Tank Improvments

Ecko · Post by **Ecko** » 2007-04-27 18:07

*I've checked the suggested list and didn't see any mention of any of my suggestions*

Firstly, Could Tanks get a Commander/Spotter position? Allow the commander/spotted too be inside the tank and/or on the roof via right clicking.
This would one improve realism and two, help the gunner. On Maps such as Al Basrah have an extra set of eyes could really help.

Secondly, Can we get a zoom feature for all positions in the tank, up too 4x at least. Tanks are primarily meant too engage at range, but without zooming it's pretty hard too do so.

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-04-27 18:10

I'm pretty sure the commander will be both the driver and commander and will get a periscope style view similar to the Cobra's- as far as I know.

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-04-27 18:11

They're also getting a bigger zoom.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2007-04-27 18:13

Yea you are in luck, all of your ideas are already happening

Ecko · Post by **Ecko** » 2007-04-27 19:50

Awesome!

Post by **eggman** » 2007-04-27 20:18

Yeah .. pretty much done. The HUDs could use a lil work to give them some more utility, but there's always a future release hehe.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-04-27 20:33

Another Commander seat on the tank wouldnt hurt...one with a .50 and one with M249/240 on it...

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-04-27 20:40

3 is fine for now. You're 50 Cal gunner is usually taken out by a sniper anyway, and usually he just watches the rear for suicide drivers. Having 2 is kinda pointless i would think imo for this game. Even though it's used in Real Life, you're takeing one more person out of the game that would be killing people.

And usually anyway in the game, you have a 2man tank (gunner/commander) and when the tank is stopped, the driver usually switches to the .50 Cal anyway to help support fire or watch the rear when stopped.

Post by **eggman** » 2007-04-27 21:24

I dont think you'll see the Cmdr / Driver combo vacating their 360 degree rotational view with zoom all that often after v0.6 releases.

The .50 cal is a useless position imo. Big pita if you have a good 2 man crew going... best to let some chump jump in and gun and die.. that position doesn't require a Crewman kit.

As always this ain't the last set of improvements we plan for Tanks and such... future releases will see further enhancements .. some of which we already have ideas on, some of which will be based on player feedback and game play experiences.

l|Bubba|l · Post by **l|Bubba|l** » 2007-04-27 21:46

A fourth seat just for transport or spawn at SQL wouldn't harm.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-27 21:48

Realistic lasing.

Automatic lead.

Manual traverse.

TC override.

Manual range entry.

Auxiliary reticles.

TIS with polarity option.

Reticle illumination.

I know I know, not gonna happen on the bf2 engine, but I can dream can't I?

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-04-27 22:15

this is where someone has to draw the line between fun gaming and annoying realism. If i wanted to have to manually adjust my sites to hit something, i'd join the army. If i just want to have a better realistic game than what bf2 offered than i play PR. The changes we have had so far make the immersion level alot more real, allot more fun. Having to manually do your sites can just get plain annoying and tedious that i think it would take away from gameplay

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-04-27 22:21

Guerra norte wrote:Realistic lasing.

Automatic lead.

Manual traverse.

TC override.

Manual range entry.

Auxiliary reticles.

TIS with polarity option.

Reticle illumination.

explosive reactive armour
infrared identifying and tracking
active defence systems
remotely operated secondary weapons
turret stabilisation
automatic ballistic computation

Milsims just aren't the same without them

And people wonder why when it is said that Arma is rubbish....

daranz · Post by **daranz** » 2007-04-27 22:22

Er, rounds in PR don't fly straight. If you were able to manually adjust sights, you'd be that much more accurate.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-28 00:06

$kelet0r wrote: turret stabilisation

DOH :d uh: How could I forget that part?

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-04-28 01:44

daranz wrote:Er, rounds in PR don't fly straight. If you were able to manually adjust sights, you'd be that much more accurate.

believe eggmanzor said that rounds will travel at about 1000m/s so... yes.. you'll be able to hit where you aim with the reticle.

and turret stabilization would make my wet dreams.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-04-28 02:39

$kelet0r wrote:explosive reactive armour not necesary
infrared identifying and tracking YES
active defence systemsYES =D
remotely operated secondary weapons YES
turret stabilisation Obviously
automatic ballistic computationi want my ww2 tank better

Milsims just aren't the same without them
And people wonder why when it is said that Arma is rubbish....

1234

gazzthompson · Post by **gazzthompson** » 2007-04-28 11:17

wants a dev's comment on turret stabilisation ? i dout its possible but still , no harm in asking.

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-04-28 11:22

well the 50 cal is stabilised on the turret so in theory there might be a way of stabilising the turret on the body of the tank instead.
shame that there is no way of mimicking an TIS even in a primitive way like the Operation Flashpoint "radar" for the commander

daranz · Post by **daranz** » 2007-04-28 13:17

I thought there already was a very ineffective and primitive form of vertical turret stabilization in the game... Or was I just delusional?