Jump to content
DetCord12B

Feature Requests for Tank Crew

Recommended Posts

Steel fury is something to look at for sure, I know many tank simmers who would love that game with VR and multiplayer. If the devs can tab into these players there is a potential to expand the customer base, and that is what it is about. 

 

Attracting customers so you  you can get the funding needed to develop the game/sim. 

 

Steel beasts is not something to aim for, however the huge battles combined air and ground is one thing I would like to be in the game, and as far as I understand that is also what the devs want, we “only” need infantry to be added. 

Edited by Slater
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re playing Tank Crew and open the commanders hatch for a better view, is there a visible crew figure standing in the hatch or are you invisible to the outside world?  I was wondering if other players would see you there and take a pot shot with their coaxial machine gun.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

If you’re playing Tank Crew and open the commanders hatch for a better view, is there a visible crew figure standing in the hatch or are you invisible to the outside world?  I was wondering if other players would see you there and take a pot shot with their coaxial machine gun.  

 

Invisible. No crew are modelled at the moment. You can see when other tanks have the hatch open though, so hopefully they will put 3D models for crew in there later down the line.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Si juegas a Tank Crew y abres a los comandantes para una mejor vista, ¿hay una figura visible de la tripulación en la escotilla o eres invisible para el mundo exterior? Me preguntaba si otros jugadores te verían allí y tomarían una bala con su ametralladora coaxial.  

You are invisible but vulnerable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are invisible at the moment, but you can get hurt or even killed by direct enemy fire or shrapnel. If you are

only hurt you will actually see some blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I see, no worries. 

So if you are online and see a turret hatch that is left open, presumably it is a good idea to spay the empty space just above it with machine gun fire in case there is a person there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-tank mines to make road travel a little more...uh imtereting...

0_b8246_e9562f72_orig.jpg

Achtung-Minen-Totenkopf-Skull-Schädel-Emaille-Email-Emailleschild.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 3:16 AM, RoflSeal said:

4)  Revamped control system
In my opinion, since tanks are very different to planes, and other titles do this, tank controls should be a completely separate section to plane controls.

 

5) More advanced turret systems representation

Currently all tanks are mouse-aim point and click. In my opinion this should be removed and replaced by using axis/buttons. Mouse aim should be replaced with mouse joystick.

There should be an option to choose between power and manual traverse. This is important for Russian tanks because the powered traverse had no turret braking and hence could not be used for fine lay. A russian tank gunner has to constantly switch between power and manual to get the most

Notice how the turret continues to rotate due to the inertia when using power traverse

The Tiger should have it's variable traverse rate dependant on engine power modelled the current value (6deg/s) is for idling at 600rpm, at 1800rpm 8deg/s at 3000rpm 12deg/s

 

5)Turret should not return to transport position when switching out of gunner spot

This is just annoying.

 

These are ESSENTIAL. I just tested sight range adjustment, traverse and elevation with my throttle axis. Only the sight range adjustment worked, and it felt GREAT compared to using to keyboard keys. Also, cool video. I am always trying to hunt down interior footage. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:15 AM, JG4_Sputnik said:

There won't be manual gear shifting Jason said. Maybe over time but not for the initial release. It is "too hard to do" he said. 

Manual shifting wasn´t "too hard to do" 10 years ago, though. Watch 1:30. 

 

 

Edited by Preacherman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Preacherman said:

Manual shifting wasn´t "too hard to do" 10 years ago, though. Watch 1:30. 

"Too hard to do" as in "higher priorities exist for the limited number of team members/resources" rather than "genuinely impossible". Like a couple of the things they are not putting at the start, (IE infantry) I can see them coming in down the road, but not being a cost-effective use of resources for the first implementation. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not knowing what ammo type you have selected is a big bug-a-boo, hope that gets fixed quickly. And the commander's binoculars, you shouldn't need to go to gunner view to scan the horizon.

 

A half-track would be cool, select a load (ammo, troops) for transport missions or an on-board gun or a towed gun of larger calibre that can be unhooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the ammunition types, you can turn on the "Instrument panel" UI for now to see ammo count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question about my G920 steering wheel.

 

Could the steering wheel on the Tiger 1 use my G920 steering wheel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 8:00 PM, Preacherman said:

Manual shifting wasn´t "too hard to do" 10 years ago, though. Watch 1:30. 

 

 

 

T34 v tiger had great potential ... such a shame it was abandoned so early ....  gear changing is essential as is basic motor management..  this area of IL2 can really take off , just needs pushing ..

 

atb pete

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textures have to be WAY better. And then we definitely need the infamous King Tiger, Pershing and IS...they would be must have DLCs in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

textures seem ok to me.

 

how could you imagine them improved?

 

I've only seen the interiors in VR so I might not be seeing what you see. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be a hardware problem? I run the core game on Very High/Ultra so all the plane cockpits look great whereas all the tank interiors look dated, so to speak. First I though it was the difference between regular BoX tanks and TC tanks, no. Then I went onto watching someone operate both the Tiger and KV1 in a video and all the textures look as well as on the planes? So it`s my pc I figured.

 

Don`t know how to fix this since I already have textures on the highest settings (shadows on medium/low).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations,

 

I suggest you not be so concerned about fixing and perceived graphical limitations of tank interiors.

 

We already have modders that have provide us with some 4k cockpit textures that look outstanding and with more of them in the works. 😃

 

I have little doubt that modders will eventually get their eager creative minds and hands on the tank interiors too. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 2:07 AM, Slater said:

I agree, I got the module to support, I dream of being able to play Tank crew and be in scenarios like in this video

 

The issue that concerns me is that TC doesn't really have a roadmap. Everything is so vague as to be left up to interpretation of what is to be seen and what could be seen. On paper, in black and white, all we have are vehicle types and maybe some mechanics, maybe some systems, maybe some components. Hell, I'd be wary as buyer if this was all that I had seen.

 

Steel Fury: Kharkov should be an example to the Tank Crew developers. And they should play that game if they haven't already. If they can't achieve even a smidgen of what Graviteam did with that title and it's ridiculously small and minuscule budget, then you might as well chalk this one up as a loss.

 

Just having a bunch of playable tanks with a map does not make a game. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DetCord12B said:

Steel Fury: Kharkov should be an example to the Tank Crew developers. And they should play that game if they haven't already. If they can't achieve even a smidgen of what Graviteam did with that title and it's ridiculously small and minuscule budget, then you might as well chalk this one up as a loss.

 

C'mon, do you really think a game like Steel Fury, which is arguably the most popular WWII tank sim for quite some time now, would go entirely unnoticed by the team? Give them a little more credit than that. They've not made it this far and this long by making bad business decisions. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 11:48 AM, LukeFF said:

 

C'mon, do you really think a game like Steel Fury, which is arguably the most popular WWII tank sim for quite some time now, would go entirely unnoticed by the team? Give them a little more credit than that. They've not made it this far and this long by making bad business decisions. 

 

Could it go unnoticed? I honestly have no idea. Neither do you or does anyone else for that matter. A lot of systems and sounds and effects and ambient elements are currently missing. Now, does this mean they won't add them down the line? I have no idea and neither do you. None of us do. No roadmap exists, there is no developer/community interaction at all, updates are not presented with regards to QE, nothing period. Right now, as TC stands, it is what it is and you get what you get when delivered. That's a fairly terrible EULA.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important things for me are:

- the simulation aspect (no drifts towards to much arcade)

- components of RL as Pak, trucks and infantry

- an independent "keyboard binding", to be different from the one for planes.

- "real" tank driving physics (no WT, please)

 

Steel beasts for the WWII timeframe would be fantastic.:)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations,

 

While is concur with your suggestion or desire for a Steel Beasts set in WWII... I think such a eventuality is very unlikely. If Tank Crew develops into half of the capability and content of SB, I will be pleased. One can only hope. :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe unlikely, Thad, you are probably right.

But for a stand-alone, not-so-cheap title, I am hoping for a Steel Fury like simulation. Only more up-to-date.

That would be a very good approach, I think.

SdKfz 251 (for PzGren) and Russian trucks + Pak (very important) should be on the list for important components.

  

But overall, I am glad, that the dev team took the decision to leave the air and went to the surface.:biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can we have the historically correct optics for the Tiger. The strichplatte is correct, though the movement of it is not.

 

There was no zooming gradually from minimum zoom to maximum. It was a lever that added an extra level of zoom. So low zoom, pull lever, full zoom, no in between.

 

On normal zoom, the strichplatte more or less filled the optic and on full zoom part of the strichplatte was hidden due to the zoom.

 

The ranging of the stricplatte can move in either direction, so when at zero you could rotate the strichplatte anticlockwise.

 

Like so: 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PzUmurkz said:

Please can we have the historically correct optics for the Tiger. The strichplatte is correct, though the movement of it is not.

 

There was no zooming gradually from minimum zoom to maximum. It was a lever that added an extra level of zoom. So low zoom, pull lever, full zoom, no in between.

 

On normal zoom, the strichplatte more or less filled the optic and on full zoom part of the strichplatte was hidden due to the zoom.

 

The ranging of the stricplatte can move in either direction, so when at zero you could rotate the strichplatte anticlockwise.

 

Did the Tiger optics at that time already have two zooms? I read somewhere that it had only 2 or 2.5x zoom (I don't remember anymore), until mid of 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gunsmith86 said:

The early Tiger had only the fixed 2.5x zoom.

Hard to hit a tank in 1000+ meters with just 2.5x zoom. We had 2x zoom in our IFV SPz Marder just for viewing. I would never have tried to shoot with that zoom at such distances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have a feature request, or maybe anti-feature request.

The title 'Tank Crew' and the interface direction taken with first tanks that are really part of Tank Crew, as opposed to the earlier Pz3 and T34, where you can't switch as seamlessly between the commander position with the hatch open, and the gunner's position with the eye on the sight, worry me a little.

I like playing this in multiplayer, but alone crewing a vehicle, and the new position switching system points in a direction where such a single person usage is handicapped.

Restoring the ability to hop conveniently between those positions would be important. If this isnt' done, it will only benefit the more teched out players who will use macros of some kind.

While I miss the ability to turn the turret while in the commander position, looking out the hatch, I can kind of understand that this would have been removed for being unrealistic. I'd still love to have it back though.

---

Edit: having mulled this over some more, the current implementation, in the new tanks, how the turret moves into the forward position when (as single player) you move from the gunner's position to the commander's, takes away a lot of their tank-ness. So if it's seen as unrealistic that the turret could be moved by a single player while being commander, at least there should be the option to leave it pointing in the direction it was. That way (imagine you're moving forward while aiming the gun 90 deg from that direction) you could quickly hop into the cupola, have a look around, and hop back into gunner's, and still be pointing roughly where you were before.

 

Edited by stupor-mundi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly Hello and thank you for providing what has to be a big jump in the right direction for WW2 multiplayer tank simulation in some time.

 

It has been a struggle with many game systems and engines attempting to ,over the years, achieve the 'holy grail' of a realistic modern WW2 combined arms simulation with player controlled armour. 

 

This latest addition shows much promise and I am hopeful that the Devs will have the advantage, having seen the short comings in its predecessors who have attempted to deliver a realistic simulation for ww2 

 

Most recently (Panzer Elite is just too old but still considered the only true ww2 tank sim by many)

 

Tiger Versus T34/85  which whilst visually very good lacked sufficient buy in, support, was crippled by a flaky multiplayer system eventually pushed out unfinished and unloved .

 

Steel Fury which whilst impressive in many area's  was missing multiplayer and was probably too complex for a suitable online experience to be achieved given the number of units that were running around the battlefield (infantry will always be a nice to have and not an essential).

 

Historically many tankers migrated to Steel Beasts which is a slick and refined simulation of tank logistics, control, and strategy and does an outstanding job of simulating modern tank warfare. That said, and for some reason the developers of steel beasts refused to 'pander to the minority' of its users who begged, pleaded, a gave up asking for ww2 models and scenarios which would provide us with our dream machines. Probably this was due to their 'big ticket' customers being Military investors who use it as a training simulation for real world armour crews and who likely would have issues procuring something on behalf of tax payers  that was perceived as a toy kids play in their bedrooms.

 

As a concession  the steel beasts devs responded by saying it is possible to disable all the modern features of the tanks simulated in Steel beasts and you could create the 'feel' of a ww2 tank and that is a valid point if all you want to do is 'experience' how hard it was to be a tanker of the era but it didn't provide the historical feel and immersion of being in a period vehicle which that engine could so easily (to me) have done but that is their right.

 

As a long term fan of the Il2 series I have always found my self thoroughly impressed with the way the developers have approached the era and its subject matter and its look and feel has always been top quality with a minimum of compromise. Their ambition to provide the complete combined arms solution for WW2 simulation is something that I welcome and if IL2 can provide a home for those of us that appreciate these grounded lumbering beasts then I will be happy to move in. 

 

There is ample material out there and a wealth of knowledge available from the online community and if you can bring something close to what your predecessors have achieved (even as far back as Panzer Elite) then I think you will hit paydirt. 

 

The interface and versatility and strategy of steel beasts, the sound and authenticity of Panzer elite (considering its age), and the visual glory of IL2 and dare i say it TvT (oh and maybe the mud engine of Spintires) and boom you have pretty much nailed it.

 

Those systems will provide you with all the reference you need from a simulation point of view. 

 

Sorry for the ramble  good luck and salutes to all who have made it possible to get it this far already.

o7       

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! Very well said and summarized.

As the steel beast devs refused to expand into WW2, lets hope, that Il2 will become the home for tankers as well. 👌🏻

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, balrog1970 said:

SNIP - 

Historically many tankers migrated to Steel Beasts which is a slick and refined simulation of tank logistics, control, and strategy and does an outstanding job of simulating modern tank warfare. That said, and for some reason the developers of steel beasts refused to 'pander to the minority' of its users who begged, pleaded, a gave up asking for ww2 models and scenarios which would provide us with our dream machines. Probably this was due to their 'big ticket' customers being Military investors who use it as a training simulation for real world armour crews and who likely would have issues procuring something on behalf of tax payers  that was perceived as a toy kids play in their bedrooms.

  

 Not 'for some reason' or 'Probably', it was the reason. BIG money for eSim Games that firm coming from Defence Forces from all Nations that used SB.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put balrog, you have echoed my thoughts precisely. Tank Crew has massive potential, I really hope it is achieved.

 

Welcome to the forum, from one tanker to another :)

Edited by PzUmurkz
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers folks, I want sure if my post was appropriate but I have spent so many hours, days, and years discussing what would provide us all with a great tank sim that I didn't want to waste time on the small details :) others are better informed and more qualified.

 

 Here is hoping we can all keep the faith and get to a point where we have two sims( TC and SB)  that satisfy and compliment all our requirements for both modern and historical simulation.

 

On a side note and to echo an earlier poster it would be nice if we could get a 'road map' for how the devs would envision the evolution of this expansion other than bullet points already available, because I am sure that would do a lot to provide assurance amongst the community as to where and when we can see the improvements and what will take priority. Not looking for fixed time windows more priority of implementation.   

 

I look forward to seeing that as it will definitely help those of us who are still sitting on the fence in terms of support for the expansion.  

 

o7 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balrog1970 said:

On a side note and to echo an earlier poster it would be nice if we could get a 'road map' for how the devs would envision the evolution of this expansion other than bullet points already available, because I am sure that would do a lot to provide assurance amongst the community as to where and when we can see the improvements and what will take priority. Not looking for fixed time windows more priority of implementation.   

Absolutely agreed. At the moment we know almost nothing about what is planned to be implemented. Those who play the Great Battles series since years are confident, that the devs will make a good tank simulation, and buy it anyway, if they are interested in tanks, or just to support the team. But to get new players in as soon as possible, they have to get some information, what to expect from TC, especially as it is developed by a team, that only developed flight sims so far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, don't know it was asked answered jet, but I have a question : I don't play with tank in Box but I 've seen does the house and buildings can't be destroyed ??

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

×
×
  • Create New...