• 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/

Tank interiors: detailed or not?

I love seeing these beautifully modelled interiors and I really am looking forward to seeing more, but a little part of me says that it's not entirely worth spending a long time making something that makes people go "ooh" and "aah" and then get on with the gameplay.

But as Wilsonam said, it's going to be easier to make more tanks with detailed interiors in the future, so I will reserve my judgement until I see how the 3rd party modders are getting along with it.
 
Upvote 0
I'm sure if I can take a look at the current panzer and t34, it's not that hard to reproduce.
A lot of work.. but TW already did the hard part.. and that is developing the first 2.

I can't wait for the SDK.. I love to dive into the tanks.
Have some good models lying around.. that when re-modeled can be used.
Most of the work is probably the rigging, interior and character movements.
The modeling and texturing is not a big deal.

And when you have a working example like the pIV and t34, not impossible.

So to get back to your question.. I say.. detailed.. as it's so extremely cool that we now have full tank interiors. I still like to play t34 vs tiger just because you have an interior.
 
Upvote 0
I'm sure if I can take a look at the current panzer and t34, it's not that hard to reproduce.
A lot of work.. but TW already did the hard part.. and that is developing the first 2.

I can't wait for the SDK.. I love to dive into the tanks.
Have some good models lying around.. that when re-modeled can be used.
Most of the work is probably the rigging, interior and character movements.
The modeling and texturing is not a big deal.

And when you have a working example like the pIV and t34, not impossible.

So to get back to your question.. I say.. detailed.. as it's so extremely cool that we now have full tank interiors. I still like to play t34 vs tiger just because you have an interior.

You sound like you know what you are talking about. Have you created any models from the ground up for RO1? If so how long did it take you?
 
Upvote 0
OldRavenNL if you are planning to make tanks, please please please consider the StuG, it's really a badly needed tank and was in any eastern-front theater present. :) It was at a time also Germany's most common tank variant.

This is guy is smoking a pipe inside a StuG, and smoking is pipe is by definition awesome, so the StuG has to be awesome as well :D

Spoiler!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The stug is high on my list ;) Since it shouldn't be that hard to convert the current IV into a Stug IV.
I don't have a model of the STUG IV yet.. I have a lot of others ranging from panzer II , III, IV, all the way to the panther and tiger.
I even have a kv1 :p
They are not usefull yet in RO2, but plan on using them as reference to remodel, or optimize.

I love to know what tw plans on releasing.. as I'nm not going to build one that they already plan on building.

I never made anything for ro1, but I've been a 3d modeler/animator for over 13 years now.. doing tv and film stuff, and some stuff for sony back in the killzone1 period.
I recently gave that up since I wanted to focus on getting 3d models out of the computer again.. but as a hobby I plan on doing some tank stuff for ro2.

gimme that sdk TW! :D
 
Upvote 0
It would indeed, for the exterior, be a much less time consuming task to make the StuG IV out of the Panzer IV.

Same can be applied for your already existing Panzer III, the StuG III G being the most produced variant. In any case, it would be the best if TWI would reveal their plans concerning tanks so that there aren't any wasted efforts involved. I know they plan to make the Panzer III so maybe they leave it up to the community to make some awesome StuG's out of them! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It would indeed, for the exterior, be a much less time consuming task to make the StuG IV out of the Panzer IV.

Same can be applied for your already existing Panzer III, the StuG III G being the most produced variant. In any case, it would be the best if TWI would reveal their plans concerning tanks so that there aren't any wasted efforts involved. I know they plan to make the Panzer III so maybe they leave it up to the community to make some awesome StuG's out of them! :)

Agreed on the Stug III. Thats why I started this http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=60721 thread about the StuG III. The Ausf G was too late to see stalingrad. Any StuG III in stalingrad wouldve been the Ausf F/8, F and earlier...I have proof of the Ausf F & F/8 versions in Stalingrad in my thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Just like the title says. This is a total guess because I am not a modder, but would players rather have 2 new vehicles with all the interior bells and whistles, or in the same amount of development time 5 new vehicles with less detailed interiors like the tanks of RO1.

Just curious, as I for one spend most of my time either at the gunsight, looking through the drivers vision port, or in the commanders hatch. While it's nice TWI went to all the trouble of making detailed interiors I don't think it was the sole reason people bought the game.

Opinions?

Agree completely. You spend roughly 1% of the time actually looking at the interior if you're a good tank user. I was saying this before the game was released and I got completely ridiculed for it. Now most people agree with me considering the tanking experience on maps like Gumrak is pure torture.

I would have rather had 6x the tanks like ROOST. Wheres my Stug? Wheres my Stug Assault gun? where's my SU76? Where's my Marder? Wheres my T70 and T60? Oh right, there are none, and wont be for a long time considering TW felt the need to implement such a affectatious, labor-intensive and overall useless feature.

What more; despite all the work that was put into it, the tanking in ROOST (or Darkest Hour, especially) is still better and more realistic than the tanking in RO2

What I like about the detailed interiors is not simply that they look cool, but have functionality as well as detail. The detail I might add is something that no other FPS has even tried to do with tank combat. When people in my clan post videos of BF3 tank combat I lol so hard and go back to playing RO2.
Theres barely any difference. TW failed to represent the incredible lethality of a 7 KG projectile moving at 800 m/s. The tanking in RO2 is simply the BF 1942 tanking experience with better models. Tactics are virtually moot because even the advantageous shooting and maneuvering fail to do any significant damage to enemy tanks. Every shot penetrates but they seem to do nothing unless of course you hit one of the magical "boom boxes" that makes the tank explode instantly. It's nothing but a shot for shot match the entire game... just like BF3
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I dont know what your experiences have been with the tanks in RO2, but when I've played them the damage characteristics are more detailed than World of Tanks. Armor plates can weaken/be destroyed, tracks, fuel tank, turret ring, main gun, brakes, suspension/drive wheels just to name a few things that can be damaged or destroyed. That is far more detailed than any BF game.

Not to mention the times that maneuvering and tactics have worked well. I've seen plenty of shot bounce off an angled T-34 and the PzIV.

Sure on the combined arms maps the tanks are basically mobile gun platforms, and it isn't like the tanks are perfect. I do however think you are exaggerating.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I dont know what your experiences have been with the tanks in RO2, but when I've played them the damage characteristics are more detailed than World of Tanks. .

The damage characteristics are real, at least in regards to the performance of the tank itself, but a shell does not have to hit a person to kill them. If a shell penetrates the crew compartment, everybody is going to suffer severe injuries or death from:

- Molten metal from the impact flying inside the interior, casuing second and third degree burns and setting things (and people) on fire
- Spalling shrapnel flying off the walls of the tank from around the exit hole (killing and injuring people)
- The shell itself will often ricochet around the interior as it often does not have enough KE to penetrate the other side of the tank depending on where it hit from. Obviously this will kill and injure much of the crew
- The force of impact and the noise from it will temporarily deafen, and even burst the eardrums of the crew
- Smoke and refuse from the impact may blind crew members

With all these things combined, it's safe to say that if a shell peenrates the crew compartment, the tank is basically going to be dead or disabled. In tank combat the first good hit usually ends the battle; this is why there are no light and heavy tanks anymore, only MBTs. This is why RO2's tanks are ridiculously unrealistic.. shells are constantly penetrating the crew compartment yet they do almost nothing; which is HIGHLY unrealistic.

In RO2 the first hit means nothing. Plenty of times I've flanked targets and put a penetrating shot right into their side into the crew compartment, and they've simply turned around and started firing back. This is not something that happens in real life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, HE rounds have a spalling effect (yes I know AP rounds can cause this too) but some of what you are suggesting would needlessly complicate the ballistics calculations. I mean honestly, unless a game takes into account humidity, wind, and the rotation of the Earth, no game will be "realistic" like what you describe.

Whether or not RO2 tanking is realistic or not is all relative, compared to every other FPS with tanks it is the most realistic. To call is highly unrealistic is an exaggeration.

I agree with you, that if a tank round (or any round for that matter) penetates a tank it will **** something up or kill the people inside more often than not. But lets not get carried away and say it is just as unrealistic as BF3.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, HE rounds have a spalling effect (yes I know AP rounds can cause this too) but some of what you are suggesting would needlessly complicate the ballistics calculations. I mean honestly, unless a game takes into account humidity, wind, and the rotation of the Earth, no game will be "realistic" like what you describe.

Whether or not RO2 tanking is realistic or not is all relative, compared to every other FPS with tanks it is the most realistic. To call is highly unrealistic is an exaggeration.

I agree with you, that if a tank round (or any round for that matter) penetates a tank it will **** something up or kill the people inside more often than not. But lets not get carried away and say it is just as unrealistic as BF3.

Despite the bells and whistles, the tanking in RO2 plays out with virtually no difference to any other generic tanking experience, you could spent time trying to flank your targets or aim for these magical "vulnerable areas" (even though the entire damned crew compartment is a vulnerable area in real life) but ultimately every engagement is just a drawn out firing exchange regardless of position, and if a shell penetrates your tank all you get is a "my GOT, ZEYV PENERATED OUR FRONTAL AHMA" as if that's a daily routine for these people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobsynergy
Upvote 0
It would indeed, for the exterior, be a much less time consuming task to make the StuG IV out of the Panzer IV.

Same can be applied for your already existing Panzer III, the StuG III G being the most produced variant. In any case, it would be the best if TWI would reveal their plans concerning tanks so that there aren't any wasted efforts involved. I know they plan to make the Panzer III so maybe they leave it up to the community to make some awesome StuG's out of them! :)

I was digging through my model database and found out I already have a StuGIII :D
 
Upvote 0
In RO2 the first hit means nothing. Plenty of times I've flanked targets and put a penetrating shot right into their side into the crew compartment, and they've simply turned around and started firing back. This is not something that happens in real life.

The severe lack of real post-penetration damage with tank shells is indeed downright baffling. Hit two inches off the driver? Nothing. Right under the arse of the commander? Nothing, shrapnels and such are nonexistent. If they wanted to model a small luck factor about penetrations it definitely is greatly exaggerated.

I could understand if you say hit at the very edge of the glacis\turret or the engine from the side\rear that there odds are there won't be crew damage but when taking the driver out requires you to be more picky than the current weakspots go figure.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0