THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 11, 2013 Well, I don't know. It is true that if this was strictly a realism mod, the tanks should probably be M1 or M1IPs. I think we want to keep the improved gun performance of the M1a1 over the M60, though.Hmm, I think itd be more interesting with the abrams having the 105. Say, assuming typical American and Russian crews in 1986, what was the better tank and by what margin for the abrams and m60a3 vs t80 and t72. I read in "Team Yankee" that the t72 was very much a match for the abrams. Of course, it was a fictional book, but that does give insights into what tank crews thought at the time. At the ranges in Everon, I cant imagine the first shot wouldnt penetrate if it was a 90 degree hit with APFSDS ammo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Hmm, I think itd be more interesting with the abrams having the 105. Say, assuming typical American and Russian crews in 1986, what was the better tank and by what margin for the abrams and m60a3 vs t80 and t72. I read in "Team Yankee" that the t72 was very much a match for the abrams. Of course, it was a fictional book, but that does give insights into what tank crews thought at the time. At the ranges in Everon, I cant imagine the first shot wouldnt penetrate if it was a 90 degree hit with APFSDS ammo. The m60 already has the 105mm gun, so from a developer's standpoint I really prefer having the more advanced tank with the more advanced weapon. I'm no tank expert but I think the m60a3 is the most sophisticated in terms of systems in the mod. That's expressed in the mod as the m60 having flir for the commander, where the M1a1 does not. Edited January 11, 2013 by Max Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 11, 2013 The m60 already has the 105mm gun.I'm no tank expert but I think the m60a3 is the most sophisticated in terms of systems in the mod. Indeed, as do the t72 and t80. So the question between the two 2 (in real life, in the game for some) is optics, armor, auto loader speed, speed, ect, which I believe the Abrams and T80 win in all cases (somewhat obviously) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Indeed, as do the t72 and t80. So the question between the two 2 (in real life, in the game for some) is optics, armor, auto loader speed, speed, ect, which I believe the Abrams and T80 win in all cases (somewhat obviously) The t72 and t80 both have 125 mm smoothbore guns, if that's what you're talking about. In our mod I believe the Russian tanks have night vision instead of FLIR sights. I think it would be kind of neat to try to get a dim light to work with the nvg to simulate the LUNA system. Edited January 11, 2013 by Max Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 11, 2013 The t72 and t80 both have 125 mm smoothbore guns, if that's what you're talking about. In our mod I believe the Russian tanks have night vision instead of FLIR sights. I think it would be kind of neat to try to get a dim light to work with the nvg to simulate the LUNA system. Not sure if their guns are superior necessarily though. Did they have FLIR sights back then? More importantly, which tank can penetrate the other first Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 11, 2013 Not sure if their guns are superior necessarily though. Did they have FLIR sights back then?More importantly, which tank can penetrate the other first The Russians didn't, the M1 had a thermal gunner's sight, and the M60a3 had thermal sights for the commander and gunner. AFIAK the T-72 didn't have things Western tanks had as standard like laser range finders or ballistics computers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LDU30 5 Posted January 11, 2013 I see the weapon sounds(EXAMPLE AK-74) are not updated to JSRS 1.5, you are going to update the sounds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 11, 2013 The Russians didn't, the M1 had a thermal gunner's sight, and the M60a3 had thermal sights for the commander and gunner.AFIAK the T-72 didn't have things Western tanks had as standard like laser range finders or ballistics computers. Depends on the model but from the looks of it the Russian models do (unlike Iraqi) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants Doesnt say anything about a ballistic computer though the T80 has one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damian90 697 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Khem, khem. Both M60A3 and M1/M1A1 had only GPSE for TC, GPSE means Gunner Primary Sight Extension, which means that in both tanks TC could use day and thermal channels in GPS, but it was a fixed sight, so they could see only what gunner see. However I am not use if you can make TC to have such fixed sight that see exactly the same thing as gunner sight. The difference between both was in TIS (M1 series) and TTS (M60A3) thermal sights, TIS offered worse resolution, but was quieter and more reliable, TTS on the other hand was loud, less reliable but also gave better resolution. From the 1990's TIS had been slowly replaced by 2nd Generation FLIR which is superior in performance, reliability etc. to TIS and TTS, and is one of the best vehicle thermal sights used today. In 1999 additional improvements were added like more zoom options (standard had 3x and 10x, improved have 3x, 6x, 12x, 25x and 50x) and the image have additional digital treatment to further improve quality, no other tank have such sighting system. The M1A1 from the beggining was desinged to have independent panoramic TC sight, however for some reason it was not ready in 1985, and was not installed on a tank before 1990's, the model with CITV become M1A2. As for T-72's, these tanks per Soviet nomenclature as far as I know, never had real fire control system, only sighting system with laser range finder and simple ballistic computer in later models. But they didn't had for example automatic lead, so firing on ther move or if the target was moving, was very, very difficult. T-80 series like the T-64 series had real FCS from the B modifications, and all later variants as well. Only basic T-80 just like T-64 had a simple sighting system. As for night vision capabilities, at that time, Soviet tanks had only active IR, which not only had poor performance, but also gave up position of a tank by huge IR signature of the Luna-2G IR searchlight. Edited January 11, 2013 by Damian90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 11, 2013 I see the weapon sounds(EXAMPLE AK-74) are not updated to JSRS 1.5, you are going to update the sounds? We already covered that in this thread, mate. Khem, khem.Both M60A3 and M1/M1A1 had only GPSE for TC, GPSE means Gunner Primary Sight Extension, which means that in both tanks TC could use day and thermal channels in GPS, but it was a fixed sight, so they could see only what gunner see. However I am not use if you can make TC to have such fixed sight that see exactly the same thing as gunner sight. The difference between both was in TIS (M1 series) and TTS (M60A3) thermal sights, TIS offered worse resolution, but was quieter and more reliable, TTS on the other hand was loud, less reliable but also gave better resolution. From the 1990's TIS had been slowly replaced by 2nd Generation FLIR which is superior in performance, reliability etc. to TIS and TTS, and is one of the best vehicle thermal sights used today. In 1999 additional improvements were added like more zoom options (standard had 3x and 10x, improved have 3x, 6x, 12x, 25x and 50x) and the image have additional digital treatment to further improve quality, no other tank have such sighting system. The M1A1 from the beggining was desinged to have independent panoramic TC sight, however for some reason it was not ready in 1985, and was not installed on a tank before 1990's, the model with CITV become M1A2. As for T-72's, these tanks per Soviet nomenclature as far as I know, never had real fire control system, only sighting system with laser range finder and simple ballistic computer in later models. But they didn't had for example automatic lead, so firing on ther move or if the target was moving, was very, very difficult. T-80 series like the T-64 series had real FCS from the B modifications, and all later variants as well. Only basic T-80 just like T-64 had a simple sighting system. As for night vision capabilities, at that time, Soviet tanks had only active IR, which not only had poor performance, but also gave up position of a tank by huge IR signature of the Luna-2G IR searchlight. According to my research, the m60 has independent thermal sights for the commander and gunner. In fact, in this image you can see them both: I only know this because I spend a bunch of time researching trying to figure out where to put the sight memory points. The rest of it I can't argue. I'm no tank expert! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakerod 254 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) SP Exodus Balance: whoooa! Extremely difficult. My worst enemy was a fog. I think it is too dense. I am not a pilot, but truly believe that any flying is totaly forbidden in such conditions. Onestly speaking every landing was the last one. I had to save first because this is quiet random. I would imagine that flying in those conditions would be forbidden but that doesn't mean you couldn't just take your plane. After all it is an invasion and I'm sure anyone who would care is worrying about something else. If you play it on recruit there is no fog. - repair point on the extraction point would be very nice, I thought there was a repair truck in there somewhere but maybe I didn't put it in. - what should i do with gun recieved from one of survivor? Is any way to use it? There is a "secret" way to beat the mission where the gun can be put to use. There's kind of a hint in the briefing about it. Here's two more hints, I always enjoyed those missions in the campaign where you could steal enemy vehicles and go beyond your mission parameters destroying the enemy. I'm also a fan of Zelda games where you commonly need to go to one place and collect one piece of a puzzle and then go to another to get another piece etc. - what is origin of this mission, i totally don't remember it This was a mission that W0lle wanted made for when we released the Cessna as a DLC last year. It was just meant to be a mission with the plane in it. I think it's the first mission I have ever made that has made it to the community since OFP times. I thought the idea was interesting, highly improbable but interesting. The other idea was having to drop weapons to the resistance but I thought having to repeatedly stick landings in fields would be more of a challenge than "fly under radar coverage and drop the weapons". Edited January 11, 2013 by Jakerod Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kromka 40 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) I thought there was a repair truck in there somewhere but maybe I didn't put it in. Maybe it is, but fog was so dense i dindn't notice it :) I noticed this question mark with resistance, but hmmm... i have so damaged hull that i left any side threads. SP Commander Balance: proper, maybe little bit too easy. Bugs: none Comments: nice idea with technician. I repaired destroyed t80 and fixed it to brand new :) One additional and very efficient tank. SP Laser: Balance: proper Bugs: none Comments: what should be pointed with laser indicator? When i pointed just on a road of the bridge, A10 just flied above, after i marked support of the bridge A10 attacked. Maybe it was coincidence. But if not maybe it is worth to be mentioned in the briefing. I know from experience that in ARMA satchels destroy bridge when are placed near support, but it can be confusing for someone new. Remarks to playing Abrams: - very often (especially when tank stands still) AI gunner point with main gun to 5 o'clock of the tank - during mission very often AI gunner scans horizon with constant slighlty turn of the turret. This is very annoying because still force me to correct position of my sight. - is there any way to automaticaly hold commander sight in the same position when turret is turning? Especially when gunner uses machine gun and very often changes targets, using commander gun is imposible because i have still correct my sight and AI turnings are unpredictable. I feel like in roundabout :) SP Revenge Balance: proper. BUT after conquer first town and during attack to second one, when all BMPs was destroyer, enemy armoured team appeared. My comrades used they RPGs but one M60 left and wipe out all my forces :) I just run away and backed other way. Please reconsider removing one light from enemy defence. SP Skirmish Balance: proper Bugs: none SP Kill them all Balance: proper Bugs: none Edited January 11, 2013 by kromka Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stagler 39 Posted January 11, 2013 The next CWR2 BAF update will include fixed voices for the Winter units to use British Dialogue, the L96A1 Sniper Rifle, and a suppressed and non-supressed version of the L9A1 Browning. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damian90 697 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) We already covered that in this thread, mate.According to my research, the m60 has independent thermal sights for the commander and gunner. In fact, in this image you can see them both: http://historywarsweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/image/M60A3_Patton.jpg I only know this because I spend a bunch of time researching trying to figure out where to put the sight memory points. The rest of it I can't argue. I'm no tank expert! I sended a message to a person that actually served on these tanks, so I will give you accurate informations. ;) --------------------- Update. I got answer from a man that served on M60A3. The TC did have an extension from the Gunners Thermal Channel. The TC could also use the LRF with 6x /12x which was aligned with the gunners sights. There were also the cupola sights for the M85, a daylight channel and a Passive channel. There was no independent thermal sight in the cupola of the M60A3. So this is like I said, there was only GPSE, not independent thermal sight for TC. In this case, TC had only passive night vision for his cupola. BTW here some informations about M60 series sights. For the M60 & A1 M32 daylight 8x with 1x unity window M32 IR & Passive 8x M105D 8x M36 TC daylight 8x M36 IR/Passive 8x M17 Rangefinder 10x The M60A3 M35 daylight 8x with 1x unity window M35 Passive 8x M105D 8x M36 daylight 8x M36 Passive 8x LRF 6x-12x M60A3TTS TTS daylight 8x with 1x unity window TTS thermal 1x-8x M105D 8x M36 daylight 8x M36 Passive 8x LRF 6x-12x Edited January 11, 2013 by Damian90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Strange terminology. FLIR is passive. I can take away the thermal sight on the m60's commander station, but there's no way in hell I'm scripting all of those vision modes. It would also make it easier for me to read if you didn't assume I knew what TC, GSPE, LRF, M105D, or any of that other letter number salad meant. Edited January 11, 2013 by Max Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 12, 2013 Strange terminology. FLIR is passive. I can take away the thermal sight on the m60's commander station, but there's no way in hell I'm scripting all of those vision modes. It would also make it easier for me to read if you didn't assume I knew what TC, GSPE, LRF, M105D, or any of that other letter number salad meant. probably best to just leave it for simplicity's sake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gedis 0 Posted January 12, 2013 The M1A1 from the beggining was desinged to have independent panoramic TC sight, however for some reason it was not ready in 1985, and was not installed on a tank before 1990's, the model with CITV become M1A2. But this book (very good book series) states that only later production M1A1 turrets were made to later incorporate independent panoramic sight... and this one is about M-60 maybe you will find these usefull... P.S. on-topic, since both abrams and m-60 are related to cwr :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted January 12, 2013 I think Id always take the American take over its Russian equal T80 vs M60 is a tough one though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thechaos 1 Posted January 12, 2013 The next CWR2 BAF update will include fixed voices for the Winter units to use British Dialogue, the L96A1 Sniper Rifle, and a suppressed and non-supressed version of the L9A1 Browning.:) Oh, that's great! BAF are my favorites in CWR2 :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cimalex 3 Posted January 12, 2013 Banal and simple question: Will I need to download CWR² Demo4 Patch #1 first and then CWR² Demo4 Patch #2 fixed, to work properly ? Or may I download and install directly CWR² Demo4 Patch #2 fixed ? Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damian90 697 Posted January 12, 2013 Strange terminology. FLIR is passive. I can take away the thermal sight on the m60's commander station, but there's no way in hell I'm scripting all of those vision modes. It would also make it easier for me to read if you didn't assume I knew what TC, GSPE, LRF, M105D, or any of that other letter number salad meant. FLIR is thermal and Night Vision without IR searchlight is passive in the way the soldiers calls it, especially these that served on M60 series. TC - Tank Commander. GPSE - Gunner Primary Sight Extension. LRF - Laser Range Finder. M105D - Telescope sight in M60 series, in M60A3 and M60A3(TTS) serves as Gunner Auxiliary Sight (GAS). But this book (very good book series) states that only later production M1A1 turrets were made to later incorporate independent panoramic sight...and this one is about M60 maybe you will find these usefull... I have these books. Later production batches does not mean manufactured much later. M1A1's with turret prepared to mount CITV were manufactured in 1985 as far as I know. AFAIK M1A1 was planned to have CITV from the beggining, but as I said, something went wrong and installation postponed to 1992, but then on a new variant M1A2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tom3kb 15 Posted January 12, 2013 Banal and simple question:Will I need to download CWR² Demo4 Patch #1 first and then CWR² Demo4 Patch #2 fixed, to work properly ? Or may I download and install directly CWR² Demo4 Patch #2 fixed ? Thanks Yes, you have to install patch #1 first and then patch#2 fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dynamo11 11 Posted January 12, 2013 I've had a similar issue regarding the end of "Vulcan". It just wouldn't quit even though it had the "Mission Accomplished" screen, I just quit manually and it still said I had completed it so w/e Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChuckM 1 Posted January 17, 2013 Hi , i just started playing this mod , And i have to say, really good job guys ! Arma never could achieve the ofp feeling , and you guys created the ofp feeling pretty good !! (ofp will always be apart for most of the fans i think ) but this is a nice mod ! One question though, is there a full campaign coming or already out (seems i have the previous version ) Cause the game stops at the mission , rescue. If i am not mistaking, in the original ofp , after the rescue mission , dont you return with blackops etc ? so is there a full campaign out or in the making?, cause i really enjoyed the campaign so far, sad it ended so soon. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 17, 2013 Hi , i just started playing this mod ,And i have to say, really good job guys ! Arma never could achieve the ofp feeling , and you guys created the ofp feeling pretty good !! (ofp will always be apart for most of the fans i think ) but this is a nice mod ! One question though, is there a full campaign coming or already out (seems i have the previous version ) Cause the game stops at the mission , rescue. If i am not mistaking, in the original ofp , after the rescue mission , dont you return with blackops etc ? so is there a full campaign out or in the making?, cause i really enjoyed the campaign so far, sad it ended so soon. Thanks So glad you are enjoying our work. Yes, the original campaign plus resistance are both being prepared to be released with version 1.0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites