Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, RZNUNKWN said:

Hey guys, 

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one having this bug, but it's been annoying me for a reaaaaaaaaaaaaally long time.

Anyway, every time I'm inside a BMP-2, any version, when I'm in the gunner position and I turn out, then turn in and get outside, I get an invisible 9m113 launcher that won't
go away, even after taking some real launcher.


Any ideas how to get rid of this bug?

Best is to report here I think http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone here know how I can find the scriptable states for the M1085 CPBS? I'd like to spawn this vehicle with the CBPS deployed via a script. In the editor I can do it but I'm working on some dynamic mission tasks but cannot find the functions/animations etc in the cfg or functions viewer. AND rhsmods.org docs seem very incomplete. 

 

Any help would be great! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JasonTheRed said:

Anyone here know how I can find the scriptable states for the M1085 CPBS? I'd like to spawn this vehicle with the CBPS deployed via a script. In the editor I can do it but I'm working on some dynamic mission tasks but cannot find the functions/animations etc in the cfg or functions viewer. AND rhsmods.org docs seem very incomplete. 

 

Any help would be great! 

 

Deploy one via 3DEN, save and search the SQM for the classname. Under attributes you will find the calls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question regarding ai controlled helicopters, could they actually attack me at all with missile (laser/guided) weapons? Because there's many instances where they couldn't use anything beside dumb rockets and simply fly past me like big fat targets after firing an entire volley and missing every shot. If that's a impasse is there a file i could edit so some of the missiles become ir so the ai can actually use it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 9:34 AM, kibyde said:

I have a question regarding the countermeasures. Can you actually prevent a lockon from a heat seeking missile by constantly dropping flares or do flares only work after you have been locked on to shake the missile?

 

Since my previous question went under unanswered here is a shameless bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kibyde said:

 

Since my previous question went under unanswered here is a shameless bump.

Yes, you should be able to do so

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow. such a cool game mechanics waitinig us. Is this will have 6 km range like IRL ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: What is RHS' current take on AFM? I read some old feedback tickets saying its not supported but found others which implied copypasted vanilla AFMs are used.

 

Asking because one of our guys is reporting random CTDs with the AH-64 and AFM enabled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nomisum said:

Question: What is RHS' current take on AFM? I read some old feedback tickets saying its not supported but found others which implied copypasted vanilla AFMs are used.

 

Asking because one of our guys is reporting random CTDs with the AH-64 and AFM enabled.

There are custom AFM for most of the helicopters created by Keplager. In case of CTD it might be worth reporting it here http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

Crash files in such case would be crucial & I would also make sure that issue is not caused by some 3rd party mod

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do all old abrams have this vulnerable point?

Just find old news about waek point

Iraq 2003

Abrams fell under the fire of machine guns and the rear of the tower was shot. Naturally, the machine guns did not hit the armor, but they were enough to punch a thin box in the antiheat basket, where the auxiliary power unit (APU) was located. APU caught fire.The fire from the APU spread to the machine-gun belts that were stored there. The tank was finally disposed of when the burning fuel got through the supramotor plate into the engine.

In the modification of the M1A1 SEP it was planned to install the APU  armor, but this was not done by replacing the installation with additional batteries. A full UAAPU (Under armor advanced power unit) appeared only in 2015 on M1A2 SEP v3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dear developers of the mod, please release the hotfix, correcting the work of the RPG-7. It is simply impossible to play without him. Thank you!

MOD EDIT: Please use English :) 

 

Edited by FallujahMedic -FM-
Wrong language
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Disgusting_Man said:

Уважаемые разработчики мода, выпустите пожалуйста хотфикс, исправляющий работу РПГ-7. Играть просто невозможно без него. Спасибо!

yess. just found today RPG very buggy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sammael said:

do all old abrams have this vulnerable point?

Just find old news about waek point

Iraq 2003

Abrams fell under the fire of machine guns and the rear of the tower was shot. Naturally, the machine guns did not hit the armor, but they were enough to punch a thin box in the antiheat basket, where the auxiliary power unit (APU) was located. APU caught fire.The fire from the APU spread to the machine-gun belts that were stored there. The tank was finally disposed of when the burning fuel got through the supramotor plate into the engine.

In the modification of the M1A1 SEP it was planned to install the APU  armor, but this was not done by replacing the installation with additional batteries. A full UAAPU (Under armor advanced power unit) appeared only in 2015 on M1A2 SEP v3.

 

 

This source is very poor... I would say it was all written by some kind of moron without basic knowledge about the subject.

 

Second thing is that this case with EAPU (External Auxiliary Power Unit) is far more complex. You see neither diesel fuel, neither JP-8 jet fuel will ignite due to fire. In fact in many western tanks, fuel tanks are also used as additional armor protection vs HEAT warheads.

 

The incident with EAPU fire might had been caused by something else, mainly the fact that back then, tank crews were allowed to strap a lot of flammable stuff like rucksacks, boxes with supplies etc to the turret storage basket, where EAPU is also mounted. It's more than possible that it was not EAPU fire but that stored items caught fire.

 

To support this, note a fact that US Army ordered tank crews not to store supplies in rear basket in combat zones, instead of replacing EAPU's on M1A1's.

 

In case of M1A2SEP series, UAAPU or Hawker Battery Packs replaced EAPU due to different reasons, mainly because now on the back of the turret, EAPU was replaced by VCSU.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently P!NGA, who just finished that Counter Mortar Radar for GREF, is just one of three systems! One for Each side! OPFOR's is the Russian 1L271 Aistenok, and BLUFOR gets the US AN/TPQ-48. I really look forward to how this turns out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important information for all RHS users. This is connected to some change done recently by US Army with designation codes of their tanks, from now on US Army simplifies them.

 

At the moment I have only confirmation for M1 Block 2 (M1A2 and subvariants) and not for M1 Block 0 (M1 and M1IP) and M1 Block 1 (M1A1 and subvariants).

 

So from now on:

M1A2 (without change)

M1A2A (former M1A2SEPv1)

M1A2B (former M1A2SEPv2)

M1A2C (former M1A2SEPv3)

M1A2D (former M1A2SEPv4)

 

I write this because we consider changing designation codes from the former ones to the new designations, however to avoid confusion I will left this here for now and we will not make this change yet, but in some future.

 

https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_designations_for_upgraded_m1a2_sepv3_and_sepv4_abrams_main_battle_tanks.html

 

Here is the original source of information for M1A2C and M1A2D, however rest I have from my contact within US Army.

 

Reminder:

At the moment in our mod we only have M1A1HC, M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEPv1 variants.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you also considering adding the new USMC rifle squad structure to groups?

 

The one with M27 IARs, M38 DMRs and Carl Gs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Important information for all RHS users. This is connected to some change done recently by US Army with designation codes of their tanks, from now on US Army simplifies them.

Good riddance, I say. Those designations were getting out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bars91 said:

Are you also considering adding the new USMC rifle squad structure to groups?

 

The one with M27 IARs, M38 DMRs and Carl Gs?

 

What new structure, as far as I know that was only an experiment.

Besides, when Congress saw the projected procurement bill for M27 IARs the legislators put the whole program on hold. 

The USMC will not recieve any new HK M27s in the foreseeable future. 

 

To put it short: "No money for ussless new boomsticks" that will not provide generational overmatch and improvement over the current standard systems.

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/09/2018 at 9:57 PM, Damian90 said:

You see neither diesel fuel, neither JP-8 jet fuel will ignite due to fire.


Patently false!

JP-8 has a flashpoint of around 100 F  and an autoignition temperature of 474 F. We would often set it alight manually for training burns. It does not catch fire nearly as easy as gasoline, but to say that it "will not ignite due to fire" is inexcusable. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZiOoRzuB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfdxjXlZLB4
 

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:


Patently false!

JP-8 has a flashpoint of around 100 F  and an autoignition temperature of 474 F. We would often set it alight manually for training burns. It does not catch fire nearly as easy as gasoline, but to say that it "will not ignite due to fire" is inexcusable. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZiOoRzuB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfdxjXlZLB4
 

 

 

In fuel tank not really, especially considering that fuel tanks are self sealing and used as additional armor in many NATO tanks. The M1's fuel tanks act as addon armor and are designed to self seal (they are also isolated from the rest of vehicle) and if fuel would ignite it would most likely just leak outside and burn there.

 

Contrary to popular belief burning fuel is not that dangerous for tanks or other AFV's. There are few interesting videos from tests showing this, especially interesting are tests of Strv103 and T-80UD, showing vehicles having only cosmetic damage due to burning fuel or napalm etc.

 

 

Far more dangerous than that are any ammunition cook offs, be it main armament ammunition or even stuff like small arms ammo, granades and other explosives, that can cause fatal damage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has worked around similar APU's (on LCACs), I can tell you they do indeed catch fire. My response was into the nonsensical statement of "You see neither diesel fuel, neither JP-8 jet fuel will ignite due to fire", nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×