The tanks are a lot better!

[Yoma 0]

Anyone else noticed the better animations on starting/stopping of tanks?

It's a minor thing but it makes the tanks feel so much more "alive" then in Arma1.

A pity we didn't get interiors though.

Keep up the great work BIS, you're making this game a true work of art!

[bravo 6 0]

I kinda see something you refer, though do they transmit the feeling of heaviness?!

[evilnate 0]

They do seem like they are on the light side. I saw a tank platoon driving across the country at 25mph or so and they were nearly catching air off small slope transitions.

[maddogx 13]

Yeah, vehicles on the whole still look and feel too light, but there's a subtle improvement over A1. I agree on the thing about tanks starting and stopping. It looks much nicer and does add a certain sense of weight.

[Nicholas 5]

There are interiors of many of the APC's, but no tank interior. The tanks do feel more life-like, did you see my tank video of the tank climbing the hill?

[sk3pt 0]

It's one of the first things I noticed actually. :D It really adds to the immersion IMO.

They could make it even more noticeable on the tanks if you ask me, like on the AAV and MLRS, those are perfect !

Edited June 3, 2009 by sk3pt

[bravo 6 0]

Would be nice to have a private videos only for this thread demonstrating what is discussed here.

Maybe BIS could have some good ideas and inputs from this interesting and visionary thread.

Edited June 3, 2009 by bravo 6
typo

[malkuth 0]

They might look better. But I promise they don't act any better. Still horrid AI pathfinding when it comes to Vehicles, planes, etc.

[max power 21]

They do seem like they are on the light side. I saw a tank platoon driving across the country at 25mph or so and they were nearly catching air off small slope transitions.

Gravity acts on all objects at the same rate. All objects of equal size and weight distribution, of any weight, fall in the same manner, not accounting for the influence of lift, drag, or buoyancy. So a tank that weighs a total of 200 lbs should behave similarly to a tank that weighs 20000 lbs when it comes to 'catching air'. Their ballistic trajectory should be the same, not accounting for the above mentioned forces. On the moon, a feather falls at the same rate as a stone.

[Amuro 10]

There are interiors of many of the APC's, but no tank interior. The tanks do feel more life-like, did you see my tank video of the tank climbing the hill?

This one?

6Cy5JiuVt5s

[POTS 0]

Gravity acts on all objects at the same rate. All objects of equal size and weight distribution, of any weight, fall in the same manner, not accounting for the influence of lift, drag, or buoyancy. So a tank that weighs a total of 200 lbs should behave similarly to a tank that weighs 20000 lbs when it comes to 'catching air'. Their ballistic trajectory should be the same, not accounting for the above mentioned forces. On the moon, a feather falls at the same rate as a stone.

However, jerk and forces when the tank hits the ground are another story...

[Leopardi 0]

AI in tanks still does the usual drifting left and right with the tanks when stopping. It makes them look like toys.

[sidhellfire 0]

And what do you think they should? Flip over? In sand they would bury themselves, but on normal grass the grip isn't somewhat astronomical. Sport cars have even better mass/grip ratio, and still do slide.

[{SAS}Silentkiller 0]

Now this is how tank warfare should be, a proper game!!! :

[OverDawg 10]

So you think it looks realistic then do you Sid?

[Creation 10]

yeah i've seen the vid, one of the buggiest/fun things to do in Arma is drive down a steep hill, hit a bump in the ground and fly the tank

[Scrub 0]

The gravity (when it's in the air) effect is close enough.. Too bad the mass doesn't dampen the absolute response of infinitely hard digital materials. The reaction of a 60ton tank running downhill into a boulder is not the same as a 60ton superball. It doesn't happen nearly as often in Arma II, but it still happens.

[sidhellfire 0]

The only thing bad is that "bouncing". In most cases they would get damaged and/or ground rammed(hammered?).

Dynamics are OK. Tank drivers do not exceed maximum speed and slow down, that's why we do not see long jumps by them. It's matter of safety, since tracks wouldn't sustain so heavy hit to the ground. In mentioned by Silentkiller vid we do see tank easily lift-off on terrain, despite it's speed isn't even half of this descent or rather crazy dive.

Yes, dynamics are just OK and considering that structure damages cannot be introduced, and have to stay astronomically stiff I can't see any area for improvements there.

[Rak 0]

And what do you think they should? Flip over? In sand they would bury themselves, but on normal grass the grip isn't somewhat astronomical. Sport cars have even better mass/grip ratio, and still do slide.

You obviously have no idea what he's talking about.

[sidhellfire 0]

I reckon you'll come here with something more than abusive temper, and empty words?

I'm kind of simracer, and would be supriced, if tanks, which are driven on poor quality surface, huge mass would not drift and outperform racing cars on track. Of course, we do not see cool ploughing(or rather digging) effects.

Actually flip over would be quite proper behaviour, but center of mass in tanks is pretty low, and tank itself is wide enough.

[zyklone 1]

The main problem with Arma tanks is that they should really bounce much much more.

Arma tankers are always running on max speed, often exceeding it. That's an exceptional painful thing to do in real life. :)

A bit better dirt spray effects when sliding would do much to make it look more realistic though.

[Yoma 0]

What i meant in my original post is that when you start driving a tank it first tilts backwards and when you stop it, it tilts forward.

You have much more "suspension" feel to it then in Arma1, there it felt more like driving a rigid box then a tank.

It's just a small detail, but i think it's very well implemented and wanted to pat BIS on the shoulders for it.

[MehMan 0]

I'll test this today! If it's so then we can make rocky ww2 tanks.

Man I am getting excited now. If only the AI weren't so bad at understanding tanks. I wonder if we can make them understand that turning the sides of the tank towards the enemy is bad1

[max power 21]

However, jerk and forces when the tank hits the ground are another story...

But of course. But this would also depend on the rigidity of their respective suspension systems and the firmness of the ground. If there were two people in their respective heavy and light tanks, and the suspension of the light tank was very flimsy and the suspension of the heavy tank was robust, and the groudn was very firm, I doubt the drivers would experience a difference in their collisions with the ground. The ground would notice a difference, though.

The point is, though, that flying tanks aren't necessarily unrealistic since if one object can get airborne off of some slope at some speed, all objects can get the same amount of air off that slope at that speed.

[Scrub 0]

I'm liking the aggressiveness of the tanks and the use of all the weapon stations. VERY formidable to face down.

I just hope BIS can get the AI to move to a hull/turret down position. May need to look at the BIKI for LOS functions, and make a difilade script. It bugs me that they can position sooo well, and yet don't because the importance of it is lost to the Infantry AI acting as tankers.. I wonder if the driver is trying to make the tank go 'prone' lol.