Jump to content
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • v 0.9.1 update log   GPWS update (Rita + code optimization)
    • another part of the problem is that there is a delay between the moment when I press a key and the action even if I do not lag.
    • pictures not showing for me ;(
    • CONVOYS then; is there ans reason to assume that working on individual vehicles PID values might have any influence  on convoys breaking up/getting stuck randomly? Oukej, you said more than once that those PID values actually is something we can tweak and play around ourselves with. But how do PID values relate to the problems we see with convoys?
    •   Not really. From working on the CUP armor models, one thing I learned is that the only real protection a tank has is its frontal hull and turret armor. Everything else is alarmingly thing. The T-72, for example, has a frontal hull armor of (IIRC) 560 mm. That is big enough to withstand e.g. a PG-7V rocket, but certainly not the RPG-32 (which has almost 600 mm penetration). Hellfire missiles have around 800 or so mm of penetration, so they will literally penetrate the T-72 everywhere.     Really depends on the tank.      Situational awareness is always a requirement.      That depends on the guidance system. Unguided rocket and missiles obviously are unaffected by smoke. Longbow Hellfire and every other radar-guided missile as well. Only IR and Laser guidance would in any way be affected by smoke.     As it should be. Again, situational awareness is a requirement.     I actually agree with this. The default loadouts are ridiculous. The Titan launcher, comparable in effectiveness to the real-world Javelin, has missiles that are way too small. Also, reloading any launcher in Arma is way too fast. For a Javelin you would normally have to detach the CLU from one tube, get a new one (which weights around 22 kg) , reattach the CLU... the only game that this decently modeled was (shudder) Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, where each of the launcher had a more or less realistically long reload animation - for the SMAW, for example, you put it on the ground, remove the tube, put in a new one, and shoulder it again.    For something like the MAAWS, it usually requires two people in reality, one shooter and one loader. Loading the MAAWS even with two guys requires a few seconds.  In Arma, you just take the new rocket out of thin air and stuff it into the tube. Some rifles take longer to reload than launchers.   It also doesn't help that systems like the NLAW which are disposable (i.e. you cannot reload them) in reality are equally fast to reload and fire again in Arma. That is the single point where infantry is overpowered, more so since a lot of groups contain anti-tank capabilities that are unrealistic at best.  Overall, yes I agree that infantry has way too much firepower against tanks, also because almost all of the groups have at least an NLAW gunner in them.       That's why they are aircraft.       Well that's how it works in reality too.      That would be an issue of the MP game mode. The problem with a lot of games is that the ratio of equipment is skewed. Just look at the average amount of snipers running around in public matches; snipers are a very specialized group of infantry, usually work only in a team, and are rare. Same with planes.    Tanks, just like anything on a modern battlefield, cannot exist in isolation (that's one of the beauties of the Wargame series - it clearly shows that a tank without close air protection and recon only works in a very few selected places). Tank crews are usually pretty confined and have difficulty spotting things in their close proximity. They are also mostly defenseless against air attacks. In order to make things work, they require an infrastructure of troops working together.   Bottom line, tanks are very much vulnerable. Their use requires more skill than a lot of people realize, and they greatly depend on other troops.