cargo I say scrap it.

[dslyecxi 23]

Do you honestly think that at this point, with A2 supposedly having a Q1 2009 release date, a(nother) petition like what you just made is worth anything at all?

[MrCapone 0]

Also, when a tank fires; you should see the recoil of the main gun inside and, outside of course (which wasn't so in an ArmA 2 vehicles video). And you should see that it is reloading after that for a new shot.

Here's a link to a firing tank (pretty useless but..)

M1A2 Firing

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]Id have to agree with raedor. Either all the way or no way

Then all the way of course  

Quote[/b] ]Besides the interiors were removed for a reson

Which was a lack of time to make the cash-cow Arma1 ready

Quote[/b] ]They do not justify the time and effort spent making them

They did it in OFP1 and it was worth it - 100%. Was a very nice extension to the "Infantry Simulator" OFP1.

Quote[/b] ] They are cumbersome (as you have to model in inverted space) and take as much time as the primary exterior lod to do (sometimes more as the detail is up close

You can do most detail with Textures and texture shading.

I even say the OFP1 Interiors are sufficient enough if some higher quality textures are applied + some basic shading.

Quote[/b] ]And for the purpose of gameplay they are completely useless as a gunner u will spend 99.9% of time looking through the sights

Thats where my experience differs from yours. In OFP1 (i still have it on disk and play it occasionally) i tend to only look through the sights when my commaned/group member mention the first enemy.

Before i normally enjoy those great interiors and whine as i see we don't have them in Arma1.

Also as Commander its a simply awesome feeling experience, when you look around inside the tank.

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly think that at this point, with A2 supposedly having a Q1 2009 release date, a(nother) petition like what you just made is worth anything at all?

Yes i think so and i would never give up.

Also there is plenty of time during later patches and possible expansion packages - at least thats how it was since OFP1.

I won't care that much if they were not in the initial Arma2, *IF* BIS would confirm that there might be the chance to see that at ANY later point.

But if they won't, then its another awesome feature BIS' product will lack, and Codemasters OFP2 will provide - which is very sad in my opinion.

So i cross my fingers still.

[froggyluv 2136]

But if they won't, then its another awesome feature BIS' product will lack, and Codemasters OFP2 will provide - which is very sad in my opinion.

Meh, it would be nice but it's pretty low on my priority list of must-have features.

How do you know exactly what OFP2 will provide? Right now their forum feels like a black hole of speculation and zero information.

[dm 9]

Furthermore as soon as the Mlods + Tools get released for Arma2 (and if Arma2 will be successful like OFP1 was - ie attracting many "modders"), the Modders will "correct" stuff that wasn't 100% correct if they feel the need to.

Why havent they done it for arma then? Theres nothing preventing interiors now, just gunner/driverForceOptics = true in the configs...

[Commando84 0]

It would be nice to have but with the large number of vehicles available i can't see how they could make it during the time left if they are going for a Q1 release...

You have to consider texture and polygon budgets also, maybe why they didn't include the insides?

[Mr_Tea 0]

Are there no tank interiors in VBS?

Build in that and all is OK.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]How do you know exactly what OFP2 will provide?

Well thats because they said it. 100% like in real-life 100% working every single door/hatches whatever.

Quote[/b] ]Why havent they done it for arma then? Theres nothing preventing interiors now, just gunner/driverForceOptics = true in the configs...

Well, because of some reasons i would assume:

- Modding community is maybe 1/10 or less from the size it was at OFP1 "peak times".

- Time Arma1 is/was played until successor comes, is just ~2 years and many remaining modders rather want to wait for Arma2.

- Modders want to have a "template" for complex things like interiors

- As i said with "correct things", i rather was referring to readors post with the "bolt painted in the wrong color" - so just "fixing" minor unrealistic issues if anyway.

Quote[/b] ]It would be nice to have but with the large number of vehicles available i can't see how they could make it during the time left if they are going for a Q1 release...

Actually its only about the MBTs (Main-Battle-Tanks), since we already had in Arma1 fully/complete working interiors for M113/BMP2/Strykers/etc.

I tend to believe that this will be the same in Arma2 - so its only about some M1, T80, T90, T72, *whatever_other_MBT*

Quote[/b] ]Are there no tank interiors in VBS?

In VBS1 AFAIK yes, in VBS2 - i don't know...

Regards, Christian

[jakerod 254]

In OFP1 (i still have it on disk and play it occasionally) i tend to only look through the sights when my commaned/group member mention the first enemy.

I hope I never have to ride in a tank with you in real life. If I do you get to drive and i'll gun.

I am going to go with no on this one. It is a cool feeling to have but I don't think there is time left and if there is I would rather have more vehicles or more missions or something.

[W0lle 1052]

Quote[/b] ]How do you know exactly what OFP2 will provide?

Well thats because they said it. 100% like in real-life 100% working every single door/hatches whatever.

Codemasters marketing says much if only the day is long enough. Once OFP2 is out we will see how much of the stuff the announced will really be in and what has been scrapped.

In VBS1 AFAIK yes, in VBS2 - i don't know...

Most tanks/APCs have also no interiors. And now guess what? None of the customers is complaining about this fact.

Overall, like raedor said earlier this petition is useless in this late stage of ArmA2 development.

[NoRailgunner 0]

How many time do you really spend watching at interior-eyecandy during combat?

I would say bring back/open those little periscopes for a quick overview on all crew positions. At least BIS hopefully equip all commander's stations on tanks with six periscopes, providing a 360° view.

[vilas 477]

yes and no:

> there is very hard to get info about interior of vehicle, BIS has not all military vehicles unit/base pass to go there and say to army "hey i wanna see military secret"

many of you are in the US/Canada, you may not understand European "military secret" politics, when i wanted to make photo of AK in base i had to write many letters and in the last i get "no" so to make my OFP AK i had to go to uncle in Police

imagine guy from BIS is going to Russia "hey i wanna take photo of BMP3" or to America "hey i wanna look inside your newest Abrams"

> interiors are off course fun, big fun, i loved OFP more than other games ever made (even more than RTCW)

but...

BIS have other things to do/implement and eye-candy is time-lost

they would spend few weeks on something you will not have time to look in battle

when you are infantryman in mission interior is not visible

i think making this would be lost of time now, if BIS have perfect engine and outside models, than let they look on inside

but time is money , remember about it

[Serclaes 0]

The tank interior wasn't an "immersion bringer" in my opinion. In fact it was a step more which had to be done in order to operate the tank.

Keeping it the way it is now is excellent. Interior where there is somebody with no periscope (as in a Stryker) an no interior where none is needed.

Interiors are unncessary frame waste. I'd rather have some more details on the vehicles. That doesnt mean more detailed armour but some bags, armour plates etc.

Of course, seeing that there is a loaders station now which doesnt have optics in most tanks, i guess there will be interiors despite your insupportable nagging.

[raedor 8]

Interiors are unncessary frame waste. I'd rather have some more details on the vehicles. That doesnt mean more detailed armour but some bags, armour plates etc.

Usually interior and exterior are two different LODs, so when you're outside the tank the interior won't lag you and vv.

[Daniel 0]

Regardless of time and money constraints, I miss tank interiors and thought they added a lot of immersion in OFP.

If a situation means that you're expected to sit in a tank for an entire op, it's gets annoying only being able to look through the optics. Even lower detail space adds immersion. Plus you can then visibly see if fellow crew get killed/injured, and textures could switch to show cracked screens/scorch marks when hit.

Shouldn't be difficult in a 2009 game - whether BIS choose to include it is up to them and I don't contend their decision.

But i've always liked the way BIS went the extra mile in some little areas of OFP and would love to see them do so again in ArmA II.

[andersson 285]

I would love to see them back as they were very immersive for me. I havent used MBTs in arma as I dont like to be glued to the optics. I really miss tank-battles. As I most often played as commander in OFP I made good use of the optic-prisms, they made me more aware of the surroundings. In arma I have to scan all the time with the optics. It was also easy to see if the gunner/yourself is hurt from the bloodtextures.

I have read BIS replies and I can understand that they took that decision because of time and effort. I do hope they will add them in a patch for arma 2 as it feels like a leftover from Xbox. Arma 2 seems to be so thought through and BIS are always taking that extra step to make it special. I dont understand their approach on this..

[Serclaes 0]

Interiors are unncessary frame waste. I'd rather have some more details on the vehicles. That doesnt mean more detailed armour but some bags, armour plates etc.

Usually interior and exterior are two different LODs, so when you're outside the tank the interior won't lag you and vv.

Oh forgot about that. I stand corrected.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think its obvious.. ofcourse the armored vehicles need interiors!

Cars have interiors, helicopters have interiors, planes have interiors, boats have interiors, ffs even some buildings have interiors, if 1 vehicle class has interiors the other classes should have them too, why have double standards now if they didnt in the past?

Inside an armored vehicle your visibility isnt limited to a weapon sight, you have several hatches or ports or whatever they are called in english, even the driver.

Operating an armored vehicle in Arma with 3rd person disabled is horrible, in OPF it was alright.

About the extra "work" and large amount of vehicles.. whats the point in having a bunch of nice looking armored models if they are all the same boring junk? Photography?

Give me less models then, but give me detail, features, functionality, interactivity, something worth using and not just staring or shooting rockets at.

And they might delay the release date, who knows..

  .

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]I hope I never have to ride in a tank with you in real life. If I do you get to drive and i'll gun.

Well trust me, if you play with me, there is no "3rd Person Kindergarten stuff" as well as no Crosshair... i hope you re-think that decision as its a pain in the ass with forced optics on Armas MBTs when you try to play "realistic" without "cheaters" 3rd Person View.

Quote[/b] ]Codemasters marketing says much if only the day is long enough. Once OFP2 is out we will see how much of the stuff the announced will really be in and what has been scrapped.

No, they said it (it wasn't their "marketing", rather the lead designer/programmer) because they will do it.

They will go with ultra realism for OFP2, non lame-balancing/whatever stuff unlike BIS did it everytime, you will even have to put together single parts of a Javelin launcher to make it ready... simply everything like its in the real world (in a simplified way of course).

Trust me, they would do care about "a bad press" if such "major announced features" will be not in their game - its a multi-billion-pound corporation.

I know the BIS/Arma Fanboys don't like to hear that OFP2 could be "better".... i do know this.... i even don't like to hear that on my own, but its time to be "realistic" rather than "optimistic" or "pessimistic" they are a damn heavy competitor for Arma2.

I don't want "bash" here around (i hate that term btw), but i'm very concerned about Arma2.

Quote[/b] ] I havent used MBTs in arma as I dont like to be glued to the optics. I really miss tank-battles

Thats the exactly same reason for me... Tank battles (with MBTs) in OFP1 were/are still awesome/amazing - in Arma1 they simply suck, especially with no 3rd person view.

Quote[/b] ]Arma 2 seems to be so thought through and BIS are always taking that extra step to make it special. I dont understand their approach on this..

100% right!

I also thought after the recent Interviews, as they said they will go for "the best Game" or like their PR-Manager (Jan Prazak) said in recent Interview:

Quote[/b] ]...I dare say ARMA 2 provides probably the best rendition of real military arsenal you could ever see...

that such stuff like MBT Tank interiors are simply mandatory for a "best" and "rounded" game like OFP1 was.

Quote[/b] ]I think its obvious.. ofcourse the armored vehicles need interiors!

Cars have interiors, helicopters have interiors, planes have interiors, boats have interiors, ffs even some buildings have interiors, if 1 vehicle class has interiors the other classes should have them too, why have double standards now if they didnt in the past?

Inside an armored vehicle your visibility isn't limited to a weapon sight, you have several hatches or ports or whatever they are called in english, even the driver.

Operating an armored vehicle in Arma with 3rd person disabled is horrible, in OPF it was alright.

About the extra "work" and large amount of vehicles.. whats the point in having a bunch of nice looking armored models if they are all the same boring junk? Photography?

Give me less models then, but give me detail, features, functionality, interactivity, something worth using and not just staring or shooting rockets at.

100% Quoted for Truth.

You spoke out of my soul with this post.    

I really hope they will care (even for a later Arma2 patch/expansion package) if 70%( who knows what the employees/moderators voted for ) of the here voting people wants tank interiors.

I don't want to move to OFP2.

Thanks again BIS if you read and even consider this, i want like you that Arma2 will be successful!

[froggyluv 2136]

No, they said it (it wasn't their "marketing", rather the lead designer/programmer) because they will do it.

They will go with ultra realism for OFP2, non lame-balancing/whatever stuff unlike BIS did it everytime, you will even have to put together single parts of a Javelin launcher to make it ready... simply everything like its in the real world (in a simplified way of course).

Trust me, they would do care about "a bad press" if such "major announced features" will be not in their game - its a multi-billion-pound corporation.

I know the BIS/Arma Fanboys don't like to hear that OFP2 could be "better".... i do know this.... i even don't like to hear that on my own, but its time to be "realistic" rather than "optimistic" or "pessimistic" they are a damn heavy competitor for Arma2....

...I don't want to move to OFP2.

I think you've got it all wrong. I am an Arma fan not because I have some sort of unabashed love of all things BIS, but because it is the only game that comes close to fufilling my gaming needs. After 30+ years of gaming, most games just don't hold my interest for longer than 30 minutes.

Saying that, I really wish only success to OFP2, as that would only give me another great game to play -but yes I am skeptical regardless of their company assests that they can deliver on all of their promises. Many huge developers have claimed they would release the most technologically advanced game -Crysis's;BF's; Far Cry's etc... and all of them fall well short for my gaming needs. Did you notice how CM reps just disappeared after showing limited 'footage' and the outcry from their community?

I would save my comparing of what we know of Arma2 to the vaporous expectations and sketchy promises of an unknown.