Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -=seany=-

  1. Have you tried playing tanks? Not small 10 minute battles, but 1 hour plus ops. It's not fun. I'll compare A3 to the only Tank Sim I regularily play anymore, and have played recently, SABOW.


    A3 Tank Simulation, Driving physics: No ground resistance modelling, combined with an extremely twitchy driving model. Tanks reach extremely high speeds extremely quickly, spin around at extreme rates, and even in the slowest tank (Slammer by default) movement is so quick that a measured approach to anything is impossible. Vehicles feel as if they are made of cardboard and are driven by jet engines.


    SABOW: Tank simulation, Driving physics: Very detailed modelling of ground resistance as well as advanced ground condition modelling (Wet vs dry ground, track slippage and blockage, things like that.) combined with a very well done driving model. Tanks feel extremely heavy and sluggish, like they have weight behind them. Slowest movement speeds are slower than walking pace, allowing very conscious and deliberate placing of your vehicle: no unintentional running over walls and into houses.


    A3 Tank Simulation, AI movement: Only three movement speeds combined with different speeds dependent on tanks performance make faster tanks (T-100 or RHS T-80) a pain in the backside to move and fight with, especially when restricting self to first person and without human crew. No ability to chain waypoints and assign complex movement schemes necessitates painful micromanagement. AI has zero sense of how to use a tank in a fight, they just drive around at breakneck speed missing every shot upon contact until they either flip over, accidentially kill all enemies or (more likely) get shot by infantry ATGM.

    AI does not use cover, does not use smoke or any other concealment, and does not know any tactical movements aside from "Drive fast and shoot faster".


    SABOW Tank Simulation, AI movement: 5 graduated movement speeds on top of orders for different tactical movement types (use cover, find overwatch spot in low cover, use concealment, lay smoke, etc) make the moving and shooting part, despite the much more complex gunnery and command simulation more easily accomplished than in Arma. Enemy AI also tries to use concealment, cover and movement deliberately instead of blindly charging around the battlefield. In one campaign I regularily had iraqi T-55s turn up in my rear after they snuck through a patch of woods and through a ditch while holding fire (with no input required from me, the enemy AI did this on their own!) until they were within half a kilometer, right inside my platoons flank. This happened twice in the same campaign, in the same spot, until I wisened up to that location.


    A3 also suffers from bad behind-armor damage simulation, which results in every vehicle exploding instead of (which happens most of the time in real life and in SABOW) the hit just killing/injuring the crew, disabling vital parts and at most causing an internal fire that makes the vehicle slowly burn up. Catastrophic explosions only happen rarely in SABOW, and only if ready ammunition or a fuel tank is directly hit.


    Add to that A3s quirky physics engine with the flying tanks and the twitching and being flung into space backwards at 1000 kph and you'll see that not that many people bothering with tanks is understandable. I do a lot, but I do not enjoy it much and prefer to go to SABOW if I want a proper tank battle. A3 does infantry much better. Vehicles are candy, but not cake.



    Yeah, I agree with the above.  I havnt played arma3 in ages, partly from feeling some-what burned by the lack of any interest from the devs in improving the tracked vehicle physics and other vehicle probs in arma3.  I loved tanking in every BIS game up to arma3, but the addition of physX to Arma3 did zero favours for armor simulation..it just made it worse.   I find it quite Ironic that The professional simulator (we are not supposed to mention..ahem) VBS now uses physx and similar updates to their engine that we have in A3, but guess what? They kept the tracked physics from Arma2.  Even they know it's horrible.


    I hope one day they sort it out...Or even just give us back Arma2 tracked vechicle physics.


    PS thanks for the tips/info on Steel Armor, looks sweet!

  2. I hope information about updates to the physics engine come with the announcement of the new terrain. The vehicles are really uncanny with how they handle and even two years later it bugs me just as much as when the game was first released. Anti-Rollbar, stiff-ass suspension that still somehow absorbs all force instead of
    (minus the complex deformations) or
    , and a frustrating gearbox system.

    I doubt it some how. I made a polite, rational thread in this forum section asking if they could do anything about the vehicle physics, clearly highlighting the main problems...and a Dev (Pettka) replied to the thread.....but to inform some one else in the thread (who was unaware) of how the handbrake is actually functional in Arma3........great.

    Given that the expansion will be on Islands (and with dense vegetation), there will be less need for vehicles. This makes me believe even more that we are stuck with the current crappy Arma3 vehicle physics until who knows when....Arma4 maybe....Pretty sad that Operation Flashpoint has better Tracked vehicle Physics then Arma 3....


  3. Actually, handbrake functionality is in the game :icon_twisted: And as far as the limited slip differential goes, it works fine for the 4x4, the only issue may be with trucks as that part was not supported by PhysX by the time we implemented it.

    Any info about the possibility to fix some of the bugs I listed in the first post, the problems with tracked vehicles, compared to Arma2? And if possible, getting some one on the team to go over the vehicles and get them handling better?

  4. In regards to the Strider report... you do consider that an MRAP with a weapons system on top should be more top heavy? Meaning that at high speeds, it's going to lean more that one without a gun on top would? Meaning that it'd make sense to not drive full speed while doing serpentine when you have a heavier vehicle, especially top side? Having it be completely un-flippable would be Ultra un realistic. I've seen a video where a small explosion knocked over an MRAP like the Hunter going at low speeds.

    Your tracked vehicle examples are fine though. The Tank, or, more specifically, tracked vehicle side of things need a serious improvement. It's pretty bad.

    Yeah, I get what your saying, perhaps there is some accuracy in this "top heavy" behaviour, but I think it's very over done here. If you have a try yourself, just driving around, it "feels" wrong/buggy. You should be able to roll it its so top heavy, but it wont do that either. I think in the real world they would probably make adjustments to the vehicle so that it would not handle so oddly, like stiffen the suspension/antirollbars etc. In fact they may not even have to if the vehicle is stiff enough on default configuration. I would imagine a modern vehicle like this would be designed from the ground up to take various types of top mounted loads with out the need to reconfigure the vehicle or have it so unstable with a top mounted weapon, I dunno.

    About the tank track physics. If they really can't do anything about it then maybe they could go back to the far superior Arma2 tracked vehicle model and keep Physx for wheeled vehicles?

  5. I have been waiting and waiting since release for fixes to the Vehicle physics of Arma3, to bring them up to a standard where I could compare them to Arma2 and it just is not happening. I waited until all the infantry stuff and recent DLCs where out and now I would really like it if BIS could take a look at this area and give it some improvement. The game is approaching it's 2 year anniversary!

    This is what the Official Arma 3 website says about Arma3's Vehicle physics:


    The introduction of a new PhysXâ„¢-powered physics model has resulted in the most detailed vehicle simulation yet seen in the Arma series. Momentum, suspension and gravity all play a much bigger role in enhancing the vehicular experience of Arma 3.


    This is just not true and is a bit of an insult to long time fans of the series. I loved tanking/vehicle operations in Arma2,1,OFP, but in Arma3 it is just not as good. The handling of the vehicles, particularly the tracked vehicles, mostly feels like a tech demo or a work in progress. Most of this is down to the list of bugs/problems I have collected below. I feel if BIS could try to fix some of these issues we would be well on our way to getting back to some of the fun of vehicle operations of Arma2,1,OFP. I think they owe it to us to at least make them comparable to what we had in Arma2. Not all the vehicles are terrible, some are good. The Gorgon wheeled APC for example is perfect. However, most other vehicles have issues that needs some one at BIS to sit down and have a go at making them right. Again, especially the tracked vehicles.

    0019164: Tanks don't drive straight at low speed: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19164

    0017645: Slammer,T100 & other tracked vehicles cannot accelerate and turn at the same time. Steering input cuts acceleration: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17645

    0024342: The Strider GMG/HMG have bad handling: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24342


    0012056: Wonky Tank Track Physics: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12056


    0020078: Tank Controls cause Extreme stuttering during turns on slopes: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=20078


    0019182: Tanks stuttering at slow speed: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19182

    0019183: Vehicle Engine can't rev up if vehicle faces resistance to movement: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19183

    0016262: [Physics] - Armoured Vehicles - Quirky and Unmanly: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16262


    A good example video of the generally bad vehicle characteristics of Arma3:


    • Like 3

  6. I'd be happy if they just bothered to fix the vehicle physics of what we have. Like, is it really too much to ask for a tank that can drive in a straight line when moving slowly? Or wheeled vehicles that don't behave like they should be driving around a circus ring ?(go on..take a Strider and drive it along at speed veering left and right..comedy hour) Almost two years old and vehicle physics have barely been touched....like the forgotten child of the series...It's a damn shame.

    From the Arma3 website:


    The introduction of a new PhysXâ„¢-powered physics model has resulted in the most detailed vehicle simulation yet seen in the Arma series. Momentum, suspension and gravity all play a much bigger role in enhancing the vehicular experience of Arma 3.

    Oh really? Even Operation Flashpoint walks all over Arma3's tracked vehicle physics. It's pathetic. Broken for 2 years since Early Access.

  7. because the changes NVIDIA done were deeper than 'expected' ... we will try fix it as soon as possible

    please remember to create good Feedback Tracker tickets about those issue , with repro, description or videos

    thanks in advance

    There are already videos and good reports about the existing issues that tanks/vehicle/physics have for a long time now. These new problems are just problems on top of old problems...one has to wonder if there is even any point making more reports. If some one is going to fix these latest issues, they may as well just take the opportunity to sit down and fix this whole area of the game properly? Starting with the tickets that are about the bad behaviour of tracked/wheeled vehicles compared to Arma2.

  8. I don't mind the future setting. Though I do find it a bit ironic that they used to complain about not wanting to be forced to "recreate the Abrams etc the nth time"... then they go and copy and paste every other object in Arma3 when they finally got their much desired creative freedom... hmmm

    I don't really mind what the next era they choose is.

  9. Purely subjective, because I strongly disagree.

    Even tanks? They handle so poorly in Arma3 its not funny. They can't even drive straight! Tracked vehicle physics in Arma2 OA are still magnitudes better than Arma3's Physx, which feel like a rushed after thought to me at the moment. Take the M1 Tank in Arma2 OA and drive it for 15 minutes and then go and drive the Slammer, t100 or the Kuma. There is no comparison. Arma3 feels like a tech demo or early access.

    The wheeled vehicles are not as bad, but a lot of them also have very poor transmission/engine/suspension simulation etc etc.. most feel like place holders we have been using for 1 year since official release! The Strider is a good example, drive this down a road and swerve left and right...the resulting physics behaviour is not from any world I am familiar with.

    Probably the best vehicle in the game over all is the Gorgon, for me.

    But, tracked vehicles are the worst offenders and need some serious attention for some one at BIS who has some interest and passion in setting these beautiful vehicles up properly. That's what feels missing.

  10. 13-01-2015

    EXE rev. 128850 (game)

    No new launcher

    Size: ~42 MB


    Fixed: Missing enableEnvironment in Establishing Shot function

    Fixed: Karts were easily flipped after the new PhysX libraries

    Fixed: Missing sizeEx property in shortcut button

    New PhysX Libraries? Does this mean we will see some of the much needed improvements and fixes that pretty much all the vehicles require?

  11. distortion while driving straight and level? Or distortion while turning?

    If it's the later its not a problem with the sound itself, its a resultant problem of the workaround for the physx problem, and the bugged controll scheme that causes stuttering in controlls therefore stuttering in gears, therefore stuttering in sound.

    (and yes i will mention this stuff as long as it is not fixed over and over again because they are the most servere vehicle problems that exist)

    Yep, keep mentioning it. I agree with you 100%. Over a year since release and little is ever done to improve vehicles. Arma2's vehicle physics is still far superior (especially tracked).

    But this sound distortion is actual sound crackling/clipping/sample problem. from what I can see, it only appears in 3rd person mode and it can be briefly stopped by switching to internal view and back to external view.

  12. It's caused by a bug we have on our list. Car Forward/Back - when mapped to analog input - should use the whole range of the vehicle (incl. what currently can only be achieved by Fast Forward), mapping two concurrent actions to one axis (or vice versa - more axes to one action) should generally be avoided. When you have analog input you already have a precise control over the acceleration and you don't need any "speed" modifier.

    Good to hear! Thanks for replying, I really appreciate it.

    I don't want to push my luck, but I have to at least ask :o :

    Would it possible if you could give us any idea of any plans to work on improving the vehicle Physx implementation in the future, to get them up to Arma2 OA standard? Or at least possible fixes for the big bugs like tanks not being able to drive in a straight line? Or the overly tough/rigid suspension on tracked vehicles?

    I am always criticizing Arma3's vehicles, but I think it is fair that I should point out the good ones. I have used the AFV-4 Gorgon a few times now and that vehicle probably feels the best so far. I can't really think of anything wrong with it. I would be happy if all Arma3s vehicles where up to this standard.

    Thanks for any info. :)

  13. In relation to this; Yesterday I discovered that (I was in the "MBT-52 Kuma" tank) if I assign my G27 Throttle Pedal to "Car Fast Forward" command, the axis will not use the advanced Controller settings such as Sensitivity and Dead Zone. It ignores them.

    If I assign My G27 throttle Pedal to "Car Forward" command, it will use the advanced Controller settings. However, at 100% throttle, this command will not give me the full speed that the vehicle can go, I have to press a "Turbo" key at the same time, which defeats the purpose of using pedals.

    Again, relating to poor vehicle physics implementation this vehicle (MBT-52 Kuma and other tracked) is also very, very hard to drive slowly...or creep (which is hugely important for multiple, human crew operations.) It's like the tank has a minimum "on power" speed of 16kph. It is impossible to creep along at, say, 5 kph. And then, when the tank gets over 16kph it almost feels like a cruise control kicks in and it starts to run away.

    As I keep saying, this stuff was fine in Arma2/Operation Arrowhead...it's quite frustrating....Is it too much to expect a sequel to at least match the functionality of the previous game?

  14. Yesterday played Arma3 online for about and hour:

    1. Delayed sounds at certain points: Ground is shaking around me like an earth quake, I am thinking "wth?", shortly afterwards I hear explosions and realise its artillery....

    2. On foot with a mate and start hearing cracks (we are being shot at). We try desperately to figure out where the rounds are coming from, but to no avail. He gets killed..it sounds like the cracks are all around me, I open the map and see one soldier literally 100m away. I should have been able to pinpoint his location based on directional sound after a couple of rounds...but no beacuse it's obviously still broken.

    3. Get into the Warrior clone....It's ok for a bit then this nasty distorted engine sound starts.... (Oh, and surprise, surprise...this vehicle also handles like it was designed to appear in a circus act involving men with red noses than on a battlefield...)

    I'm getting tired of these problems that didn't exist in the Arma2 or arma1 or operation flashpoint......

    Please Fix the Sound and Please fix the vehicle physics...

  15. Using Google, the first link that appears:
    , forum thread and so on :icon_twisted:

    There has been quite a lot of confusion preventing people from buying the DLCs because they have seen low-res textures and didn't get the concept. Still, it's not about the sales, but about the additional work required. Simply put, daily dev branch updates would be impossible with more data sets. They would be more like bi-weekly, the intensity of main branch patches would decrease too. Combine the confusion and workload, You get the perfect system to be never used again :icon_twisted:

    /// Edit: Ninja'd Vegeta, sorry, sir :icon_evil:

    You could only find one video! And not even a Forum post from here! Read that thread again...it has nothing to do with a user not owning the BAF DLC and not understanding why his textures are lo res..it was a bug http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?106747-Bought-BAF-textures-still-bad it even says he bought it in the title.

    Fair enough with the data thing, I can't counter that argument as I don't understand enough how all that works (handy that). Although I can't help but feel if you wanted to keep the old system you could have figured it out. Technology is a great thing :)

    PS I do appreciate you taking the time to comment. ;)

    They've replaced ugly textures that didn't effectively convey the concept of premium content with notifications that do. Even someone who doesn't own the content can potentially have a better experience because they can fight alongside DLC owners without entering the vehicles and not have to see blurry messes, but full quality models, without even paying.

    I think you will get more people complaining about in game advertising then blurry textures. We cant find one thread on here about some one not liking the blurry textures, but we already a thread about someone not liking in game Ad's, I predict a lot more. So what does that say about the users in game experience? I know which I 'd prefer.

    I'm just one guy, but I had no idea about low fidelity models.Mostly because I wasn't on forums&joined late.

    I bet a message that popped up at the menu when you loaded the game probably would have done the job though right? You could easily have had some notification/adverts Outside of the game at the main menu or before you joined a server. That would have let these confused users know what was up right? That's another counter to the "no one understood the Lores DLC" point. It's one extreme to the other: Arma2: Zero communication to non DLC owners of how the Lo res works in game (menu). Arma3: In game adverts / pop ups

  16. People knew well what the deal was with the lo res textures etc of Arma2 DLC, that excuse from BI is pure BS. How many posts where there on here about people being confused about lo Res textures on DLC?..None. Go on, try to find one... Surely there would be at least a couple of posts if it really was a problem?

    The Lo res system also did generate sales, I have first hand experience of friends wanting to have better textures and audio and paying for BAF, PMC etc so they could have the better textures and sound.

    They had a perfect system previously, probably the best DLC system I have seen yet. I guess they just got greedy. Role on the Steam sales thankyou very much.

    This new DLC system and the Cluster fuck that was ACR (yes I still remember and it's still not fixed. Just not gona bother I guess? They even have the balls to still sell this abomination on Steam) means I will never pay full price, or preorder BIS DLC again.