Armor Driver Changes?

Guerra · Post by **Guerra** » 2007-04-04 20:46

Oh if the only thing thats different is that the driver/commander position gets the full 360 view plus zooming, I'm all for it and then some!

Can we get a little icon that has the clock around the tank, so the driver and gunner can coordinate strikes better? I think someone posted a perfect picture of how it would work. Someone want to link it for me?

DarkTalon · Post by **DarkTalon** » 2007-04-04 21:58

If anyone has played Red orchestra and driven the tanks the gunner can press buttons on the num pad where 8 was "forward a little" 5 was "STOP" "4 was left a little" and so on, maybe you could add some exclusive voice macros for the gunner?

hoc|Altec · Post by **hoc|Altec** » 2007-04-04 22:07

Will the T62 commander put his feet on the drivers shoulders like in the old days?

Or will they just have tin cans connected with string?

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-04-05 02:28

IMO, using the "Q menu" wouldn't really encourage the VoIP system. I mean sure, it is teamwork but it's not as if you're really communicating with the commander/driver. Aaaaah, I tried to explain it but now I look like an idiot.

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-04-05 03:12

either way, these tanks are going to be beautiful machines onces .6 comes out... oo i cant wait

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-04-05 03:29

It would be nice to add the feature were the commander (M2 .50 cal gunner) wouldn't automatically die when hit with a RPG, Tank round, explosives, etc while his ducking inside the turret. I know in game the hatch is open at all times(I don’t think anything can be done about it), but when you press “Ctrl” to duck inside the turret you should be safe from enemy attacks, since its suppose to represent the commander being safely inside the tank.

Post by **eggman** » 2007-04-05 03:34

The commander position is buttoned up and uses an electro optical display. He can switch to the .50 cal gunner position, which is an unbuttoned position and has no tank driving control, but most of his work will be done from a buttoned up position.

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-04-05 03:46

Sounds a lot like how ArmA has done it. But none the less, its good to hear that you guys know exactly what your doing

.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-04-05 11:59

eddie wrote:IMO, using the "Q menu" wouldn't really encourage the VoIP system. I mean sure, it is teamwork but it's not as if you're really communicating with the commander/driver. Aaaaah, I tried to explain it but now I look like an idiot.

and what happened with those people who dont have the voip working (onboard soundcard) or dont have mic ?

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-05 13:02

DarkTalon wrote:If anyone has played Red orchestra and driven the tanks the gunner can press buttons on the num pad where 8 was "forward a little" 5 was "STOP" "4 was left a little" and so on, maybe you could add some exclusive voice macros for the gunner?

as much as i love PR, RO's tanking is the most amazing amazing fun thing, and beats it so badly. That being said, PR is doing an amazing job with the shit engine. The only problem is that alot of the stuff that makes RO amazing cant really be added to bf2.

- Extensive damage modeling (shots ricochet and stuff)
-unbuttoning hatches/driver view
-voice commands
-in vehicle voip/text
-rangefinders with the sights
-WASD turret movement
-amazing looking tracers
-incremental throttle (is this possible with bf2?)

Post by **Exel** » 2007-04-05 13:56

causticbeat wrote:-WASD turret movement

I agree on everything else, the BF2 engine is very limited for realistic tank modeling and we'll just have to make the best of it, but why would you want keyboard turret control?

NavalLord · Post by **NavalLord** » 2007-04-05 14:43

Makes it more realistic having to input the commands. Rather then flying around with your mouse. However, a joystick would be the most realistic. (I think the M1A2 uses a joystick to control the turret. I have no clue, I'm just making stuff up. Anyone been in an Abrams that can enlighten me?)

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-05 15:02

'[R-DEV wrote:Exel']I agree on everything else, the BF2 engine is very limited for realistic tank modeling and we'll just have to make the best of it, but why would you want keyboard turret control?

because its a heavy *** tank gun, not a twitchy little machine gun.

keep the HMG's mouse controlled, but keyboard control on the turret makes it not only less twitchy, but a hell of a lot more accurate

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-05 15:03

Engineer wrote:Without stabilizer WASD for turret will be pain.. I think mouse control is a good compromise for this missing feature.

RO doesnt have stabalizer and its not that bad. It makes long range shots alot easier, and its alot more realistic input feature.

And im pretty sure its possible, theturrets on the guns on battleship mod move with WASD

Post by **eggman** » 2007-04-05 15:19

I've tried WASD on the turrets and it kinda sucked. To do it that way you need to have a "fine tuning" keyset / toggle. In BB it's not so critical because you are not trying to track a moving target (ok well they are moving very slowly).

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:and what happened with those people who dont have the voip working (onboard soundcard) or dont have mic ?

I am no longer accepting this as an "excuse". Mics are $15 and decent soundcards can be had for $50 (and most onboard sound today is actually pretty decent).

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-05 15:42

could you use shift to "fine tune"?

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-04-05 15:50

Don't like the sound of WASD for turret movement.

Copy_of_Blah · Post by **Copy_of_Blah** » 2007-04-05 16:02

'[R-DEV wrote:Exel']I agree on everything else, the BF2 engine is very limited for realistic tank modeling and we'll just have to make the best of it, but why would you want keyboard turret control?

One reason is the turret speed would no longer use the acceleration sliders thus making the gun a set speed for all. In theory anyway. Don't know that that would actually work.