-=seany=-

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:

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!

Keep 'em coming :D . Not a bug I was aware of, but any fixes to do with vehicles I am very happy to see. Thanks.

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.... http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?192469-A-Plea-To-The-Developers-For-Some-Fixes-To-The-Long-Standing-Vehicle-Bugs

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?

Yep I was waiting for the DLC to go on sale, but it aint...Sucks... I'm not paying full price. I'll keep waiting.

New terrain looks sweet. Thanks!

Heh well that was just for demonstration purposes :) . But the problem exists even when driving normally.

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?

I didn't buy yet, I think the DLCs are too expensive I would have been happy to pay 7-10 euros. But I'll get them when they are in a sale. Another reason I have not bought them is that they don't seem to have any interest in fixing the things I am interested in..vehicles.

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

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.

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.

Why did BIS update Physx and not bother checking any of their tanks...for 5 minutes? Honestly that report by Fennek is just depressing.

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.

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

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.

The kuma tank has horrible distortion on the engine sound. Please fix.

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. :)

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?

I'm pretty sure it was delay. The rounds where literally landing on top of me ( It was very lucky I survived), so there was no distance for the sound to have to travel. At least three rounds landed within 100m of me before I realised what was going on.

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...

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3875 This problem still exists. When online playing Domination (I'm sure it happens everywhere), a chopper crashes and burns for a bit, the fire affect disappears and you try to go over to revive the dead crew but you still get burned by invisible flame.

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. ;) 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 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

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.