Strike_NOR

Sounds like we are getting beamriders in Arma, or guided shells. :D i hope i'm right! Way better than cursor trackers!

Probably about time you upgrade the virtual shooting range with some metal supports to hold the target. Nerves of steel you say? How about titanium... PS I thought you said you introduced AI suppression a while back... ;) On a more serious note though, it's nice to see how you are testing out various dispersion settings. Based on your post I would say you are definitely on the correct path for realism :)

I think thats a cool idea, but it is very hard to define this for all terrain since some offroad areas are perfectly flat (salt lake, beach, meadow) while others are rough (mountains, rubble, forests). Also if one were to implement such features, it would have to vary the amount of damage taken based on at least the following parameters: -Terrain roughness/type -Wheel/track durability -Vehicle speed -Some randomizer so that the wheels/tracks do not wear 100% synchronized. And proper documentation would be mandatory so players dont get super confused of course and litter the bugtracker

Yeah with small spray bottle first, cloth to wipe and then a window wiper thing to avoid streak residues. (Sarcasm) ? Nah, some grit is needed. Maybe just tweak it. Thanks for answering my question! I will endure the excitement!

I am going to do the unspeakable thing and ask politely: Can you at this point say anything with regards to improvement of the armor damage model/weapon mechanics for Tanks DLC? Are you planning on diversifying warheads/armor types and their applications (such as High Explosive Anti-Tank, Explosively formed penetrators, High explosive squash head versus spaced armor, composite, RHA etc)? Or is this simply not in the scope of the DLC? I am very pleased with the already introduced features (soundsets, physx, interiors) and speculated additional assets, but I'm extremely curious. Please forgive me :) I will accept "At this point it is too early to comment on that" as an answer.

@x3kj Fantastic ideas. Very many good observations and suggestions here. Like you said, there is almost no reason to use roads in ArmA besides two facts: Less likely to wreck on obstacles, and easier to navigate by looking at map. I agree that the next simulation should feature a terrain softness parameter. Terrain softness determines how far a vehicle will "sink into" /clip through the terrain mesh based on a factor of vehicle weight and ground contact area. A coarse, hypothetical example would be: A truck with 6x wheels that weighs 5 tons, on muddy surface would sink 15 cm into the ground. An ATV that weighs 500kg with 4 wheels on same surface would sink only 5 cm into the ground. Then I guess you could have some kind of friction coefficient that comes into play. More weight, larger surface contact area = more friction = better traction etc... ArmA 4, do you hear me?

I can understand your feelings towards this, but I try to think about this differently: If they release the Challenger 2/1, it fits Bohemias vision of the AAF forces. It still acts as an additional vehicle and can be used for many scenarios. I agree that it may not be a huge difference from the MBT-52 (Leopard 2) they already have, but nonetheless, it¨s extra content. Outdated (per 2035 standard) tanks still exist in the form of mods. For me personally, it's through RHS mods which offer so much more than just the vehicles. RHS brings advanced armor mechanics, which brings me to my next point: Engine features/enhancements! I am WAY more excited for engine improvements and new features, simply because as far as we know, this DLC is the end of ArmA 3 development. Added features provide modders with more things to play with. After tanks DLC, the game will be more friendly for modders due to version stability. The game will be at its most polished, and with less frequent patches and changes, it will require a lot less revision by mod authors. Therefore, I only see the vehicles of Tanks DLC as a bonus, and I am much more happy about the improved soundsets, physX upgrades and interiors. I can only hope and dream that the devs have time to implement proper armor penetration mechanics, ammo characteristics and damage mechanics. I read in some update log that there was a new animation source for damaged tracks. I only hope that this means we may be getting better track damage visuals. I already know that RHS have pulled off HEAT simulation and if you have not tried it yet, man, you should. Set up a fully loaded BMP or M113. Fire a standard RPG-7 rocket at it and enter Splendid Camera. Set up the camera inside the crew compartment and watch in slow motion. You can see the "HEAT jet" shred through the compartment, injuring/killing the crew, engine, etc before exiting the other side. Since BIS have not added proper HEAT to the game, they have to fake it by using suboptimal indirect hit calculations for explosives, that functions nowhere near how HE or HEAT works in real life. It becomes a very arcade way of dealing damage to vehicles in the game. A hellfire missile doesn't kill tanks by exploding on the armor surface. It kills tanks by using a shaped charge (HEAT) which creates a jet of extreme temperature, speed and pressure that can force its way through armor. On the inside, the pressure increase, temperature increase and fragmentation will deal a lot of damage to crew, equipment and ammo. Many times, the tank is left as an empty steel coffin, while appearing almost 100% intact from outside. Other times, ammo catches fire and either detonates or burns out the tank instantly in spectacular fashion. In ArmA 3, the tank nearly always ends up exploding or surviving as if nothing happened. Try playing RHS and you will see a lot more variety in armored warfare. Many times tanks are immobilized by engine damage or incapacitated crew. Right now, all BIS Anti-Tank bombs, missiles, rockets and anti tank shells just explode with a very high splash damage with a radius that reaches into the vehicles core and modules to cripple them, while in real life it's more like stabbing a needle through something really hard, to hit something really weak/critical. RHS detects if the HEAT ammunition strikes a vehicle, then detonates. The explosion itself is harmful, but generally only towards soft targets. Simultaneously as the explosion occurs, a script spawns a "HEAT projectile" (or maybe multiple) that acts as standard BIS projectiles. It perforates armor of the vehicle, striking things inside in an expanding beam of shrapnel. However, if the HEAT ammunition strikes something else, such as terrain, a house or trees, the script does not detect a vehicle and only detonates with an explosion. The result is not 100% realistic, but it saves a lot of resources where HEAT modelling is not needed, and saves the necessary CPU load for when it actually hits a vehicle. Even if BIS do not touch the armor penetration, which I think would be a mistake, I would still get my armor combat fix from RHS mods :) Even if they do not add a T-72 for INDep, I can still find a good T-72 mod :) It is way harder to achieve things that push engine limitations, such as improving core game mechanics by scripts. That's why I want to see more of those improvements natively supported, rather than added content.

Well now. As far as I know, the flatbed of the offroad can be used by passengers to Fire From Vehicles. This is a possibility, which in many ways makes sense seeing that it becomes more stealthy. The vehicle is still only recognized as "offroad" (not "offroad (armed)") and will appear to be rather harmless, but in reality it can carry troops with ATGMs, RPGs or other heavy firearms. However, I do agree that it is a good idea to flesh out anti-tank gameplay when introducing new, and probably more powerful, tanks to the game. I suggest, like other have, to consider: Offroad (Anti-Tank): Offroad with either a mounted Titan AT or new Recoilless rifle/ATGM. Offroad (Artillery): Offroad with helicopter/aircraft rocket pod rigged to the flatbed McGyver style. If HEAT warheads are implemented, then they could use HEAT rockets to barrage armored advances. In which case: Offroad (Artillery AT and HE variants). Zamak (Anti-Air) : Zamak truck with Anti-Aircraft Artillery or a mounted Titan AA system.

I love to speculate, but let's be real. We are getting new content (Armored Vehicles) and their interiors (for new and old assets) + physiscs/handling and sound overhaul. For some reason I seem to remember reading about some AA vehicle a while back, may be wrong. Tanks are seriously vulnerable against air threats, especially jets become "untouchable" because of the standoff distance and speed. It would in many ways make sense to include a medium range AA system that can accompany tanks and offer some serious protection against aerial threats. This also plays well with the Jets DLC introduced sensors. What I truly hope to see is better armor penetration and penetration effects. This includes but is not limited to: Warhead types (HEAT, HE, AP, SABOT) with different strengths and weaknesses. Damage model improvements. More modules (especially ammo storage) that can suffer damage and cause various adverse conditions. Penetration system (better handling of ricochets, shell fragmentation, HE damage, spalling, HEAT etc) Vehicles explode due to combustible contents, not by default. I.e, if a truck without ammo gets hit, it will only catch fire at worst. If an ammo truck gets hit, it will explode if the ammo is damaged. Same for tanks, helicopters, planes etc. Less Michael Bay. Here's hoping :)

Cool stuff! Can't wait to see what you will do with the new damage model and PhysX stuff. WW1 aircraft were feared by technicians for their complexity. Some of them even had morphing wings O_o (Eindecker) :)

What da12thMonkey and reyhard are saying about the weapons and countermeasures are true :) It's incredibly cool that they have pulled off such features in RHS :) I believe Vanilla jets give a warning tone for incoming IR missiles, which I was originally against. While it is unrealistic (in the way it is portrayed in-game, not the detection of IR launch itself), it offers much better balance as it gives players a chance to dodge missiles. In real life, even with MAWS, you generally configure your countermeasures system to systematically dispense countermeasures when weapons are released (ground attack) with timed intervals. You can often customize the amount of flares, the delay between each flare, and the amount of volleys to fire (same for chaff). Most EWMS (Electronic Warfare Management System) can even detect what threat has locked (radar) onto you and dispense optimal countermeasures for that given threat. Now all I wish for is some kind of Semi-Active guidance and Passive Radar Homing (Anti-Radiation). @the_one_and_only_Venator has pulled off Anti Radiations with his mod :) The defending vehicle will have to switch off radar and relocate to avoid being killed. Anyways, RHS team have shown exceptional talent in modding, and quite often surpassed the official content with regards to both features and realism IMHO. I'm glad to see RHS members working with BIS on Tanks DLC. They have a lot to bring to the table :)

While I get your point and it is a viable solution to a seasoned player, think about the ArmA player base. Would you market tanks DLC "field manual" with "And if you want a quick look around use any combination of: ALT+mouselook combined with X possible key combos of ctrl+numpad for maintaining that crucial situational awareness!!"? I don't think it is a good "default" way to do it. To me it seems like a cumbersome workaround (for the average joe). The seasoned player like you and I, of course no problem, but apply this in a combat situation, where switching between should be as fast as turning in or out of the tank. You would want a dedicated key for that I think, and a locked position, pre-defined by devs, that gives the best head position for both situations (watching monitors vs peeking out the scopes).

Oooh! Expectations : The 3rd of January 2018 will be huge update to devbranch from all the hard work during Christmas!! :D Just kidding of course :) MERRY CHRISTMAS BI-Studio! May all your traditions stay true, all your family and friends be of good health and best of wishes into the next year :) Take care, stay safe and remember to always "Consider using the Steam client option to verify the integrity of the local game cache to avoid corrupted data after downloading this update." Oh, and if you have that extra Christmas spirit, remember to purchase winrar too. See you in 2018!

First of all! All in all you have very many good suggestions, great testing and bug-searching done here :) Secondly: You mention seat positioning in many different points, and I think the problem doesn't magically disappear by moving the character seat height permanently. For instance: I use trackIR and it is more natural for me to have the current seating (AMV commander/gunner), because I can look out by default, but in order to view the monitor I can just glance down. If you would lower the head position to your suggestion, then I would have a slightly better view of the monitors (PIP), but no useful view through the periscopes, at all. I would have to move my head upwards (which is harder with track IR) in order to look outside. Because of player base split between Track IR and non-Track IR users, either of the possible situations (head high, but poor view of screens vs. head low, but poor view of the periscopes) are not a 100% fix. Therefore, my suggestion is to do what many combat flight sims do, which is to have a "snap to sight" view mode. The very popular BF-109 has an offset sightglass, and in realistic sims, this means you have one head position good for flying (see all instruments), and one for shooting (head moved right to see the sight correctly). The same philosophy could be applied for ARMA, either by "adjusting seat height" with a button, alternating between high/low seat height. Or "cheating" by creating a camera position that functions as an alternate "first person" view mode, perhaps with restricted FOV as to not see your own body "detached" behind you. Perhaps it could be keybound to the same as alternate optics button. (Default Ctrl+RMB). This way, if the player wants to see a wide view of the surroundings he/she can have his head up in the cupola (raised view). If the player wants to see inside the interior and use the monitors, he/she could sit down and use the lowered view. Above all I am for conserving realism, so if the BIS devs created the interiors from blueprints/to scale, then the default view should reflect the vehicle design. If the vehicle supports adjustable seats, they should incorporate a way to alternate between optimal view points, or have a gradient change of height (much like the periscopes can adjust on certain vehicles). This is a fantastic suggestion. An overlay that shows a rough estimate of the vehicles size to avoid running over stuff. One of my cars has this feature and it is really helpful. Haven't backed over the neighbors cat yet! *Knocks on wood*

Closing my eyes and praying to the Bohemian gods for new, or rather, additional armor mechanics all together. Shaped charges Penetration effects Ammo storage detonation(boom)/deflagration(wooosh) New modules New armor types (spaced/ERA) I long for the day where a tank is only totally knocked out (destroyed state) if: Fuel storage catches fire and burns the tank to a crisp. Ammo storage catches fire or detonates. And much more common sights are: Crew kill Mobility kill (tracks/engine/fuel/drivetrain) Combat ineffectiveness kill (weapon systems, turret drives, elevation drives, targeting systems) Abandoned vehicles. (due to any of the above conditions). Heres hoping anyways :) :D

No need for foul language or rage. That's exactly what I think you were saying, because like I said, you were being very unclear. What you specifically asked for is : "animations for commanders hand clicking buttons/display and driver (ex. switching to thermals, turning on lights, fire smoke etc)" Which does sound like: an animation for clicking individual buttons for different systems, including : display screen buttons, lights, smoke launchers, etc.)", and not how you said afterwards : "A simple hand gesture..." "... in the general vicinity of the button". I don't think you fully appreciate or understand the complexity of animations, and the variety of control panel placements for each vehicle, even for a "simple hand gesture". Besides, it would look like the player "used the force" to manipulate the vehicle. Seeing that the pedals, steering wheels and side-stick for turret controls have been animated, you do, in my opinion, come off as rather ungrateful and demanding.

Firstly, and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, what exactly are you trying to say? You are being very unclear here. Is it a suggestion? Is it a feature report? Start your post by saying "I would like to suggest....." or "Something that would improve the experience....." Secondly, It is not a "small" addition at all. You are talking about a completely new animation for each operation, for each position, in each vehicle. The buttons are not in the same place for each tank or position, so that means on average 1 animation per switch in the game. No other vehicles in game have this, so it would break consistency as well.

I assume you are under the influence. ( ) This is a "free platform upgrade" which essentially is "patching old vehicles" to "meet newest standard". The new content (read: vehicles) that comes with Tanks DLC, will also feature new internals, mechanics, systems, weapons etc, and is perfectly fine to charge as DLC IMHO. Given the comparatively low pricing of ArmA3s DLC so far, and the assumption that most of the dev team have shifted towards a "mysterious" new project, I can only assume the devs are decently funded towards ArmA 4.

Some bug feedback!. When sitting in the Marid gunner position, you can not see the turret 3D model from the new interior, only the shadows it casts on the hull. To reproduce, sit in gunner seat, look over your right shoulder and witness... nothing :) (Fun fact tho - from the gunner optics, you can see yourself inside the cupola :) Nice touch) Some very good details: Ultra smooth reverse camera! (Changes driver display from instruments to rear view when backing up - extremely well designed you guys!) Side-stick controller animations (nice touch!) Overall high quality interiors! I am most pleased :)

Very impressive BI. Good job! This is like the good old Operation Flashpoint days, or ahrem.. ARMA Cold War Assault :P "Tanks" for putting effort into this :) We already have so many beautifully crafted interiors for other vehicles, nice to see the armored ones getting some love to make the game more consistent. I have one question though, and it may be tough to answer now, but I'll try anyhow. Are you planning to make alterations to the way "Pilot view" (the cockpit LOD) works? Right now, it overlays the exterior model and effects . Someone recently pointed out the shell casings on the prowler gunner "disappearing" because they are masked by the pilot FOV. I would like to see interior effects such as smoke, armor piercing sparks, blood, etc. Is it possible to filter some effects out so that only effects that originate from the player vehicle will "clip through" the interior model? I think it would require some engine-level tweaks, but here's hoping :) It would make the game ever so more immersive if you could see sparks flying inside the tank if it got struck by AP rounds going through. Either way, very much wanted improvement with the new interior models. Fantastic news! Made my weekend! Many thanks!

Funny, a few days ago I was just thinking about something along the lines of this. That as a tank commander, you can use a "click and drag"-style move command where you see a 3D model of your tank (or an arrow or something) to show you where the tank physically will be, then by holding shift, like in the editor, rotate the tank. When you release the mouse button, the AI driver will move to the position and orientation of your choice. If this was coupled with the map, you could also create a chain of waypoints for "fine-maneuvering" around the battlefield, then exit the map view to see from the eyes of your character where exactly you want to command the tank, and which orientation. If you ever played brothers in arms, you will remember you could send your fireteams on flanking maneuvers, this showed up as a marker in the 3D world. If you now imagine that marker as a tank, and a second function where you can rotate it, then you have your command-interface-tool. I also miss a gunner orientation and fire command that works better. Like looking in a direction, slam [spacebar] for gunner to look in your direction, then simply click targets for him with your mouse. If you are in a pinch, and do not have time to plan a route for the tank, you default to the WASD keys with the current control scheme (post-1.78) and GTFO.

I do agree. Imagine the following: An enemy covered truck moves into range, your squad opens up on it and unleashes a lead storm. Two enemy infantry jump out, one from the drivers cabin and one from the back. You kill them quickly. Do you A: Keep firing at the truck? or B: Wait and see? In this situation where you are confident that they are enemy, it is only "natural" to keep shooting the truck. If there are enemies in the truck, they are at a disadvantage (ambushed) and you can deny them from returning fire by eliminating them while still in the vehicle. This automatically holds true for other "windowless" vehicles such as APC's, IFV's, trucks, helicopters, boats etc. In Arma, I assume AI do not guess if there are enemy crew still inside, they just 'assume' that enemy vehicles are enemy and keep firing until it is destroyed. There should ideally be a compromise here, because, in real life, when you realize that your squad is the only element of combat that is unleashing fire, the enemy is no longer engaged in combat and presumably fled, surrendered or died. Another problem arises when the enemy vehicle is a valid target for "low-caliber weaponry", but at the same time very resistant to low-caliber ammo (armored truck/humvee/MRAP). The AI will mindlessly shoot at the vehicle until it explodes, no matter the (ammo) cost. As others have suggested either: Add a timeout function. (After X amount of time where the enemy vehicle is empty/dead crew - the AI recognize the vehicle as "empty" and will not engage it. (Not realistic, but better. AI magically know that tank is empty based on game engine knowledge) Add a threat/timeout function. (If enemy vehicle is already discovered and engaged, but is not firing its weapons or moving for X amount of time, it is no longer a threat and can be ignored). (More realistic simulation - vehicle is inactive over time. Could be dead crew, could be random, if crew is replenished it may re-engage and break the cease-fire law). Add a damage/threat function. (After enemy vehicle weapons have been knocked out, it becomes a low priority/low threat target. If, additionally, the mobility is taken out, the threat drops to 0.) To make it even more interesting, maybe AI engagement rules could improve on this. An "Open fire, engage at will" behavior could work as a "destroy all enemies and their assets" function, while "Hold fire, engage at will" is a more relaxed state, where the objective is self-defense and not destruction of enemy targets. Here the AI will cease fire based on one of the above-mentioned suggestions. The ultimate dream would be that AI could employ explosive charges and satchels to destroy static emplacements and abandoned vehicles as a "deny enemy assets" function with the "open fire, engage at will" RoE.

I agree that this is a very interesting aspect that brings new depth to the game. It is also something that will "bring you back" to the game more often due to the constant progression of your character. Currently we "only" have stuff like KOTH where you gain levels and access to more equipment (before finally mutating into a sniper, with rebreather, wetsuit, ghilliesuit, TI-goggles, AT-launcher etc). You could even flesh it out more with specialization skills where you either gain XP in each skill as you go (For instance, use FAK to get some XP in medic skill, use revive to gain more, eventually heal faster/more with each level). Or you could use a skill-tree system, where you have a pool of XP and spend it as currency to unlock skills. In other words, either have it driven by player actions, or by player choice. I like the idea very much and think that if you can make it persistent, it could be added as a [PRPG] mod (persistent role playing game) mod, where a server opts to use it or not. Any server with it activated will allow players to use their saved characters from the persistent data. Could be fun both in a PVP/TVT mode as well as COOP :)

Hello! This may not be super-helpful, but instead of tailoring the snow to the mods/camos, why not pick the type of snow that you think looks best? After all, the map with textures is your artwork. Coming from a place that frequently becomes snowy, I can tell you this that real snow also varies a lot in color. It really depends on where you are and what the weather is like. New/fresh snow is mostly white, to the point that you can become "snowblind" if you stare at it too much (yes you burn your eyes). While realistic, it may not be very great for a game where you can't put on ski goggles or shades to filter the light. If the snow is wet, it becomes more gray, if it is frozen it can reflect more ambient light etc etc. Personally, I would suggest that you try different snow in different areas, perhaps divided by height above sea level. I will start with the "highest" snow type and go down from there Examples from snowy peaks: Example from forests/hills Lastly, some city/suburban area snow: So all in all I'd say you have to settle on what kind of "temperature" you are going for. The colder it is, the more white/pure the snow will look. If it is a milder climate (lower regions, coastal) then more gritty/dirty snow. Think also about how scattered the snow should be... My take on snow is of course, very scandinavian. You need to see what you like best and go for that :) I have some real snow camo, that is white, but it gets dirty and therefore turns more gray-ish over time. Still, camo's aren't about perfect matches to the environment, but minimizing contrast to it. I hope you find this somewhat helpful :)

@mickeymen It is very clear to us that you are personally very invested in the idea of delay, but in all honesty, you are still restricted to tapping buttons to communicate with the AI. The result is a synthetic "human delay" which is very wonky. Standing in 3rd person, watching a tank being commanded by player and driven by AI, looks like someone learning to drive a tank for the first time. Mostly. Oh, and try switching about. If you are the driver, with AI commander. He doesnt say "Forward, stop, left, right forward, stop". He says "All, move to. "House" 200m, two o clock". And you figure out how to get there. If you want the best possible setup for a tank (hull down, angled armor, etc) you HAVE to either : Have amazing AI that know what is the best tactical solution - OR - do it yourself. Before, you had to switch to driver, do it yourself, switch back to gunner/commander and PRAY that the AI driver didn't move, causing your tank to backflip due to explosive collision contact with objects. Now? You can just go there yourself. Play with human crew for maximum realism. Lastly, try to see this from not only your personal taste perspective, but think that ARMA III is trying to sell to large masses of people. Do you think the majority of the arma players would share your view?