RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[dragon01 902]

That looks great, the US faction is finally getting an MRLS. I kind of hoped for M270, but a pair of those will do just fine. :) 

 

BTW, I promised to forward what I find on tank interiors, here's what I found:

T-72 and T-90:
http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/marek_solar/t-72_int_walk_1.htm
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html
T-80U:

Hope it helps. It seems like there are some variations between versions, but overall layout seems to vary little even between T-80 and T-90, despite them being different designs. I'll try to find more, driver's position in particular.

[heavygunner 179]

I adore you RHS.

[redarmy 422]

Hi RHS team,

 

i have searched the thread looking at various discussions about this topic,but i wanted to ask directly...

 

The tracked vehicles,in their current state,are flat out useless for AI usage when it comes to navigation.

Unless strictly on non paved roads,of course.

 

They cannot get enough power to traverse the smallest incline,the tiniest hill.I have even seen them stuck on seemingly flat surfaces that are not paved roads.

I am totally aware that vanilla arma3 vehicles do not respond realisticly offroad,they barely loose and momentum atall,and i understand RHS vehicles are built as realistic as possible,but will there ever be some middle ground? Some way to give these vehicles back mobility off road? 

 

Its a struggle enough to make combined arms missions as it is and HOPE the AI make it to that ever elusive WP.

 

I have tried a few things via scripting/editing etc but im at a loss,and had to get your perspective.

 

I would prefer to keep playing with this Amazing mod and all its vehicles but rite now im ready to return to vanilla as it seems easier atm.

Thanks

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, REFORGER88 said:

On a personal note, we typically use a pintle mounted M240B in the commander's hatch to pull security during reloads or when on convoys, more so than our issued weapons. Not a request however, I can live without it and still be happy seeing that beauty in game!

I agree. The M113 with the 240 is probably my favorite vehicle to put in missions due to balance purposes. Also it seems like a majority of the vehicles I see rolling around during RL training exercises have M240/M249 machineguns in the turrets. So having more light machineguns in more turrets would definitely be a good thing in my eyes. (PoundsignNotARequest)

But then again I just look below and smile & wave as I pass everyone by as they're driving along, so I'm not really in the know about those ground things.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

@redarmy I noticed the drop in momentum on some RHS vehicles on inclines too. For example the HEMTT type (sorry not sure exactly what RHS calls theirs and not at home). This model has a tendency on inclines to reach top speed, and immediately drop to 0, then slowly raise back to top speed. Vanilla HEMTT doesn’t do this and maintains top speed (which to me is much more preferable), though to be fair I have no idea if the RHS model inherits from the vanilla counterpart or not.

 

EDIT: I got it. It’s the M1083A1P2 and similar variants that do this and yeah I agree it makes them nearly unusable on some maps.

[Richards.D 761]

10 hours ago, REFORGER88 said:

On a personal note, we typically use a pintle mounted M240B in the commander's hatch to pull security during reloads or when on convoys, more so than our issued weapons. Not a request however, I can live without it and still be happy seeing that beauty in game!

 

No you are right :), the issue is we don't have that swing mount yet. If we make one, we'll include a second version with a 249 or 240 for sure. 

[reyhard 2082]

7 hours ago, redarmy said:

 

They cannot get enough power to traverse the smallest incline,the tiniest hill.I have even seen them stuck on seemingly flat surfaces that are not paved roads.

Best would be to fill feedback tracker ticket & provide some repro mission. Generally, such general descriptions are not very helpful because with current amount of vehicles we have it's impossible to test them all in all situations (saying that all of them broken won't help either since most likely it's possible to make counter claim very quickly by using different asset - that's why such comments are in most cases ignored at all unless really big number of people start to bitch about it ;) )

[Polyus 139]

Oh awesome! I was curious if the loadout system could be applied to other vehicles.

[Vasily.B 529]

IF interiors are planned, or someone want to start i guess there are nice photos;
T-80
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html

T-72
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html

I'm still looking for panorama of T-80 interior, i know there is somewhere over internet, and T-90 interior photos.

EDIT :
Best i could find about T-90A Interior, are 3 videos;

Spoiler

 

At least in good quality. Hope it helps.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Interiors are not planned at the moment for near or far future.

[dragon01 902]

Let's hope that the pics inspire someone, then. :) They really do wonders for immersion.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Just now, dragon01 said:

Let's hope that the pics inspire someone, then. :) They really do wonders for immersion.

Once you try to make one, all your immersion boners will go away very fast, believe me :)

[dragon01 902]

I know it's difficult. Still, just trying to get back from vanilla vehicles to RHS makes it clear just how much of an improvement they are. Even in RHS, BMPs that do have a modeled interior are more pleasant to drive than vehicles that don't have it (even with textures dating back to ArmA2).

[Hvymtal 1251]

I think you guys will be surprised just how much interiors becomes a requested feature when tanks goes gold. I'd also recommend actually playing and using the BIS vehicles so you can properly understand what interiors will mean. I'm not denying that its hard, but I imagine that difficulty will just start sounding like an excuse to many ears...

At the very least an iron-front like approach to interiors would give some of the functionality back for minimal required input

[reyhard 2082]

33 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

I know it's difficult. Still, just trying to get back from vanilla vehicles to RHS makes it clear just how much of an improvement they are. Even in RHS, BMPs that do have a modeled interior are more pleasant to drive than vehicles that don't have it (even with textures dating back to ArmA2).

I guess what everybody tried to explain to you that it wont likely happen in near feature (+1 year) and repeating it over & over won't change anything.

[dragon01 902]

I'm not repeating anything (at least I hope not). What I'm trying to do is to present further arguments to strengthen my case, which is kinda the definition of discussing stuff (why even have this thread if the team doesn't wish to discuss?). You of all people should know how important interiors are. 

 

I want to make my point now, before Tanks DLC is out and I'm drowned out by much less refined "arguments" (or straight-out begging).

[reyhard 2082]

10 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

I'm not repeating anything (at least I hope not). What I'm trying to do is to present further arguments to strengthen my case, which is kinda the definition of discussing stuff (why even have this thread if the team doesn't wish to discuss?). You of all people should know how important interiors are. 

 

I want to make my point now, before Tanks DLC is out and I'm drowned out by much less refined "arguments" (or straight-out begging).

"You of all people should know how important interiors are. " - you are repeating this just like we didn't hear that so just to be clear: yes we saw that and understand you but interiors are simply not going to happen unless you would start modelling them (modelling is useful skill after all you know ;)

If you wish, we can discuss other things rather than infamous RPK & interiors because this something we don't want to talk anymore. Sure, you have right to continue but just be aware that at this point it's pretty annoying and take away motivation from us to do any further work for mod.

[ballistic09 241]

39 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

I think you guys will be surprised just how much interiors becomes a requested feature when tanks goes gold.

And I think people will be surprised just how much time and effort interiors take to make. It took BI, a company that employs people full time to work on Arma content more than a year to deliver what, like, 7 fictionalized vehicle interiors? (Ever notice how many components are recycled between vehicles in the Tanks DLC interiors? They're a lot easier to make when you can just make shit up and reuse the same parts many times over...) Now imagine RHS, a small group of people who do this in our free time, having to research and develop realistic vehicle interiors for a project much larger in scope. Sure you can have your vehicle interiors in maybe 2-3 years, but in the mean time there will be no new weapons, vehicles, gear, or meaningful updates of any kind due to the fact that we'll all be too busy making your precious eye candy. Is that small bit of immersion during the 1% of the time you wont be looking through an optic really worth it when that extra effort could be spent making something like an entirely new vehicle instead?

 

55 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

I'd also recommend actually playing and using the BIS vehicles so you can properly understand what interiors will mean.

I don't really care for them at all tbh... They look great, no doubt, but without the ability to interact with or move about the interior to peer through different periscopes or sights, they really only amount to pointless eye candy for the added benefit of "muh 'mursion". Honestly, it's just one extra vision mode that I have to switch through now when I want to use the weapon optics when shit hits the fan. Kind of an inconvenience actually...

[lawndartleo 109]

I took up dabbling in KSP.  I figured out blender and can make a nice model. Then I tried texturing it, it looks like a 5 year old with crayons did it.  Then I tried to get it into the game and my head exploded.  Lets not even talk about making interiors.

 

I'm thankful for the skill and dedication of the RHS team and many others who's mods I enjoy.  I have a better appreciation for what these people go through after giving it a go, myself.

 

 

 

 

[sammael 366]

 

 I  can`t lock on target (NATO tanks, cars e.t.c ) with RHS russian jet  AG missiles ( all AG missiles). Is it only for me?

[ski2060 167]

That's because Russian AG missiles are all Laser guided.  You need to have someone designating for you, or self designate.  Good luck with that.
For Jet mounted AG missiles I do believe.
Helicopter variants may have some CCD or IR guided seekers.

[sammael 366]

12 hours ago, ski2060 said:

That's because Russian AG missiles are all Laser guided.  You need to have someone designating for you, or self designate.  Good luck with that.
For Jet mounted AG missiles I do believe.
Helicopter variants may have some CCD or IR guided seekers.

even russian RHS IR AG missiles need laser desegnation?

[Strike_NOR 898]

14 hours ago, sammael said:

 

 I  can`t lock on target (NATO tanks, cars e.t.c ) with RHS russian jet  AG missiles ( all AG missiles). Is it only for me?

 

AFAIK you have to "lock" targets differently with russian missiles. You have to use the visual TGP sensor to stabilize (point-track) an enemy target. Then you activate laser and fire when the missile has a lock on that.

 

Effectively, the TGP is now lasing for you. Works the same for LGBs on both sides.

[Polyus 139]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:01 PM, soul_assassin said:

Interiors are not planned at the moment for near or far future.

Yes, please sink your time and energy into making interiors that don't do anything instead of releasing more cool shit, please.

[copper252 6]

Is the ACU in OEF-CP still in development?