DogNine

Are you saying that they tested the L55 or just what they had? I had wondered about the wisdom of a hole in the armor for the sight but then I read somewhere that it was about probability of a hit versus the vulnerability of an exposed sight. Which makes sense, that no one can shoot the sight without the gunner seeing them. Bigger gun. Bigger armor. Bigger gun. Bigger armor. Where does it end? More importantly, which is more fun for a game? Personally I think bigger armor is more interesting (prolonged fights) but I can see how it would be frustrating to shoot at. Arma rewards the careful one shot one kill, taking that away makes things very hard for squishy infantry.

I though APFSDS (or any hyper-velocity projectile) had an extremely low chance of ricochet? Something to do with materials behaving like water at the energy levels involved?

Which almost makes it more dependent on the weapons the enemy has available. You only have to look at the US response to the ability for insurgents to use potent and improvised weapons. I've always found it an absurd irony that the heavy armor has to be held back because recon and/or intel show that there are AT weapons that have to be cleared out by infantry! Still coming back to gameplay, you need to be able to stop heavy armor or they would just roll over everything. All the more reason for a good working component damage system to allow for disabling without destroying. This is good food for thought.

I imagine that gun would be problematic to field! Looks scary as hell though. Do you know what the other vehicle in the picture is? I was under the impression that medium armor is meant to protect from anything less than an anti tank attack, if so, the question remains. Do you field an expensive (both logistically and financially) heavy armored vehicle or multiple cheaper medium armor if they can all be neutralized by the same class of weapon. I guess this is an evolution of battle theory kind of question, more often answered by battlefield realities than armchair generals. :) Personally if I was out there I'd like every bit of protection I could get, however that's not how governments spend their money.

I thought the current limitation with the gun was that they had hit the maximum speed of chemical propellant? Meaning that the way the gun works had to be redesigned, ie. electro-thermal. Also on a gameplay note, if frontal armor is able to be easily penetrated then whats the point of heavy armor? Survivability Is the reason for having the heavy otherwise you'd just take medium armor.

I've always felt that the driver commands have been not quite right. Correct e if I'm wrong but I thought that if the tank commander said go in a direction the driver would do it, trusting that the commander can see. Stopping for bushes, rocks and going slow when you can't see is ok when you've just given a way-point to the driver but if i give him a command to go in a direction i expect him to drive in that direction till i tell him to stop! Sadly though its always the same.

If you can command the crew (F1, F2 etc.,) the you can select the gunner and use alt and give the watch there command. The showcase does not give you control of the crew and I don't know how you would do it otherwise.

Almost need to make a list and review and rate the schemes people suggest! Keep it coming and this may result in an ergonomic arrangement... Jojo, it looks like that may be the easiest way to do it as it will otherwise require modding but really the whole idea was to try and avoid using another device.

Thanks for the input. I agree, that head look is not needed, however I felt that when moving around my observation of the environment was more natural as I was checking around me without having to come out of free-look to change my heading. I'll give that arrangement a try as well.

As the title suggests I've been messing around with different ways of controlling (myself?) in game. There have been some absolutely finger twisting control schemes suggested and so I'm exploring some more unusual approaches. While I realise better minds than mine are trying to figure out better ways of streamlining the controls, I figure experimenting can't hurt! What I've done so far is simply toggled mouse-look and changed the strafe keys (A&D) into turn keys, which as long as your not in combat, is very immersive I think. The reason I say not in combat is, apart from being a bit wobbly coming to grips with a new movement scheme, due to two things that I'm hoping the community may have answers to (other than use the default keys...:)). First is using weapon sights when your head is looking away from the weapon, atm pressing your sights key will return your point of view to the weapon (re-centring your view) rather than bringing the weapon to where you are looking. My question; is there a command available that does this (and I'm too dense to see it) or is this something that will have to be modded? Second is that atm head-look is relative to the orientation of the body, meaning that when you turn your view turns as well. This makes moving and free-looking a little jarring. My question; is there a switch that would change head-look to a pseudo-stabilized view. I understand that this one is likely to require modding. Now really all this does so far is make head-look a part of the central controls, which can be otherwise done by using TrackIR. I'd like to try this without any extra peripherals, and I'll only really be able to figure out the rest of the controls when the core movement controls are sorted. Thanks for reading and feel free to poke holes in this approach as it is all wip.