tank FCS poll

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, for me as an infantryman, stuff that moves around in the sight is less important. The increased likelihood of a hit due to the "lazing and fcs" is still to me the most important change. Since tank operations seems to be a major part of the campaign, it would be a bad thing if it became "too complex". Improvements has been made, maybe not enough by some.

But:

The Key Improvements over ARMA 2

• FLIR (military grade thermal imaging simulation) system implemented
  
• Night combat updated with laser markers, IR strobes and flashlight usage
  
• Streamlined and reworked in-game UI / HUD
  
• Full support for backpacks (including ability to carry static weapons, like mortars or UAV terminals)
  
• Reworked and improved radio chatter between units (including whispered variant)
  
• Remotely-controlled helicopter UAV
  
• Improved vehicle simulation (damage model, physics, countermeasures, top down radars, warning systems, helmet-mounted displays)
  
• Improved weapon simulation (multiple optics modes, range finders, step based zoom)
  
• Improved and heavily optimized vegetation
  

There is really none of those features I would be without in order to get a better FCS. Probably some new features in there for you tank folks :) Like multiple optics modes and step zoom (finally!) :D Important for me (but maybe not so much to you in a noisy vehicle) is the new whispered variant, and proper backpacks (hopefully without scripting issues causing exploits). One thing I actually liked about OFP DR was the voicing used during stealth operations.

Ref.

[ScareCroweb 10]

Well, for me as an infantryman, stuff that moves around in the sight is less important. The increased likelihood of a hit due to the "lazing and fcs" is still to me the most important change. Since tank operations seems to be a major part of the campaign, it would be a bad thing if it became "too complex". Improvements has been made, maybe not enough by some.

But:

There is really none of those features I would be without in order to get a better FCS. Probably some new features in there for you tank folks :) Like multiple optics modes and step zoom (finally!) :D Important for me (but maybe not so much to you in a noisy vehicle) is the new whispered variant, and proper backpacks (hopefully without scripting issues causing exploits). One thing I actually liked about OFP DR was the voicing used during stealth operations.

Ref.

You say yourself your an infantry guy, and therefor most concerned about infantry stuff, my question is this why are you even posting in a clearly tank related thread if not only to prevent us tankers to get some kind of attention, by saying stuff like I dont wanna loose these goodies for my infantry to get a Working FCS that I as an infantry dont get the pleasure of even using, isnt that a tad selfish dont you think? :j:

And yes that wasnt a Quote, just added alittle for coulouring :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

You're kidding me? FLIR, step based zoom, damage model, multiple optics modes are (I assume) all highly related to tank warfare. Spending a lot of resources to make a "better FCS", when first shot hit capability is already improved, just doesn't make sense when there are still other areas to improve that might be more important.

Why is it selfish? Tankers and airmen also have valuable input in infantry related issues. As this is discussion, it's everyones right to participate, not just those who use those features the most.

And don't worry, BIS is well aware of the desires for an FCS system, it has been mentioned numerous times everywhere, so whatever is being said here really haven't much impact, not for the initial OA release anyway. And when OA comes out, there will be just another thread like this :)

Edited May 7, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[*LK1* 10]

And don't worry, BIS is well aware of the desires for an FCS system, it has been mentioned numerous times everywhere, so whatever is being said here really haven't much impact, not for the initial OA release anyway. And when OA comes out, there will be just another thread like this :)

can be a mistake,since is a simulative game and,as you can see from the poll,a lot of people would a better FCS.must means something if people has made a lot of thread about this request.

[Curry 10]

Arma is arcadish when it comes to aircraft and vehicles.

FCS is very welcome and get rid of the radar.

[*LK1* 10]

Arma is arcadish when it comes to aircraft and vehicles.

FCS is very welcome and get rid of the radar.

agree...but however where the hell you have found those bananas LOL :D:D

[Curry 10]

On the internet mate.

[*LK1* 10]

so guys,what you think?and.... vote! :D

[*LK1* 10]

topic emerged :D

would to know more opinions about the argument.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Digital map with FCS as features in ACE 2 or Steel Beasts.

Digital map OR a radar that tracks all vehicles, but does not paint them GREEN/FRIENDLY or RED/HOSTILE -- they should be Grey.

On FCS and how it works in ACE 2: Tab to Activate FCS, recalibration takes 3-4 seconds, laser rangefinder is at 0000, you point your turret and hit TAB again, it beams you back the range to the object. Holding TAB resets/turns off FCS. (AFAIR), there is also an action Turn off FCS in action Menu.

Some FCS like on T90s and M1 can adjust the machinegun to required range, so you don't have to aim the turret sky high when engaging targets over 1.2km -- of course, the spread on the 7.62 cal will be huge, but the enemy will at least shit his pants, or catch a some lead. :D

P.S. Radar on tanks has to go, tag the tanks with something, so they can spot units on the general map even on expert difficulty, if you can't implement a Digital map.

[*LK1* 10]

if you guys have already tryed OA,can you tell us something about the tanks,radar ecc.?

[reconteam 19]

In my perfect version of ArmA2, when looking around the internal view of the Abrams (like you can do on the Stryker), you could look at the digital map and adjust it.

For the actual gun fire-control system, the laser range finder would be similar to the one in ACE using the tab key and the M240C would be integrated into this as well as the 120mm cannon. The gunner would have a FLIR with "black-hot" and "white-hot" options, and the color could be adjusted.

On the M1A2 variant, the commander would have a similar FLIR for the CITV and the ability to point out a target for the gunner.

[*LK1* 10]

In my perfect version of ArmA2, when looking around the internal view of the Abrams (like you can do on the Stryker), you could look at the digital map and adjust it.

For the actual gun fire-control system, the laser range finder would be similar to the one in ACE using the tab key and the M240C would be integrated into this as well as the 120mm cannon. The gunner would have a FLIR with "black-hot" and "white-hot" options, and the color could be adjusted.

On the M1A2 variant, the commander would have a similar FLIR for the CITV and the ability to point out a target for the gunner.

:bounce3::bounce3:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Am I the only one seeing a problem with maps and resolution constraints?

[*LK1* 10]

Am I the only one seeing a problem with maps and resolution constraints?

mmm plz explain yourself a bit more.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The display of a BFT in a vehicle will be quite small in terms of pixels compared to our real screen. You can't present any decent amount of information in a readable fashion this way. What is the problem of using the map/GPS

[*LK1* 10]

The display of a BFT in a vehicle will be quite small in terms of pixels compared to our real screen. You can't present any decent amount of information in a readable fashion this way. What is the problem of using the map/GPS

mmm ok but where is the connection with the thread?just wondering.

[dm 9]

were you dropped on your head as a child or something? :s

The connection to the thread is that a digital map is an important feature of modern AFV FCS. What CG is saying is that to have a functional digital map within the interior of an AFV would be rather limited, because it would be very small - say you're playing at 1920 x 1280, the digital map is going to be about 1/3rd of that at best, so you wont be able to see much (if any) information on it.

[*LK1* 10]

were you dropped on your head as a child or something? :s

mmm you wanna troll again,plz don't.don't you had enough with the last thread concerning tanks ecc.:rolleyes:

i don't see any connection since it was already explained how this digital map should work.you don't need to much space to visualize this map when you are inside a tank.instead to have a rectangular radar you'll have a digital map.

The connection to the thread is that a digital map is an important feature of modern AFV FCS. What CG is saying is that to have a functional digital map within the interior of an AFV would be rather limited, because it would be very small - say you're playing at 1920 x 1280, the digital map is going to be about 1/3rd of that at best, so you wont be able to see much (if any) information on it.

i know thx,but i know it since is my thread,if you wouldn't jump in this thread with a troll attitude and if you would read from page 1 you should avoid this comment.i've proposed to change the radar sistem with a digital map function.you don't need more space for that.well of course in this way we can't have a very detailed digital map.but even a rude version is prefered than a radar sistem.

Edited July 1, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[dm 9]

i don't see any connection since it was already explained how this digital map should work.you don't need to much space to visualize this map when you are inside a tank.

Uh, yeah, you do need a lot of space, for the reasons I described.

If you want to try and read a ~300 x 180 pixel map in a tank interior, be my guest. I, on the other hand would much rather use a large scale (read: full screen) digital map.

i know thx,but i know it since is my thread

I'm sorry, I dont see anywhere in the rules saying that the thread starter has control of the thread :rolleyes:

i've proposed to change the radar sistem with a digital map function.you don't need more space for that.well of course in this way we can't have a very detailed digital map.but even a rude version is prefered than a radar sistem.

No, because in its current form the radar is easy to read. A digital map rendered in real time inside the tank (like it is on the real vehicles) would be too low resolution to read. Thats the connection with the thread.

Replacing something functional and ergonomical with something more realistic but impossible to use is not good game design.

[*LK1* 10]

Uh, yeah, you do need a lot of space, for the reasons I described.No, because in its current form the radar is easy to read. A digital map rendered in real time inside the tank (like it is on the real vehicles) would be too low resolution to read. Thats the connection with the thread.If you want to try and read a ~300 x 180 pixel map in a tank interior, be my guest. I, on the other hand would much rather use a large scale (read: full screen) digital map.

again... that prove you don't have a damn clue of what we are talking about.

go back to page 1 sir.since we reached tens and tens of comments and noone has faced this problem the are 2 possibility.or you have found a problem or you don't have understand a .....nothing.i vote for option 2.

the current radar work in this way.there is a silly rectangular on top of the screen and when someone enters your radar range you see a quadrate.

like an arcadish radar constantly scanning for enemies.

well if BIS can add instead of a radar a simple digital map this should work in this way.you see a damn amx10(:rolleyes:) or a t-72.you spot it with the right click mouse or with whatever key you have binded.from now every allied tanks that goes near the tank spotted hes able to see him on the digital map.ON THE RECTANGULAR.simple.you' ll see a damn quadrate.

is it perfect?nope at all you can't see the altitude of the threat ecc.like ina real digital map.is it a rude version of the digital map?sure it is noone said the contrare.is it better than the radar?pretty much for me and for 80 guys on this forum at the moment.is better to have,a tl east for me,something of primitive instead of something arcade.

this is called an input...a feasible simple input.BIS can work on it to make it better...if they want.

if you had read this thread from the beginning you would't wasted a post.

Replacing something functional and ergonomical with something more realistic but impossible to use is not good game design.

is not.

i hope this stament becomes antiquated when you will read what i've said above.otherwise i can do nothing for you.you are just a desperate case :p.

I'm sorry, I dont see anywhere in the rules saying that the thread starter has control of the thread :rolleyes:

i never claimed to have this control :j:

after this

The connection to the thread is that a digital map is an important feature of modern AFV FCS. What CG is saying is that to have a functional digital map within the interior of an AFV ecc.

i gave you just a response with a bit of sarcasm.

thx,but i know it since is my thread

sometimes you are strange buddy...:j:

Edited July 1, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[dm 9]

So what you want is a bf2 minimap, something like:

and what I want is a proper digital map, something like:

And you're getting all bent out of shape about it?

[*LK1* 10]

So what you want is a bf2 minimap, something like:

yeah sure,that's what i've explained from page 1.i want a fkin stupid arcadish lame noober bf2 digital map :j::rolleyes:.

seriously nope,do you know the radar on tanks,that stupid thing on top of the screen that you get in commander/gunner seat?thiiiiiis.well if you ever have played

ofp/a1/a2,BIS game you know...,you should understand it.that dam nthing it should be changed as explained on the thread.that stupid bf2 map is something else of course.when you spot something you start to track the vehicle spotted.so you can clearly see his movements.that's lame.

and what I want is a proper digital map, something like:

something like steel beasts digital map?would be perfect.in case is not possible the solution explained in the thread it could work decently.

or do you prefer the current solution adopted in game...?

edit:

well this is a digital map.

with the battle plan on it.we could have a key in the game to switch from the normal vision to digital map vision on full screen.i prefer a more simple solution instead of this 1.

Edited July 1, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Bryan 10]

well this is a digital map.

with the battle plan on it.we could have a key in the game to switch from the normal vision to digital map vision on full screen.i prefer a more simple solution instead of this 1.

Have you tried using the "M" key?

To me it seems as if you want another "map" with pretty much the same functionality as the other one.

You simply have your commander mark the enemy vehicles on the map with some fancy markers and you have your digital map.

[dm 9]

something like steel beasts digital map?would be perfect.in case is not possible the solution explained in the thread it could work decently.

or do you prefer the current solution adopted in game...?

Have you tried using the "M" key?

10 chars of this.

According to your latest description, you're explaining the regular map, which has been available since OFP.

Maybe you should try playing ofp/a1/a2/bis game?