• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Sacrifice of Vehicle Interior Animations & Enter/Exit:

Sacrifice of Vehicle Interior Animations & Enter/Exit:

  • Yes

    Votes: 148 59.4%
  • No

    Votes: 101 40.6%

  • Total voters
    249
We are in a vicious circle though, without tanks no-one will make tank maps and without tank maps why bother making the tanks when they are so hard to build.:(
But we shouldn't be in such a circle,TWI had always intended to make new tanks,they should have been making a map or maps that make full use of them.
Wolverine who made Arad2 as a combined arms map is already working on a tank only version,but as far as i know he's the only modder interested in doing any work with maps that involve tanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
What's the point of adding new tanks when we only have one real tank map?

The RO2 Ogledow remake (by Six Ten) is my favorite tank map.

The tanking on Pavlov's House and Red October have had their moments.
I still wonder how incredible Black Day July would be in a direct copied RO2 port.

Haven't had the pleasure of even a semi-full server on the new Arad map tanking yet
 
Upvote 0
Yes, it has already speed things up as the next tanks share several things in common with the existing ones. But as I said, it isn't all in the modeling and animation. The set up is also a major component here (check out the tanks in the SDK)

So based on this, setting up each individual tank is independent of modeling the interior and animations, and also takes a significant amount of time. So honestly speaking, it's unlikely that sacrificing the detailed interior and movement animations would result in a new tank every other month. At the same time, the process is streamlined, so I doubt it will take 6 months until October before we have new tanks.

I can be patient. The beta is shaping up nicely, and I'm just three levels away from unlocking that coveted selector switch for the PPSh-41 in vanilla.

Speaking of which, unless people have already ground their way to every unlock and leveled every single class to Hero, there is still content in-game that you haven't gotten the chance to use yet. So while you're waiting, go level the semi-auto rifle bayonets or something...
 
Upvote 0
It's not just the animations. Due to what we model in game (including the physics, armor and penetration) it takes awhile to set up. RO 1 tanks are very simplistic in comparison.

I appreciate this is somewhat of a tangent but are there any plans to look at the somewhat gamey aspects of tanking in this game? Namely that against one another the tanks don't feel deadly enough at the ranges we are fighting (sub 200 meters) most shots should surely be lethal? I might be wrong but I was under the impression that at such close quarters it was generally a case of the first shot on target winning the engagement.

But the real issue is the overwhelming effectiveness of the AT rifles - to the extent that it can penetrate a T34's turret frontally something which is either a horrific bug or a (in my opinion) horrifically bad design decision. Will anything be done to redress this issue?

Also I'd like to voice my support for infantry being able to ride on tanks, I'd also appreciate that if such a move was taken the infantry be able to fire from their mounted position. This would be immensely useful as it would provide both tank and infantry with compelling reasons to work together (mobility and protection).
 
Upvote 0
It's not just the animations. Due to what we model in game (including the physics, armor and penetration) it takes awhile to set up. RO 1 tanks are very simplistic in comparison.

All the more reason to try and streamline things a bit. I just worry about the posts in the modding forum where people are giving up making vehicles because the ENTIRE interior is too difficult to model off existing references. If it is possible to code the tank so that each position just has a narrow view angle in the tank (like in RO1, so only a small area of the inside of the tank need be modelled for each position) when zoomed out. Couple this with a black screen saying "moving to position X" when you would normally move about in a fully realized interior and vehicles may become less daunting to the modders from a 3D modelling, texturing and reference standpoint.

Naturally you'd need to keep the physics, armor and penetration set-up (I assume this includes things like hitboxes for the various systems in the tank). The detailed physics and damage model of RO2 is a really great thing and should not be dumbed down.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olivier
Upvote 0
All the more reason to try and streamline things a bit. I just worry about the posts in the modding forum where people are giving up making vehicles because the ENTIRE interior is too difficult to model off existing references. If it is possible to code the tank so that each position just has a narrow view angle in the tank (like in RO1, so only a small area of the inside of the tank need be modelled for each position) when zoomed out. Couple this with a black screen saying "moving to position X" when you would normally move about in a fully realized interior and vehicles may become less daunting to the modders from a 3D modelling, texturing and reference standpoint.

Naturally you'd need to keep the physics, armor and penetration set-up (I assume this includes things like hitboxes for the various systems in the tank). The detailed physics and damage model of RO2 is a really great thing and should not be dumbed down.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Couldn't have said better. :eek:
 
Upvote 0
It's not just the animations. Due to what we model in game (including the physics, armor and penetration) it takes awhile to set up. RO 1 tanks are very simplistic in comparison.

I'm just wondering, how much more time & resources would be available to focus on those elements if the animation & coding of the interiors (as well as possible enter/exit animations) were put on hold or scrapped for the time being?

At this stage, anything that would help speed up the process would be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the interior details and the amount of work put into the tanks, but I don't love it enough to have the design time end up being so long.

But its true isn't it? Designing new tanks and putting them on the existing infantry maps is just a waste of time,these maps won't play any differently just coz you got a new tank,and Gumrak will still be Gumrak,no matter what kind of tank you're in.

Besides a few of the existing maps being able to handle more types of vehicles (Fallen Fighters / Gumrak / Pav's & Comm's House) there are a couple of community maps out already that could really use them, especially transports..... and if transports and more vehicles were available now, I bet you $2 that many more maps would start to be worked on by the community.

Right now, there's no real point in making larger maps, because nobody wants to spend 3/4 of their playing time just walking to the combat area.

But we shouldn't be in such a circle,TWI had always intended to make new tanks,they should have been making a map or maps that make full use of them.
Wolverine who made Arad2 as a combined arms map is already working on a tank only version,but as far as i know he's the only modder interested in doing any work with maps that involve tanks.

I was starting to work on a new version of Karlovka from the mod a few months back, but things in my personal life reduced the free time I had to work on it.

But, sometime down the road, I might just grab the original Karlovka map and work on that to update it for RO2..... But it won't be the same if it doesn't have Half-Tracks.

All the more reason to try and streamline things a bit. I just worry about the posts in the modding forum where people are giving up making vehicles because the ENTIRE interior is too difficult to model off existing references. If it is possible to code the tank so that each position just has a narrow view angle in the tank (like in RO1, so only a small area of the inside of the tank need be modelled for each position) when zoomed out. Couple this with a black screen saying "moving to position X" when you would normally move about in a fully realized interior and vehicles may become less daunting to the modders from a 3D modelling, texturing and reference standpoint.

Naturally you'd need to keep the physics, armor and penetration set-up (I assume this includes things like hitboxes for the various systems in the tank). The detailed physics and damage model of RO2 is a really great thing and should not be dumbed down.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Aggreed on all parts and the above would work great imo.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Making an entire new tank system (IE, trying to reproduce RO 1's) would probably take more time then making a new tank.

Yeah, we already have animated tanks. It could be debated if it was worth it....but there is almost no need to because It is here...and here to stay. Don't think you could have two tanks fully animated and everything else not....or a different system.

So lets enjoy what we have..which I really enjoy :) (just lag is what kills tank battles for me)
 
Upvote 0
Making an entire new tank system (IE, trying to reproduce RO 1's) would probably take more time then making a new tank.

Hello and thanks for responding in this thread,

Right now each crew member in the tank has 360 degrees of head turn available to him when zoomed out, requiring the entire interior of the tank to be modelled for him. All I'm advocating is to limit that (perhaps the same way deployed machine guns are limited in head turn) in a narrow arc in front of each player (I'm thinking driver and hull gunner mainly). The hull gunner could even just have his sights. That way the only tank interior that needs to be modelled (and referenced) is that directly in that narrow arc of vision...RO1-style. The main gunner could just have his scope and the commander could have the scope, cupola with 360 degree view and the unhatched/binoc view with 360 degree view. Pistol ports could maybe be accessed as a snap view via a new key bind (press & hold to look out the port) similar to the snap views found in some flight simulators. Naturally any of these guidelines would need to be assessed based on the peculiarities of the vehicle in question. Hatch ways would need to be modelled for mantling purposes as well. To me, tank interior coverage and ingress/egress are two separate issues.

I don't know if this is possible (you guys would know better than me). It may require a substantial retool of tanking code upfront. However, it would substantially reduce the future amount of interior modelling and reference gathering (sometimes a more difficult task) that vehicle makers would need to do for any given vehicle. I feel that it would not have an especially detrimental effect on gameplay (since crew communications and position switching (via the black screen instead of a resource-intensive animation) wouldn't change) but we would get many more vehicles over the course of RO2's life than with the present model.

All that said, RO2 is still my favorite shooter these days...By far. I'm just bringing this up out of concern for the future of the tank simulator aspect of the game. As I stated earlier, I played some Mare Nostrum and ROOst against BOTS the other day and I had a hoot. Coming back to RO2's tanking really put the lack of variety in the vehicles and the lack of ingress/egress into bold relief for me. I understand that TWI has been super busy since launch with the bug fixes first and now the refinement of the infantry simulation (and it's coming along splendidly, BTW). My guess is that you will be turning your attention to new content and the tank simulator in the near future so now is the time to have this discussion IMHO.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: polysemy
Upvote 0
Silly poll. Interior animations apply to both tanks and transports, but entry/exit animations need only apply to transports.

Interior animations I could have done without (but they are there now), but any vehicle people can exit needs proper entry/exit animations. I found tanks and transports very gamey in RO1 and would rather not see that teleporting nonsense in RO2.

Infantry are highly vulnerable as they exit an APC, and this places limits on how they are used in real life. If you don't model that vulnerability properly, you will get very gamey behaviour in RO2 - just as we did in RO1.

Having proper entry/exit animations will also mean more teamwork. Already in RO2 you can see better infantry-tank cooperation than we ever saw in RO1. The tank crew don't feel they can be their own anti-infantry defence any more, so they do a bit less lone-wolf stuff, relying instead on friendly infantry to keep satchels and AT rifles away. APCs should be the same - you would only really ride the box onto the objective if the enemy are seriously disorganised or totally lacking in anti-tank weapons. These conditions are not generally present in the game.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0