RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[Damian90 697]

Hey guys, I haven't been able to play Arma3 until today. I've downloaded the latest 0.3.8 update but I am not able to find the T-90 ingame. Running no mods except RHS & CBA. Did I miss something?

There is also no PBO related to the T-90 in the addons folder, is this somehow merged with another PBO?

Strange, King Homer, T-90 should be there, please redownload once more from our site.

Regarding Armata and etc. Without documentation and with mostly unknown specifications in game it will be less realistic, less detailed and less enjoyable than older tech IMO.

Without the exact data of the vehicle dry weight, vehicle components weight like engine, transmission, main armament, we will have problems estimating armor protection, as we are unable to get more or less weight of the armor itself. Also we do not have exact data about other stuff, like how ammo is really stored in autoloader, how much ammo it takes for main gun and machine guns and so on. SO yeah, you are spot on sir on the problem of introducing new vehicles.

They are not so old they are upgraded according to Saudi Army you can see that RPG cant penetrate it !

You obviously have no idea about these vehicles are you? These are standard M60A3TTS and AMX-30B...

Edited June 28, 2015 by Damian90

[king homer 1]

Thanks I will download the Armaholic version now, doesn't seem to download anything new even if I delete every file in the addon folder through the updater.

[CHICITYMANE 10]

So you consider that 2 dozen helmets are not variety enough? ;)

there are only 9 covered ACHs, it would be nice to have a few more varities, it's a tiny issue though.

[Damian90 697]

Thanks I will download the Armaholic version now, doesn't seem to download anything new even if I delete every file in the addon folder through the updater.

That is really strange, I need to make sure if we added it to 0.3.8, it should be, but dunno.

[mistyronin 1181]

there are only 9 covered ACHs, it would be nice to have a few more varities, it's a tiny issue though.

Unfortunately for you, we consider that 9 is enough, in fact we already reduced the amount of variants of US helmets to avoid crowding the editor.

[pulstar 55]

That is really strange, I need to make sure if we added it to 0.3.8, it should be, but dunno.

It's definitely in there :D

[Damian90 697]

Thanks Pulstar. :)

[megazogg 14]

I believe that the plan was to induct t-14 into service (and t-15, kurganets and others) in 2020. Until then they will be on trials and further improvement. For example it is possible that t-14 will have 152 mm barrel in the end as object 195 had.

[miketim 20]

@Pulstar

Where did you get that olive uniform, looks like the RHS one but RHS doesnt have an olive one

[pulstar 55]

Leights OPFOR :)

[boogie0000 10]

hi. where would I find class names for Insurgents uniforms. I looked in class.rhsmods.org but didnt find them. also they are absent from VR. I need them for my mission and I cant use "Independant" faction because our mod works only of of Blufor and Opfor editor placed units.:j: thx.

[PuFu 4600]

hi. where would I find class names for Insurgents uniforms. I looked in class.rhsmods.org but didnt find them. also they are absent from VR. I need them for my mission and I cant use "Independant" faction because our mod works only of of Blufor and Opfor editor placed units.:j: thx.

soldier classes:

rhs_g_Soldier_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_lite_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_SL_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_TL_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_AR_F,
rhs_g_medic_F,
rhs_g_engineer_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_exp_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_GL_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_M_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_LAT_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_AA_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_AT_F,
rhs_g_Crew_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_AAR_F,
rhs_g_Soldier_AAT_F

Uniforms:

rhs_chdkz_uniform_1
rhs_chdkz_uniform_2
rhs_chdkz_uniform_3
rhs_chdkz_uniform_4
rhs_chdkz_uniform_5

[21bcharlie 14]

Forgive the asking of a content related thing, but I would like to suggest a version of the Aimpoint CompM4 with the Killflash ARD removed.

I understand the intent of it's inclusion and I applaud the effort and attention to detail to include the Killflash on the model, however due to the way the hex pattern renders with heavy aliasing in the game, it has a marked negative effect on the useability for any user not running with high anti-aliasing settings.

If keeping the Killflash on the model is preferred due to unit homogeneity I would suggest therefore that the visibility of the hex pattern while looking through the ocular lens be reduced to zero (as it would be in reality if your eye was focusing past it.).

I 2nd this although for other reasons then just game play. While in active duty, and deployed to AFG in '11 through '12. What i saw not only as combat arms but also being a secondary armorer for our company, is that 90% of the guys would remove the honeycomb from the CCO. Prior to being issued a SAW i had an m4 with CCO and also ran it with out the honeycomb. Simple reason is that its barely tolerable on bright days but when in low light your sight picture really sucked. Hence why many guys just threw them away. Also i get trying to make the optics look worn, but i find the dirt and scratches on the CCO and eotech on the lenses pretty annoying. Scratched optics that hindered sight picture would be deadlined and replaced. Not to mention soldiers should be cleaning their optics prior to missions.

My bigger gripe personally for me though is that of the SAW gunner running a front grip with out a bipod. While i did see plenty of SAW gunners run the grip there is also a bipod that folds around the rails instead of on them, which was used. Youd either be an idiot or a fobbit to try to use a SAW effectively with out a bipod. Some guys would try using the grippods on SAWs as well but were usually ditched when they found out how fragile they are when you drop down a 22lb weapon onto its legs. They also made it very unstable and would fall over quite easily in the prone. Over the course of my deployment i tried various combinations with my 249. I even ran a harris bipod and KAC grip for a while, but eventually ditched it. Towards the end i pretty much just ran it with the standard bipod, short barrel, 145 with killflash removed, and a para stock or collapsible stock. This kept it slim, short, and as light as possible with out so much shit to get snagged onto your gear or while dismounting a truck, while still being effective if needed.

i know this is probably rather trivial to you guys, but i felt like its just something you might want to know about what works in real life, and what is just flashy shit the military issues that you might see in a photo.

BTW heres a picture of the other style of bipod that folds around any grip attachments.

http://img01.militaryblog.jp/usr/modelshoppapa/m249hsaw.jpg (108 kB)

[sabre 244]

The M249 variants in-game are not final. They are however a better placeholder in there 'un-finished state' than the OA version we where using was in our opinion.

Once some of the other latest pieces we require are modeled (for the 249 and 240L) the variants will be finalized.

No timeline on it though as usual though, when it's done..

[packy 10]

hey RHS, can you make a ACOG normal 3d scope?

I know ACOG PIP is great, but it spend lots of frames.

[soul_assassin 1750]

hey RHS, can you make a ACOG normal 3d scope?

I know ACOG PIP is great, but it spend lots of frames.

just use the non-3d version

[AKM762 4]

I remember when mod was for A2 only it featured awesome and very atmospheric main menu background scene with Russian troops on that big airfield in Chernarus. So, of course it will be very low priority but do you plan to make something like this again but for A3 and with both RF and US variants?

[C.T 44]

Which pbo is the insurgent config located? I just wanted to have a peek at the loadouts.

Great mod.

[delta3242 399]

just use the non-3d version

I think he means one that does not take up the entire screen and does not use the PIP.

[srbknight 925]

You obviously have no idea about these vehicles are you? These are standard M60A3TTS and AMX-30B...

TTS is tank thermal sight there is no difference with A3 and A3TTS just thermal sight and Saudi Arabian army has no TTS version of M60 only M60A1 and A3 with custom armor plates ! The M60A3 TTS had a better thermal imaging system than that of M1 tanks up into the 21st century, when many M1s were upgraded with newer 2nd generation systems. In 1978, work began on the M60A3 variant. It featured a number of technological enhancements, including smoke dischargers, a new flash-lamp pumped ruby-laser based rangefinder :D

And i want to say something about T-14 ArMaTa there is over 30 tanks in testing and it should be done by the end of this or early next year when the production should start. And to correct someone that is said that tanks should be in production after 2019! no the 2,300 Mbt's will be in service 2019 !

Edited June 30, 2015 by SRBKnight

[b00ce 160]

Here are a couple critiques for the H60M that should be easy to fix in O2, I understand that the US helicopters are placeholders so if my insight goes unaddressed I'm not going to sweat it.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u125/booce/arma3%202015-06-29%2020-13-02-81.png~original

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u125/booce/arma3%202015-06-29%2020-13-28-15.png~original

1. This antenna does not exist on any helicopter I've ever seen. The area that the antenna is on slides forward very far and the wires would either break or interfere with flight controls.

2. Please copy the ESSS fairings from one of the other H60 models. There isn't a single H60M that doesn't have this. (And very few Alpha models that are exclusively in the national guard or at the blackhawk mechanic school house)

3.The army no longer uses the ALQ-144 on their helicopters, at least the ones outside of 160th have had it removed. The base (Outside of the circle and affectionately dubbed the toilet-bowl) is still installed on most aircraft.

4. This antenna has been removed on the UH60M.

5. Please mirror the other side over, there's no point in having the mount for a refuel probe without having the probe itself there. (Another note is that the "wing" thing is actually the Alpha style, but I'm not really asking for that to get fixed)

Please rotate the model 3 degrees nose up for a more proper hover attitude. (The rotor head should be level)

For the paint schemes, there are no desert/woodland liveries. The F model chinook does have a lighter brown paint job, but the Delta model and prior has the dark sage/olive green. The Hawk has always been the dark brownish green, though you can't really tell the brown is there unless its faded or the aircraft is wet.

Thanks for your time.

[PuFu 4600]

shameless self promo:

@booce, cheers mate, can you put that on our tracker feedback.rhsmods.org?

Edited June 30, 2015 by PuFu

[Damian90 697]

TTS is tank thermal sight there is no difference with A3 and A3TTS just thermal sight and Saudi Arabian army has no TTS version of M60 only M60A1 and A3 with custom armor plates ! The M60A3 TTS had a better thermal imaging system than that of M1 tanks up into the 21st century, when many M1s were upgraded with newer 2nd generation systems. In 1978, work began on the M60A3 variant. It featured a number of technological enhancements, including smoke dischargers, a new flash-lamp pumped ruby-laser based rangefinder

1. Saudi Arabia uses M60A1RISE/Passive, M60A3 and M60A3TTS.

2. Wrong, M1's in the 90's received 1st generation FLIR do not confuse it with AN/VSG-X from the 80's. 1st generation FLIR was better than both AN/VSG-X and AN/VSG-2. The only significant difference between AN/VSG-X and AN/VSG-2 was image processing unit, the latter one had a newer unit that gave a sharper image. In XXI century all M1's started to receive 2nd generation FLIR which offers superb image quality, and right now within ECP1 upgrade they will receive even better 3rd generation FLIR.

3. Of course almost all M60's uses simple homogeneus steel armor.

A) because SCA composite armor was never integrated with them despite original M60 design.

B) because most variants were never upgraded with modular special armor besides experimental US M60Ax and Israeli Magach 7 series.

C) US never sold ERA kits for M60 series. The ERA kit was originally designed for US Army M60A3/A3TTS but because M1 was in production, US Army resigned from purchasing manufactured kits, these were purchased by USMC for their M60A1RISE/Passive. But these kits were never exported for some reason.

And i want to say something about T-14 ArMaTa there is over 30 tanks in testing and it should be done by the end of this or early next year when the production should start. And to correct someone that is said that tanks should be in production after 2019! no the 2,300 Mbt's will be in service 2019 !

Don't be so excited.

1) There is nowhere near 30 T-14's builded up to this day. I don't know where you found such information but it's pure fantasy, probably from some fanboys.

2) No, there will be no 2300 T-14's by 2019. Nomatter how much you want to ignore facts and economy, Russia have no money, neither production force to manufacture such expensive and complex vehicle in such numbers in only 4 years. May I remind you some facts like for example that even without economic problems, UVZ was capable to manufacture only 30-60 much much simpler and cheaper T-90A tanks per year.

So a simple calculation, 30-60 tanks per year in 4 years = 120-240 tanks till 2019, and this only if there will be no major problems with design itself, and it's immposible to not face any problems, because every new design have so called teething problems.

You might of course not believe this, but I research armored fighting vehicles history, data and design by at least a decade, I am close to military, I know how research & development cycle goes on, how it looks like from behind scenes, and it never looks like this in reality not matters what official propaganda says.

Also there is already lot of criticism even in Russia for T-14 (which no doubt is promising design), and UVZ officials already stated that design will probably change, which further implies it's not completed design, especially it's turret. So many things may change.

And UVZ have already a lot of technical problems, not even speaking with T-14 but even already manufactured designs. There is plenty of problems with engines, even the old V series, because these engines are not designed to deliver high power, so V-84 with 840HP was the last reliable version with acceptable service life. Versions with power around 1000HP have very short service life and have tendency to catch fire. So what about completely new engine? And Russian language sources were immplying that there were problems with new engine, new transmission and so on.

So too much optimism regarding this subject, is not a wise thing, someone can eventually be dissapointed.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Damian90

[delta3242 399]

shameless self promo:

http://i.imgur.com/Nnxb0Tph.jpg

Looking good PuFu, looking good!!

[machineabuse 11]

shameless self promo:

http://i.imgur.com/Nnxb0Tph.jpg

I do lurve me a nice Glock :) Hate to say it but your guide rod is the wrong shape though. The Gen4 guide rod has a wide end cap and is actually really skinny to accommodate dual recoil springs beneath the dust cover.

A couple other minor things; Glock mag exteriors and triggers are all polymer. They won't have shiny scratches and on a browning tilt-unlocking barrel the wear on it will be concentrated on the top where it meets the slide, not the edges. There will also be wear on top of the barrel for the same reason.