RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[Bukain 86]

With a wish that this might end up useful for some of you guys, i shared what i found yesterday on here. 

[User Polzovatel 3]

Armored Vehicles damage from HEAT before Tanks DLC overhaul was excellent and one of the best and realistic implementations of armored warfare in all games, but after DLC it become a complete garbage. Do you even plan to change it? I know you guys mostly oriented on PvE and screenshot-makers who don't care much but it is a pain for PvP oriented players and i wanna talk from their perspective, when RPG's cannot even harm tinfoil BMP after several hits and Bradleys without ERA (and after adding random dispersion it's even worse for infantry players who can't normally beat armored players even after hitting vehicles). Before overhaul armor system you could disable or destroy vehicle depending where you hit at. For example if you hit BMP from left or right flank on passenger seats section you don't do much damage but if you hit crew section it'll be mostly fatal. But right now BMP's can easily tank 1-5 RPG missiles and drive away (and then you can't hit them with random dispersion with a size twice of a vehicle which is a joke), T-72 without ERA sometimes ignoring damage to critical parts and most of HEAT rounds cannot even penetrate Bradley rear door! Even BTR's and BRDM easily capable of tanking solid HEAT rounds and drive away. 9K-133 Kornet which is the one of the devastating HEAT missiles of all cannot harm these tinfoils (mostly default 9M133 missile) but before overhaul best Kornet missiles were capable of challenging even the best MBT's which makes sense (now they cannot overcome oldest T-72). And all of this was tested on clear RHS without multiplayer and i wasn't hitting ERA armor. I know you stick to the system where detroying ammo storage is the only one option to destroy vehicle but it isn't good especially when you cannot penetrate engine area of any vehicle (even trucks and cars without armor using heaviest HEAT's).  I wanna ask what changed and why is HEAT so unefective against armored (and even unarmored!) vehicles? Kinetic rounds such as APFSDS works pretty well compared to HEAT's. My opinion is that sticking to ammo storages, adamantium engines and tables of armor from other games like Steel Beasts doesn't work very well and it's need to be done like it was a couple of years ago before Tanks DLC broke it. I still remember these times when you hit BMP in crew section and it isn't ignoring your PG-7VL, it gets critical damage to most parts, kills some of the crew sometimes and even explode like it was from real combat reports from Chechen and Afghan or Syria wars. Now i must spent all of , my PG-7 rounds to just disable this adamantium box and spent leftover rounds taken from my helper who carrying additional missiles for me and it isn't always works. Even most experienced and precise AT players with thousands of hours of AT gameplay can't do much against vehicles these days (my hours count of ArmA is 7700 mostly on RHS with RPG-7 or M136 in hands). I would like to point out that It's crucial to PvP players to completely destroy vehicle than to just disable it because enemy can easily repair them back while you struggle to make some damage on them and spend lots of missiles which numbers are strictly limited and hunting an armored vehicle is simply a very dangerous action. Because of that i noticed many player's crews doesn't even cooperate with infantry players anymore because they feel themselves invincible. Many people would be very grateful if you make armor system works better and more realistic. I think RHS has more than enough content, it's just need polishing because initial quality of the mod sufferred a lot from ArmA patches recently. Thank you if you read it, and sry for poor grammar of my not-native language.

[SnakeDocc 72]

Have you heard of paragraphs and dot points? That has to be one of the biggest unreadable walls of texts I've ever seen. 😂

[Damian90 697]

Simply disable "extended armor" option in Arma 3 options and all should be fine? duuuh.

[User Polzovatel 3]

41 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Simply disable "extended armor" option in Arma 3 options and all should be fine? duuuh.

Of course i know that feature.

[cpt.ghost 104]

6 hours ago, User Polzovatel said:

Armored Vehicles damage from HEAT before Tanks DLC overhaul was excellent and one of the best and realistic implementations of armored warfare in all games, but after DLC it become a complete garbage. Do you even plan to change it? I know you guys mostly oriented on PvE and screenshot-makers who don't care much but it is a pain for PvP oriented players and i wanna talk from their perspective, when RPG's cannot even harm tinfoil BMP after several hits and Bradleys without ERA (and after adding random dispersion it's even worse for infantry players who can't normally beat armored players even after hitting vehicles). Before overhaul armor system you could disable or destroy vehicle depending where you hit at. For example if you hit BMP from left or right flank on passenger seats section you don't do much damage but if you hit crew section it'll be mostly fatal. But right now BMP's can easily tank 1-5 RPG missiles and drive away (and then you can't hit them with random dispersion with a size twice of a vehicle which is a joke), T-72 without ERA sometimes ignoring damage to critical parts and most of HEAT rounds cannot even penetrate Bradley rear door! Even BTR's and BRDM easily capable of tanking solid HEAT rounds and drive away. 9K-133 Kornet which is the one of the devastating HEAT missiles of all cannot harm these tinfoils (mostly default 9M133 missile) but before overhaul best Kornet missiles were capable of challenging even the best MBT's which makes sense (now they cannot overcome oldest T-72). And all of this was tested on clear RHS without multiplayer and i wasn't hitting ERA armor. I know you stick to the system where detroying ammo storage is the only one option to destroy vehicle but it isn't good especially when you cannot penetrate engine area of any vehicle (even trucks and cars without armor using heaviest HEAT's).  I wanna ask what changed and why is HEAT so unefective against armored (and even unarmored!) vehicles? Kinetic rounds such as APFSDS works pretty well compared to HEAT's. My opinion is that sticking to ammo storages, adamantium engines and tables of armor from other games like Steel Beasts doesn't work very well and it's need to be done like it was a couple of years ago before Tanks DLC broke it. I still remember these times when you hit BMP in crew section and it isn't ignoring your PG-7VL, it gets critical damage to most parts, kills some of the crew sometimes and even explode like it was from real combat reports from Chechen and Afghan or Syria wars. Now i must spent all of , my PG-7 rounds to just disable this adamantium box and spent leftover rounds taken from my helper who carrying additional missiles for me and it isn't always works. Even most experienced and precise AT players with thousands of hours of AT gameplay can't do much against vehicles these days (my hours count of ArmA is 7700 mostly on RHS with RPG-7 or M136 in hands). I would like to point out that It's crucial to PvP players to completely destroy vehicle than to just disable it because enemy can easily repair them back while you struggle to make some damage on them and spend lots of missiles which numbers are strictly limited and hunting an armored vehicle is simply a very dangerous action. Because of that i noticed many player's crews doesn't even cooperate with infantry players anymore because they feel themselves invincible. Many people would be very grateful if you make armor system works better and more realistic. I think RHS has more than enough content, it's just need polishing because initial quality of the mod sufferred a lot from ArmA patches recently. Thank you if you read it, and sry for poor grammar of my not-native language.

 

 

as a RPG7 guy i just did a quick test just to make sure my game is okay the results was good and none of your statement is actually correct at least with me

 

tested against BMP1 and BMP2 all empty tested on front side and right-left sides

hit the 4 bmps each with one shot of RPG7V2 using PG7V rounds, targeting only the area under the turret when firing on the sides and in case of the front side i tried to shot between the turret and hull... all bmps is 220m away

the BMP1s got exploded right after it received the hit (Front side , left-right sides)

the bmp2 however didn't explode but got disabled the parts i shot at ( turret and hull )

as a veteran i see this is close to real life because bmp2's ammo never explode like tank shell or rockets when they get a spark in case of penetration

the bmp1 exploded because it has heavy ammunition stored inside its turret ( HE-AP shells ) however in combat cases its not that different except you are hunting an armored IFV armed with 20+mm cannons commanded by some angry players who cares for killing AT guys at first place

also you need to know hitting a moving armored vehicle/tank does more damage than hitting a stationary target ( i swear i experienced this in arma3 )

in case of hitting or targeting armored vehicles ( specially wheeled ones ) i suggest using heavy caliber MGs instead of wasting your precious AT-Rocket/ATGMs try to hit their wheels or driver cabinet with 12+mm rounds or AP rounds this is better and sexier ( i use 14.5/12.7 to hit and disable MRAPs and humvees ) though some IFVs require an RPG call or better rockets so if you're an AT guy you know what you need to get the job done 

btw i tested with countless mods loaded if i test with RHS only the results will still be the same!   

 

cheers

[wsxcgy 1960]

On 11/6/2019 at 10:16 AM, sargken said:

At this point the ACV would be better to have than the AAV.

not really. I'm pretty sure they haven't even delivered the first production run, and RHS doesn't depict present day anyways, the time frame is a couple years behind. lots of things that would be very anachronistic.

[sargken 286]

3 hours ago, wsxcgy said:

not really. I'm pretty sure they haven't even delivered the first production run, and RHS doesn't depict present day anyways, the time frame is a couple years behind. lots of things that would be very anachronistic.

BAE Systems was previously awarded a low-rate initial production contract in June 2018 for the personnel variant (ACV-P). 

 

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-marine-corps-awards-contract-to-bae-systems-for-new-variants-of-acv-vehicles.html

[PuFu 4600]

On 11/16/2019 at 4:39 PM, User Polzovatel said:

wall of text + It's crucial to PvP players to completely destroy vehicle

RHS doesn't create content for a specific type of gameplay. You can feel free to create a dependency addon that changes the configs for some vehicles as you see if for the pvp crowd.

 

On 11/16/2019 at 4:39 PM, User Polzovatel said:

Many people would be very grateful if you make armor system works better and more realistic.

But that's precisely what we strive for - realism to the extend of this engine capabilities. It just seems our idea of realism doesn't click with your own... i didn't read that entire wall of text for obvious reasons but that is what was pointing towards

 

6 hours ago, wsxcgy said:

not really. I'm pretty sure they haven't even delivered the first production run, and RHS doesn't depict present day anyways, the time frame is a couple years behind. lots of things that would be very anachronistic.

RHS depicts whatever each individual that is part of RHS wanna work on, as long as it was/is used/fielded presently and/or in the past 30 years or so.

 

 

[colosseum 34]

Is there any plan to update the rear sight on the RHS: GREF M1 Garand? The peep sight is so small it's nearly impossible to use at any range, and in real life the eye does not resolve the rear sight in the same way as the game (instead you focus on the front sight and the rear sight's peep isn't so obvious/obtrusive)  RHS has the best modeled, best animated, and best sounding M1 available in arma, but it's totally unusable because of the awkward rear sight. I get that the shape of the rear sight has been perfectly modeled (it has) - but the sight needs to be opened up (similar to other games and other M1s from different arma mods) to be usable.

 

This is the sight picture in-game:

 

 

Tracking a moving target through it is next to impossible. Surely it's possible to change the rear sight into a much wider ring to simulate the way the human eye looks through peep sights?

[jaaxxxxon 140]

just fired an m1 garand yesterday, the sight picture is pretty terrible. sure, the rear sight blurs a bit but it doesn't help much.
(not to discredit your opinion - sometimes you do have to take liberties for gameplay)

[colosseum 34]

Yes, I was trying to avoid the inevitable "I own one in real life" flex you see on gaming boards...

 

The rear sight is definitely modeled perfectly on the RHS version of the rifle. It's just that (like all games that represent the M1) compromises are required to make it usable...

[wsxcgy 1960]

On 11/17/2019 at 2:33 PM, sargken said:

BAE Systems was previously awarded a low-rate initial production contract in June 2018 for the personnel variant (ACV-P). 

 

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-marine-corps-awards-contract-to-bae-systems-for-new-variants-of-acv-vehicles.html

They were awarded a contract, meaning their submission was chosen for future procurement, thats it. and the contract had to be worked out and the actual vehicles have to be produced. The first actual delivery of 30 is due for 2020. the AAV is still fielded and in active service, and no successor is in use.

[PuFu 4600]

21 hours ago, colosseum said:

Is there any plan to update the rear sight on the RHS: GREF M1 Garand?

please use feedback.rhmods.org. Indeed there needs to be a balance between real life dimensions and game engine limitations.

[colosseum 34]

2 hours ago, PuFu said:

please use feedback.rhmods.org. Indeed there needs to be a balance between real life dimensions and game engine limitations.

Sure - I went to the Mantis tracker, but seems this has already been filed: http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=4962

[reyhard 2082]

1 hour ago, colosseum said:

Sure - I went to the Mantis tracker, but seems this has already been filed: http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=4962

Made some experiment with blurring the sight when aiming down them

[colosseum 34]

Definitely an improvement, but I think to be really usable, the aperture of the rear sight needs to be much wider (not necessarily as wide as it is in Call of Duty, but I'm sure it's possible to strike a balance in between):

 

[scimitar 221]

 Pretty much all weapons with aperture sights in A3 suffer to one degree or another. The G3 in GM is similarly hard to use and the L1A1/FN FAL in pretty much all the British forces mods suffers as well. Some of the M16 based weapons seem to fare a bit better though as the aperture is often depicted as being larger, which is correct considering how close the human eye actually is to the rear sight on those weapons when a proper sight pictured is acquired. Personally, when I use one of the weapons with sight picture problems in game, I make it a priority to acquire an enemy weapon (usually an AK) without those limitations.

[oldy41 61]

2 hours ago, scimitar said:

 Pretty much all weapons with aperture sights in A3 suffer to one degree or another. The G3 in GM is similarly hard to use and the L1A1/FN FAL in pretty much all the British forces mods suffers as well. Some of the M16 based weapons seem to fare a bit better though as the aperture is often depicted as being larger, which is correct considering how close the human eye actually is to the rear sight on those weapons when a proper sight pictured is acquired. Personally, when I use one of the weapons with sight picture problems in game, I make it a priority to acquire an enemy weapon (usually an AK) without those limitations.

2nd that. E.g. the M4 variants without the handle are a real pain in the eye...

I think modellers should go for some compromise between 1:1 scale realism in the model and a realistic usability.

[reyhard 2082]

I guess I should record that video on some non VR world because from what I've seen, transparency/blur is more visible on regular terrains. Nevertheless, I've tried to increase blur for the inner part of the hole to make it slightly bigger but now I got feeling its bit too much. I pushed it to svn anyway so people can test it so we will see how feedback goes.

[colosseum 34]

That looks great! 

[soul_assassin 1750]

 

[soul_assassin 1750]

We are happy to announce another stable release! This month we are happy to treat you to a many many bug fixes, improvements and some new toys. USAF is getting another MRAP boost with the much awaited M-ATV, while GREF is finally getting an upper hand in the skies thanks to Jester's great A-29 Super Tucano.

 

We've been quiet for a bit, but in the background we are working hard on many new cool things, that are coming closer an closer to reveal. We are also working hard on a new website, that will above all make the some of our internal processes a lot easier.

 

We'd like to remind you that DEV releases of our mods happen weekly and you can subscribe to them on Steam Worshop, Find them on the RHS steam page: https://steamcommunity.com/id/rhsmods/myworkshopfiles/?appid=107410 . The ability to gather feedback from you guys on a weekly basis has been invaluable.

 

Last but not least we would like to thank all the Patrons (https://www.patreon.com/redhammerstudios) that have answered our call and have supported us! You guys are making a real difference! A big shoutout to:

 

Will
Jonas Vogt
Jesper Yssing
Apollo
Robert Sandiford
jed pat
Aebian
DerKommissar
Scraps_
Kevin Sudbery
Christopher Boyd
Brock MacDonald
Plasma
YonV
skep skeleton
ItsMe
ThePointForward
Rook
LuckyLegs
Jose García Pérez
Jamie Bowman
Teizan
Ferran Garrido
Сергей Васильев
Eddie Andersson
Nick Ristrom
B0dey
Fingolfin
Christopher Boyd
Michael Kuehne
Hans Keerberg
Derek
Cedric Pump
AWACS Ghost Eye
Dmitry Kulikov
little_hori
Martin Horisberger
Anthony Papamichael
Ben
mandaloin
Richard Nixon
Grimnir25
Lithium Flower
LuckyLegs
Nam

And many others...

 

Thank you all, as usual, for your feedback! As always, you can find the newest changelogs here:

http://www.rhsmods.org/mod/1

http://www.rhsmods.org/mod/2

http://www.rhsmods.org/mod/3

http://www.rhsmods.org/mod/4

If you have found any bugs, please make sure to report them here:

http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

As always:

Enjoy!

RHS Team

[shadeops21 170]

So, noticed that in the SAF/USAF logs that there's mention of folding for the Mark 17's. How is this enabled exactly?

 

[PuFu 4600]

1 hour ago, shadeops21 said:

So, noticed that in the SAF/USAF logs that there's mention of folding for the Mark 17's. How is this enabled exactly?

 

the same way all other weapons in rhs are folded. check your rhs keybinds in rhs menu