Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tmpwhore

When are we going to get vertical stabilization?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hey Devs,

 

Thanks for having horizontal stabilization on those applicable vehicles in the game it helps a lot. But what about vertical stabilization? The main gun should not be bouncing up and down with the vehicle. It should have vertical stabilization(within reason) as well. All stabilized guns should be able to shoot on the move, as of now it's like a WWII simulator. Ironically, stabilized guns came at the end of WWII so maybe that was where you were going? :-). Please implement horizontal stabilization as well please so we can realistically shoot on the move like the real life armour assets. Fun Fact: The warrior's 30mm RARDEN cannon IRL doesn't have stabilization at all as well as in the game.

Edited by tmpwhore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current stabilization is good enough. Those vehicles are already very powerful and adding more crutches to them would make them a complete no brainer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I hear what you are saying but stabilization is not a "crutch", it's accurate to some of the vehicles in the game. Also firing on the move is still pretty inaccurate compared to standing still. It's very annoying to be crawling along, calling your driver to halt only to have the main gun dip 10 degress just because the tank/apc is stopping. Also just bounding over terrain is so crazy you can't scan for targets going 10 KPH. It's unrealistic and feels broken. We already have simplified firing systems, let's not make them even more simplified.

 

For example on the Abrams how you range and fire the main gun is this, you put the recticle on the target and hit the lase button. This lases the target and the fire control computer automatically adjusts elevation based on the selected ammunition type, air pressure, rotation of the earth, wind speed, etc. to ensure a first round strike. It also will automatically adjust lead if you are tracking a target right or left. We have none of this. We are using the tanks as if all the electronics are knocked out already. I'm not saying this should be a super tank simulator like Steel Beasts, but a simple stabilization system would meet us half way without too much programming overhead. Also the stabilization is not some super "god mode" or something it can only compensate so much and so fast. A huge dip will overwhelm it for a bit until it has the time to compensate. It feels very unrealistic that you go over a small rock or slight dip and suddenly your pointing at the sky or in the dirt.

Edited by tmpwhore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a game and not the real world. Squad is also not aiming to be a hardcore realism simulation. I have +3.000 hours in ArmA 3 playing Milsim. I would have not got so many hours by playing in or with communities that use all the available tech and options. It would be boring. Limitation is a part of game design. A game in which you could do anything is boring.

 

I like the fact you don't have a "working" target solution system for tanks. It would be extremely boring. The current system adds (at least) a small skillset for players which is basically:

 

1. Know or measure the distance.

2. Know the holdovers in the optics.

3. If the target is moving, calculating where the target will be when your shell impacts.

 

I honestly don't really care about the so called "realism". It's a game and it must not just work, it must also be fun. If there is one thing especially tracked vehicles need it is better driving/interaction with ground objects, so you dont get stuck when you should not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MeFirst said:

This is a game and not the real world. Squad is also not aiming to be a hardcore realism simulation. I have +3.000 hours in ArmA 3 playing Milsim. I would have not got so many hours by playing in or with communities that use all the available tech and options. It would be boring. Limitation is a part of game design. A game in which you could do anything is boring.

 

I like the fact you don't have a "working" target solution system for tanks. It would be extremely boring. The current system adds (at least) a small skillset for players which is basically:

 

1. Know or measure the distance.

2. Know the holdovers in the optics.

3. If the target is moving, calculating where the target will be when your shell impacts.

 

I honestly don't really care about the so called "realism". It's a game and it must not just work, it must also be fun. If there is one thing especially tracked vehicles need it is better driving/interaction with ground objects, so you dont get stuck when you should not. 

"I don't care so no one else should"

I think if it's used in real life it should be used in game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You sure? Because I don't see it. Horizontal stabilization yes but not vertical. I'm not asking for a ballistics computer, all I'm asking is for a a mediocum of vertical stabilization, like on armoured vehicles since the end of WWII. Some vehicles, like the warrior, have no stabilization so obviously we wouldn't want that, as well as the BDRM's and such. But the main battle tanks should have it. The Bradley should have it, the BTR-80 30mm should have it, not the 14.5mm older turret. The MTLB 14.5mm shouldn't have it, but the updated 30mm turret should. So really we're only talking about 5 or 6 of the vehicles in the entire game should have it. Look at some videos of tanks crossing terrain, you see the barrel stay level as the tank pitches. It does have it's limits though it's not super leveling system or something. But as is in the game you go over a small rock and the main gun is pointing at the sky, or a little dip and it's pointing in the dirt. That's not realistic, especially when you're crawling along at less than 20KPH.

 

Like I said I don't care if we have the ballistics computer. I'm perfectly happy using the range stadia on the main gun's site. But if we're going to have stabilization, let's have stabilization, not a half of one. Here is a list of what should and should not have gun stabilization:

 

T-72B3M main gun and coax, yes, commanders 12.7mm yes

T-62A (I'm assuming its the old school A model, god knows where the insurgents got it) main gun and coax, yes, maybe a crappier version, not as good.

M1A1 Main gun and coax, yes, commanders .50 CROWS yes. Gunners M240 no.

Crows MAC-V yes

Striker Crows yes

BTR-80 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

BDRM 14.5mm no, Spandrel, no

MTLB 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

Open top MAC-v no

TOW MAC-V no

Techies, DsHK hell no

Techies, Recoiless rifle, hell no

Warrior 30mm, no

Bulldog .50, no

 

I understand you're going to possibly put the BMP series in the game here's that:

 

BMP-1 Main gun and coax, no

BMP-2 Main gun and coax, yes

BMP-3 Main guns(s) and coax, yes

 

While having the BMP-3's would be awesome, I'm thinking it might be a bit overpowered when compared to the other IFV's in the game. It has a low-velocity 100mm gun that can also shoot AT-10 Stabber missles(8 total), a 30mm and a coax. Plus its better armoured than the BMP-2. If it does make it into the game I suggest having only 1 per team with a mix of BTR-80's and/or a T72B3M's. It should ONLY be for the Russians. For gameplay reasons maybe the modernized and up armoured BMP-2M might be more appropriate. Or have 2 BMP-3's go up against one Abrams or have them on a timer or something. While the Abrams would not have to worry at all about the 100mm low velocity gun as it's mainly an infantry support weapon. It would still take out Bradley's and warriors in a few shots. The Abrams would have to worry about the AT-10 Stabber missiles though.

Edited by tmpwhore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 1:53 PM, tmpwhore said:

You sure? Because I don't see it. Horizontal stabilization yes but not vertical. I'm not asking for a ballistics computer, all I'm asking is for a a mediocum of vertical stabilization, like on armoured vehicles since the end of WWII. Some vehicles, like the warrior, have no stabilization so obviously we wouldn't want that, as well as the BDRM's and such. But the main battle tanks should have it. The Bradley should have it, the BTR-80 30mm should have it, not the 14.5mm older turret. The MTLB 14.5mm shouldn't have it, but the updated 30mm turret should. So really we're only talking about 5 or 6 of the vehicles in the entire game should have it. Look at some videos of tanks crossing terrain, you see the barrel stay level as the tank pitches. It does have it's limits though it's not super leveling system or something. But as is in the game you go over a small rock and the main gun is pointing at the sky, or a little dip and it's pointing in the dirt. That's not realistic, especially when you're crawling along at less than 20KPH.

 

Like I said I don't care if we have the ballistics computer. I'm perfectly happy using the range stadia on the main gun's site. But if we're going to have stabilization, let's have stabilization, not a half of one. Here is a list of what should and should not have gun stabilization:

 

T-72B3M main gun and coax, yes, commanders 12.7mm yes

T-62A (I'm assuming its the old school A model, god knows where the insurgents got it) main gun and coax, yes, maybe a crappier version, not as good.

M1A1 Main gun and coax, yes, commanders .50 CROWS yes. Gunners M240 no.

Crows MAC-V yes

Striker Crows yes

BTR-80 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

BDRM 14.5mm no, Spandrel, no

MTLB 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

Open top MAC-v no

TOW MAC-V no

Techies, DsHK hell no

Techies, Recoiless rifle, hell no

Warrior 30mm, no

Bulldog .50, no

 

I understand you're going to possibly put the BMP series in the game here's that:

 

BMP-1 Main gun and coax, no

BMP-2 Main gun and coax, yes

BMP-3 Main guns(s) and coax, yes

 

While having the BMP-3's would be awesome, I'm thinking it might be a bit overpowered when compared to the other IFV's in the game. It has a low-velocity 100mm gun that can also shoot AT-10 Stabber missles(8 total), a 30mm and a coax. Plus its better armoured than the BMP-2. If it does make it into the game I suggest having only 1 per team with a mix of BTR-80's and/or a T72B3M's. It should ONLY be for the Russians. For gameplay reasons maybe the modernized and up armoured BMP-2M might be more appropriate. Or have 2 BMP-3's go up against one Abrams or have them on a timer or something. While the Abrams would not have to worry at all about the 100mm low velocity gun as it's mainly an infantry support weapon. It would still take out Bradley's and warriors in a few shots. The Abrams would have to worry about the AT-10 Stabber missiles though.

Its an m1A2, NOT an M1A1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-05-31 at 7:53 PM, tmpwhore said:

You sure? Because I don't see it. Horizontal stabilization yes but not vertical. I'm not asking for a ballistics computer, all I'm asking is for a a mediocum of vertical stabilization, like on armoured vehicles since the end of WWII. Some vehicles, like the warrior, have no stabilization so obviously we wouldn't want that, as well as the BDRM's and such. But the main battle tanks should have it. The Bradley should have it, the BTR-80 30mm should have it, not the 14.5mm older turret. The MTLB 14.5mm shouldn't have it, but the updated 30mm turret should. So really we're only talking about 5 or 6 of the vehicles in the entire game should have it. Look at some videos of tanks crossing terrain, you see the barrel stay level as the tank pitches. It does have it's limits though it's not super leveling system or something. But as is in the game you go over a small rock and the main gun is pointing at the sky, or a little dip and it's pointing in the dirt. That's not realistic, especially when you're crawling along at less than 20KPH.

 

Like I said I don't care if we have the ballistics computer. I'm perfectly happy using the range stadia on the main gun's site. But if we're going to have stabilization, let's have stabilization, not a half of one. Here is a list of what should and should not have gun stabilization:

 

T-72B3M main gun and coax, yes, commanders 12.7mm yes

T-62A (I'm assuming its the old school A model, god knows where the insurgents got it) main gun and coax, yes, maybe a crappier version, not as good.

M1A1 Main gun and coax, yes, commanders .50 CROWS yes. Gunners M240 no.

Crows MAC-V yes

Striker Crows yes

BTR-80 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

BDRM 14.5mm no, Spandrel, no

MTLB 30mm yes, 14.5mm older turret no

Open top MAC-v no

TOW MAC-V no

Techies, DsHK hell no

Techies, Recoiless rifle, hell no

Warrior 30mm, no

Bulldog .50, no

 

I understand you're going to possibly put the BMP series in the game here's that:

 

BMP-1 Main gun and coax, no

BMP-2 Main gun and coax, yes

BMP-3 Main guns(s) and coax, yes

 

While having the BMP-3's would be awesome, I'm thinking it might be a bit overpowered when compared to the other IFV's in the game. It has a low-velocity 100mm gun that can also shoot AT-10 Stabber missles(8 total), a 30mm and a coax. Plus its better armoured than the BMP-2. If it does make it into the game I suggest having only 1 per team with a mix of BTR-80's and/or a T72B3M's. It should ONLY be for the Russians. For gameplay reasons maybe the modernized and up armoured BMP-2M might be more appropriate. Or have 2 BMP-3's go up against one Abrams or have them on a timer or something. While the Abrams would not have to worry at all about the 100mm low velocity gun as it's mainly an infantry support weapon. It would still take out Bradley's and warriors in a few shots. The Abrams would have to worry about the AT-10 Stabber missiles though.

 

All those mentioned do have stabilizers, what you are describing is mainly the limitation in vertical travel of the gun. The ability to depress the main gun differs from vehicle to vehicle but are in general not that great. So when you are running around over uneven terrain the gun every now and then reaches the limit of its travel and naturally it will point towards the sky (or the ground).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×