Rules of a addon

[RedStorm 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([CCCP]HAZARD @ Aug. 24 2002,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">actually some manual loaders can load about twice as fast as an auto loader, take the T-72/T80 and abrams for example, the auto loader takes about 8 seconds while the manual loader can load in 3-4 seconds

<span id='postcolor'>

No they can't, IRL there is a lot factors such as fatigue, human loaders will become tired after loading 4-5 shells at the rate you described, tanks traveling over rough ground, if the tank is shaking the loader would be able to load them as fast. And the most important thing is that on the abrams for example there are 8 shells in the combat compartment and the rest are in the turet bustle which is basicaly behind the loader and about shoulder level, taking shellls from there and loading the at r.o.f. you say is beyond human efort.

The reason auto loaders were introduced because they are faster then manual loading. The fulll loading cycle on the T-80 takes 6 seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

I always thought it was 8 secs?

Anyway, I read somewhere (on these boards! that it has been proven that a manual loader can eject an old and load a new shell unmder combat conditions in about 6 seconds. So I think the T80 and the Abrams are quite matched if you consider reloading speeds. But I have nothing to back this up ofcourse, just my memory.

[-CCCP-HAZARD 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always thought it was 8 secs?

Anyway, I read somewhere (on these boards! that it has been proven that a manual loader can eject an old and load a new shell unmder combat conditions in about 6 seconds. So I think the T80 and the Abrams are quite matched if you consider reloading speeds. But I have nothing to back this up ofcourse, just my memory. <span id='postcolor'>

It's six seconds using the "sequnce" mode. See here.

It doesn't take much skill to use this mode, all tank crews can use it. A human loader cannot sustain such r.o.f. for more than 3-4 shots.

[Eviscerator 0]

automatic systems are also prone to jamming(which i think if i remember correctly is the reason western forces dont use them), and most modern engagements probably wouldnt last much longer than 2-3 shots(enemy has inferior tanks) as there are no big countries fighting each other so a longer sustained firing isnt needed

[-CCCP-HAZARD 0]

You have to try really hard to jam an auto loader, during armor test T-90 was hit by 5 apfds rounds at 1500m distance, after that the the crew was able to execute the firing sequnce the AL didn't jam and all systems were online.

Modern engagements would probably last minutes, but Abramses, T-80's, T-72's, Leopards, Challengers etc were designed during the Cold War. The reason why they have manual loading is offtopic here...

[Eviscerator 0]

the challenger 2 was designed in the early 90's same with most upgrades of tanks around now, and i really doubt a T-90 can take 5 shots from a APFDS and still fire unless the shot wasnt aimed at the main body, if a T72 can be taken out with one shot and the T-90 is derived from the T-72BM with some extras from the T-80 i would be really surpised if the T-90 can take more than 2 or 3 shots from a modern 120mm gun

[Postduifje 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 24 2002,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">mass * velocity ^2 = energy

Mass * velocity = linear momentum <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't it actually 0.5 * mass * velocity^2?

Though the 0.5 doesn't matter if you only use it for comparing.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Postduifje @ Aug. 24 2002,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 24 2002,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">mass * velocity ^2 = energy

Mass * velocity = linear momentum <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't it actually 0.5 * mass * velocity^2?

Though the 0.5 doesn't matter if you only use it for comparing.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it is, I was just talking about the basic order of units

The equation is E = 1/2 * (m*v^2). On the other hand for very large v, when v-> c (c=speed of light) then E = m*c^2

...although that is hardly relevant in OFP

[-CCCP-HAZARD 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the challenger 2 was designed in the early 90's same with most upgrades of tanks around now, and i really doubt a T-90 can take 5 shots from a APFDS and still fire unless the shot wasnt aimed at the main body, if a T72 can be taken out with one shot and the T-90 is derived from the T-72BM with some extras from the T-80 i would be really surpised if the T-90 can take more than 2 or 3 shots from a modern 120mm gun

<span id='postcolor'>

The Challenger 2 is still derived from Challenger one which was designed during the cold war. I don't think that the concept changed.

About the T-90, ofcourse the shots were aimed for the frontal arc, the goal of that test was to evaluate the T-90's armor efficency. Do not confuse T-72BM1 and T-72BM, it's like confusing M1A2 and M1, the export model T-72BM1 does not have intergrated ERA and is a lot more vulnerable, T-72BM however is equiped with 2nd generation ERA that helps stop kinetic energy penetrators as well as HEAT munitions. Tests were conducted on T-72BM (Jane's IDR 7/1997) the T-72BM proved resistant to M829A1 sabots. The T-90's armor is different, the top of the turret is covered by by integrated ERA(it's stated that A-10's gun can only harm the T-90 by accident) and the layered armor uses new type of ceramics, the estimated armour values are 830 vs KE and 1400+ vs HEAT(for example M1A2 has 750 vs KE and 1360 vs HEAT). T-80U is a different story its KE resistance is about the same but HEAT resistance is different due to elder ceramics(but there is only one anti tank rocket that has improved anti ceramic performance so it's not much of an issue).

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([CCCP]HAZARD @ Aug. 24 2002,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Challenger 2 is still derived from Challenger one which was designed during the cold war. I don't think that the concept changed.<span id='postcolor'>

the only thing taken from the challenger 1 was the hull and automotive parts, its a completely new turret and hundreds more new features, including undeniably the best armour in nato

if they had found an auto loader to be better they would have installed one

[digitalcenturion 20]

Lets not forget that the leclerc uses an autoloader... and france is still deemed an western state right?

[FW200 0]

And offcourse the Leopard 2 with its 120mm gun

But i think we are getting really really off topic here!!!!!!!!!

[-CCCP-HAZARD 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if they had found an auto loader to be better they would have installed one<span id='postcolor'>

But russian, japanese and french tanks use auoto loaders and had they found manual loding better they would stick to that Also the brits are a very conservative nation when it comes to tank building, and they keep to their doctrine --- sacrificing mobility (Challenger2 has ~19 hp/ton) and some firepower (Rifled guns are more accurate but have lesser muzzle velocity, nowadays everyone uses smooth bore guns but brits stick to rifled guns) for heavy armor. The Challenger 2 FCS is identical to that of Leclerc and with the challengers accurate gun should give it very high overall accuracy

[Sephiroth 0]

Going back on topic..

Now me, coming from the MM2 Community, where 70% of the cars are illegal converts, in which I no way support.

As a matter afact, my latest model was built in Zmodeler, which If possible, Ultra is already using to illegaly convert cars, etc into OFP. I think that any vehicle should have a background check and make sure its not stolen.

I'm also a modeller, latest model is a 2002 Chevy Express

(Ingame - Http://www.madnessonline.com/~diablo/Showoff.jpg)

(Render - Http://www.madnessonline.com/~diablo/Ph33r.jpg)

Anyways, off my rant, I'm glad sites have expectations, instead of just posting ugly junk

(Note - My name is Diablo in MM2/MM1 communities, and my car is no where near completed, as it still needs textures. Polycount sits at 2250)

[dkraver 1]

Know that O2 is out, i just wanted to hear if this surgestion came any longer than the talk?? Meaning is there someone working on this kind of thing??

[KTottE 0]

Well, the Oxygen FAQ is up, and it will contain guidelines for creating your models. And OFPEC will adapt new addon rules about minimum number of LODs, highest polycount and so on for submitted addons.

[dkraver 1]

Ok but what about a standard weapon damage overview, so addons wont get overpowered.