RHS: Armed Forces of the Russian Federation 0.1.6 Released!(Updated)

[fingolfin 1972]

Great pictures! Looks very promising!

[spooky lynx 73]

Guys, can you explain to me what are the differences between 'normal' and export versions of BMP-2 included in your mod?

[soul_assassin 1750]

The export version doesn't have the radiation protection layer on the turret (надбой) and I think slightly lower armor value

[orcinus 121]

Amazing attention to detail throughout this mod, the makers' dedication & skill are really impressive. Many thanks to the team, it is a delight to play with.

I'm slowly (RL distractions] putting together a text class-list to make it easier to produce configs for HAC, DAC, etc. I would be pleased to upload it somewhere if other would find it useful.

Oh, and of course I'm waiting patiently for the update :D

Cheers

Orc

[Damian90 697]

I have a question regarding T-80U. How did you guys solved a obvious problem with commander machine gun, I mean, we all know that manually operated machine gun on older T-80B's in ArmA2, when not used (TC hatch closed) prevents from using commander optics by elevating them in vertical axis.

Even bigger problem with this is in case of T-80U because as we know machine gun is not only manually operated but also it is completely separated from TC cupola (another thing that such configuration could been designed only by complete idiot... meh FPDR ) so how you guys solved this?

[jackTIGR 1]

Fantastic mod, guys, it's brought me a lot of hours of enjoyment! Now all we need are more missions and especially campaigns for the Russian (or generally OPFOR) side (which is quite sadly horribly neglected, from developers to gamers, all the attention given to over-used BLUFOR).

On topic, where in the editor can I find the new Russian flag with the Coat of Arms (seen in the screen-saver? for the mod)? Also what is the title of the song and the artist that's playing during the screen-saver/background in main menu?

Thanks!

[soul_assassin 1750]

Amazing attention to detail throughout this mod, the makers' dedication & skill are really impressive. Many thanks to the team, it is a delight to play with.

I'm slowly (RL distractions] putting together a text class-list to make it easier to produce configs for HAC, DAC, etc. I would be pleased to upload it somewhere if other would find it useful.

Oh, and of course I'm waiting patiently for the update :D

Cheers

Orc

We can put it on our wiki once you are done. Just PM it to me.

I have a question regarding T-80U. How did you guys solved a obvious problem with commander machine gun, I mean, we all know that manually operated machine gun on older T-80B's in ArmA2, when not used (TC hatch closed) prevents from using commander optics by elevating them in vertical axis.

Even bigger problem with this is in case of T-80U because as we know machine gun is not only manually operated but also it is completely separated from TC cupola (another thing that such configuration could been designed only by complete idiot... meh FPDR ) so how you guys solved this?

well we havn't solved it yet to be honest, but I've been worrying about this too.

Fantastic mod, guys, it's brought me a lot of hours of enjoyment! Now all we need are more missions and especially campaigns for the Russian (or generally OPFOR) side (which is quite sadly horribly neglected, from developers to gamers, all the attention given to over-used BLUFOR).

On topic, where in the editor can I find the new Russian flag with the Coat of Arms (seen in the screen-saver? for the mod)? Also what is the title of the song and the artist that's playing during the screen-saver/background in main menu?

Thanks!

You simply put a normal BIS flag and add this to the init line: this setflagtexture "rhs\addons\rhs_intros\RHS_Intro.Chernarusrhs_afrfflag_co.paa";

The song playing in the background is here:

name and band in english and russian are in the title

[h34dup 148]

Just wanted to stop by and share how FLOORED I was when I saw the insane level of detail with the uniforms in this addon... It blows even vanilla models out of the water completely. Way to go guys!

[thechaos 1]

Yep, I think that it's already on Arma 3 models level.

[texkaz 33]

We can put it on our wiki once you are done. Just PM it to me.

well we havn't solved it yet to be honest, but I've been worrying about this too.

In my humble opinion, as mod-makers and mission makers we need to find an appropriate balance between reality and gameplay. So I am of the opinion that if you cannot figure this issue out you should just do a commander cupola like the ARMA2 default since I think the negative effect of not being able to command your tank is greater than having an inaccurate mg emplacement. This is my opinion its up to you if you wish to do it or not.Either way you still made one of the best mods out there and should be the standard for any Russian mission-maker like myself.

[fkymplbo 5]

I really like those soldiers very much. The models and textures are on top quality. Just wonder will you make any real winter troops as well?

[soul_assassin 1750]

In my humble opinion, as mod-makers and mission makers we need to find an appropriate balance between reality and gameplay. So I am of the opinion that if you cannot figure this issue out you should just do a commander cupola like the ARMA2 default since I think the negative effect of not being able to command your tank is greater than having an inaccurate mg emplacement. This is my opinion its up to you if you wish to do it or not.Either way you still made one of the best mods out there and should be the standard for any Russian mission-maker like myself.

at the possible expense of not being able to use the MG? Tough choice

I really like those soldiers very much. The models and textures are on top quality. Just wonder will you make any real winter troops as well?

Never say never but I doubt it. No real use for them, I haven't even seen a snow island.

[texkaz 33]

at the possible expense of not being able to use the MG? Tough choice

I was thinking to base it off other ARMA2 default tanks where you can fire the mg from inside but if that is not an option since you based it off another vehicle than it would still be preferable since the point of a commander position is to command. I dont know how much work that would take but I know in your old RHS Armor pack there was a tank called T80 Objekt ???? that had the default commander turret.

Edited February 21, 2013 by TexKaz

[thechaos 1]

Never say never but I doubt it. No real use for them, I haven't even seen a snow island.

There is one in Cold War Rearmed 2.

[spooky lynx 73]

Since nearly all ArmA2 tanks have an ability to fire heavy MG while being inside the turret I don't see any reason not to make the same for T-80U. The only difference - to make some restricted horisontal angles of fire that may be at the mount.

...or make all the mounts fitted with own NSV's;) It's possible in theory.

[Damian90 697]

Since nearly all ArmA2 tanks have an ability to fire heavy MG while being inside the turret I don't see any reason not to make the same for T-80U. The only difference - to make some restricted horisontal angles of fire that may be at the mount.

...or make all the mounts fitted with own NSV's;) It's possible in theory.

Default ArmA2 in this case is very unrealistic. In reality only M1A1 (however it's TC cupola and machine gun mount are unrealistic mutation of M1A1's CWS with M1A2's ICWS, only realistic models are these of Mateck and ACE team), M1A2 (when CROWS is installed) and T-90 would have such ability, T-72's MG mount is manually operated and you need to get outside to use it.

Same goes for most T-80's, only T-80A and T-80UD have remotely controlled machine gun mount.

IMHO there is a way to have some sort of compromise. RHS team can let the machine gun mounts move free with the cupola both in azimuth and vertical, but only in config, these manually operated machine gun mounts will have only option to fire their machine gun only if tank commander is standing in opened hatch. This will be as close as possible to reality within limits of ArmA2 engine, and also will not compromise players capability to command the tank and have better situational awareness thanks to the capability to observer environement through TC optics not only in horizontal but also in vertical plane.

Hope my point is clear.

[spooky lynx 73]

Default ArmA2 in this case is very unrealistic. In reality only M1A1 (however it's TC cupola and machine gun mount are unrealistic mutation of M1A1's CWS with M1A2's ICWS, only realistic models are these of Mateck and ACE team), M1A2 (when CROWS is installed) and T-90 would have such ability, T-72's MG mount is manually operated and you need to get outside to use it.

Same goes for most T-80's, only T-80A and T-80UD have remotely controlled machine gun mount.

IMHO there is a way to have some sort of compromise. RHS team can let the machine gun mounts move free with the cupola both in azimuth and vertical, but only in config, these manually operated machine gun mounts will have only option to fire their machine gun only if tank commander is standing in opened hatch. This will be as close as possible to reality within limits of ArmA2 engine, and also will not compromise players capability to command the tank and have better situational awareness thanks to the capability to observer environement through TC optics not only in horizontal but also in vertical plane.

Hope my point is clear.

ArmA2 is unrealistic in general when it goes to vehicles. Damage system, physics and interaction with other materials, inability to simulate properly different types of ammo and armor, inability of AI to switch between different ammo of one cannon etc., etc. - all this makes the game unrealistic. So de-facto remotely controlled HMG station is less evil IMHO. Oh and I remember some tank addon back in OFP had HMG fire lock if commander is not turned out. The same was done in Bradleys addon that were unable to fire TOWs while moving. This may be done via scripting now but I'm against extra scripts that will definitely affect game performance.

[Damian90 697]

ArmA2 is unrealistic in general when it goes to vehicles. Damage system, physics and interaction with other materials, inability to simulate properly different types of ammo and armor, inability of AI to switch between different ammo of one cannon etc., etc. - all this makes the game unrealistic. So de-facto remotely controlled HMG station is less evil IMHO. Oh and I remember some tank addon back in OFP had HMG fire lock if commander is not turned out. The same was done in Bradleys addon that were unable to fire TOWs while moving. This may be done via scripting now but I'm against extra scripts that will definitely affect game performance.

Well, the unquestionable + of ArmA2 is it's modding ability, so you can allways make it more realistic even on your own. ;) And of course this does not mean too much heavy scripting, that I agree is not nececary. For example armor values, IMHO ACE team made here the best work, in fact they could do something like a standalone version of their vehicles protection solution that could be then added to any vehicle addon for these that not want to use their whole mod.

This is also my proposition for compromise between realism and playability seems to be reasonable, hopefully RHS teammembers will at least consider it, and they probably considered such option in past.

[spooky lynx 73]

Messing with HMG fire on T-80U will require the same for default units (T-72, M1A1) and some community-made mods that contain tanks. Without it the game balance will be badly damaged, because its' not fair at all when you have to turn out for using HMG while playing as T-80U commander but your enemies on M1A1 or BW/FFAA/SFP Leopard 2 or UKF CHallenger still have that 'RWS' available and don't have to be exposed. So there are two options: either create some universal system that will affect all possible tanks with AA MG station or not even bother with it until some developers-made solution.

Oh and one more pain in the butt - how to make AI use such MG properly and make them turn out if necessary.

[Damian90 697]

I preffer realism, besides this, who said that warfare is fair? ;)

And if you do not like T-80U's machine gun mount (which I agree, is idiotic, I can't understand what was in mind of engineer that designed it) you still have T-80UD with remotely controlled machine gun, and I am certain that if not in this release we are waiting for, it will appear in some future release.

[spooky lynx 73]

I can't understand what was in mind of engineer that designed it

The same question was asked by an officer who served many years on T-64 with RWS and saw old HMG station at fresh new T-80. Answer he got: "After some years we will reintroduce the station from T-64, but that will be upgrade, and someone will get a reward for it". Oh and don't forget about hard design bureaus struggle with each others. RWS was from Kharkov.

[Damian90 697]

I actually agree with many supporters of KMDB that activities performed by other design bureaus were in some sense criminal activities. If you know well history of soviet tank development, Soviet goverment and it's, let's call them "agencies", after T-64 development and initial service problems, ordered not designing different tanks, but just simplified versions of T-64, and what happend? UKBTM instead of designing simplified T-64 as Object 172, designed soon after Object 172M the future T-72 that had allmost all components diferent than T-64 had, creating a logistical nightmare. And all of this was against direct orders of army and goverment.

T-80 was a bit different story tough, LKZ wanted to keep as much commonality with T-64 series as possible, and T-80 was intended mostly as a replacement for heavy breakthrough tanks, however use of gas turbine engine and it's characteristics forced to change suspension, still yet, cooperation between KMDB and LKZ/KBTM seemed to be much better than with UKBTM, especially in mid to late 80's there was opportunity to finally improve logistics and simplify production, by manufacturing T-80UD as a main battle tank and T-80U as sort of heavy breakthrough tank substitute (technically both were MBT's), that shared a lot of common components, actually the only significant differences were TC cupolas and engines.

However of course as allways, unrealistic requirements in terms of quantity of tanks manufactured that was just economically unreasonable as well as other factors, like poor technical culture of most soldiers taken from conscription forced to once again adapt T-72B as mobilization vehicle and in the end gave UKBTM opportunity to move forward and eventually become solve manufacturer in Russia.

Of course UKBTM have one design as good or even better than KMDB and LKZ/KBTM designs, it was Object 187, but unfortunetely it was scrapped in favor of simpler Object 188/T-90 that was evolution of Object 184/T-72B.

[jackTIGR 1]

You simply put a normal BIS flag and add this to the init line: this setflagtexture "rhs\addons\rhs_intros\RHS_Intro.Chernarusrhs_afrfflag_co.paa";

The song playing in the background is here:

name and band in english and russian are in the title

Thanks! :)

[strelnikoff 2]

Hey!

I'm trying to modify an existing mp mission that was made for a West unit to be played with these units (not modifying it for public use, but just for my own personal single-player use), desert units actually. In that mission's scripting the author refers to the units (side?) used as BIS_US. Is it enough if I rename the player's side into into "RU" or do these units have a special, new side? I've been using RU, but have been encountering bugs (like enemy air patrols attacking their own side, my vehicles not respawning, my death timer not working, etc.).

Thanks!

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Hey guys I'm having a small problem and but i'm not sure if it's something on my end. I noticed the T-80 variants don't seem to have damage textures, at least not for when you damage only certain parts of the tank such as track turret etc they all remain pristine condition texture wise... but the damage texture works fine when the tank is totally destroyed. Did I break something or was this just not implemented/a bug?