RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[AlkarF22 10]

Do you guys plan on adding the M1A2C (SEP V3) when it’s officially revealed? There’s a picture of it that was leaked which supposedly is a finalized version, but not confirmed. However, it appears to have additional armor on the front of the turret (and I think it will on the lower front hull). It also looked like it had an active protection system. Anyway, it looks like it’s gonna be a significant upgrade, and it’d be a nice counter to the T-14. 

 

Here’s one of the articles with the picture:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/m1-abrams-tank-m1a2c-2630070786.amp.html

[shadeops21 170]

Asking out of curiosity now that we've got one of them, but are other Stryker variants in the pipeline by chance? The new ICV is amazing to use, but now I'm clinging onto the hope that we might get the MGS in the future...

 

Also LAV-25s when? Starting to think the Marines are being forgotten, lol!

[soul_assassin 1723]

Jesus people, pleaaaase stop asking for things 😣 some things will surely come. Some will not, and if they do it will be sometime between now and a 100 years from now. This is as close to an accurate answer as we can provide.

[TesACC 39]

Is this a bug or a feature? Is this incredibly loud noise on purpose?

 

[GordonWeedman 39]

I always thought the Abrams sounded like a vacuum cleaner but damn! 😂

[Jono the Cutest 70]

1 hour ago, TesACC said:

Is this a bug or a feature? Is this incredibly loud noise on purpose?

That's Abrams to you man. Sound of freedom.

[ballistic09 241]

4 hours ago, TesACC said:

Is this a bug or a feature? Is this incredibly loud noise on purpose?

Sounds are still WIP afaik.

 

That said...

 

[Poentis.K 125]

does the crew helmet reduce the Abrams' jet engine at all? Maybe some tweaks could reduce it but still be our favorite annoying sound xD

[Jono the Cutest 70]

3 hours ago, Poentis.K said:

does the crew helmet reduce the Abrams' jet engine at all? Maybe some tweaks could reduce it but still be our favorite annoying sound xD

I am okay with this freedom annoying sound but also have to volume down most of the time when playing as a tank crewman too. 😄
ACE can solve this problem too if you enable ACE Hearing which muffed sound by wearing any helmet with the headset or ears protection.

[TesACC 39]

2 hours ago, Jono the Cutest said:

I am okay with this freedom annoying sound but also have to volume down most of the time when playing as a tank crewman too. 😄
ACE can solve this problem too if you enable ACE Hearing which muffed sound by wearing any helmet with the headset or ears protection. 

Mate, This is ALREADY muffled by ACE. The ending part, after 2:05 is without the ear protection. See the difference. Personally, i dont care how loud is this supposed to be in the real thing, this is ridiculous in a game. The iddle inside volume should be halved. I'm not going to juggle my sound settings every time i enter and exit the tank, mind You, ONLY this family of tanks. Gameplay over annoyance, always.

[NAS_Juno 66]

9 hours ago, Poentis.K said:

does the crew helmet reduce the Abrams' jet engine at all? Maybe some tweaks could reduce it but still be our favorite annoying sound xD

 

Do y'all not realize that the Abrams engine is literally a jet engine?

 

 

Yes it's loud, but that's pretty close to what those f**kers sound like. Lol.

 

You're lucky they haven't made it so it blows your ears off during acceleration, or the over pressure that could collapse your chest when the cannon fires.

 

To be fair, I do think it could be turned down a bit w/ earplugs/ear protection on, but we can't demand super accurate models/functionality/effects from these guys, then wince at the noise when the sound is accurate. 

 

Gameplay over annoyance could mean anything. 1-manning tanks, infinite ammo, god-mode.... c'mon people.

[AlkarF22 10]

I hope I didn’t come off as needy. That wasn’t my intention, and I think this is a phenomenal mod.

[LT Flippy 3]

Unfortunately, I may sound a bit needy. I think the new idle sound is a questionable design decision. I wanted to check the new sound yesterday and it didn't even take a few minutes until my migraine showed me the middle finger. As I don't play multiplayer I will check the config file and patch it out for myself. It is physically not possible for me to play the game in its current state. I do believe the RHS team will find a solution.

[G.Drunken 24]

Good job with the update, I do love the new vehicles.

But the T-14 Armata… Not gonna say it's OP, but here's some footage of it eating a Cruise Missile.

When both manned and unmanned, the turret moves on its own to activate its defense system, which is quite cool. But I'm not sure if it's supposed to do while it's unmanned? Not familiar with it.
 

So far, we've tested the TOW, Kornet, Metis, Cruise missiles, RPG-7, MAAWS, SMAW all of which is RHS, Maverick missiles, Hellfire missiles, even tank guided ones from the T-72s and T-90s. It eats them ALL. I do have the footage, but I wanted to leave this one. If there's need, I can upload it all. 🙂

Regarding vanilla vehicles, so far we've tested the Wiesel AWC ( Nyx ), AT version, used by the AAF (Greenbacks) and the rocket hit without the system activating on the Armata.

Well this is my First ever report, so go easy on me. Eh?

[jeza 5415]

5 minutes ago, G.Drunken said:

But the T-14 Armata… Not gonna say it's OP, but here's some footage of it eating a Cruise Missile.
When both manned and unmanned, the turret moves on its own to activate its defense system, which is quite cool, but not sure if it's supposed to do that. Not familiar with it.

From the changelog:

Quote

Added T-14 Armata ※ Offensive systems (armament and fire-control) and defensive systems (armour and active protection) are still very much a Work In Progress

So its all heavy WIP and I imagine the team will do a top job in getting sorted in the future as per norm. They however, did take several causalities when I put them up against M1A2s:

 

[G.Drunken 24]

Ahh, it's good to know such a team works on such features, not being sarcastic of course 😄

I'm a huge fan of early versions of T-72's and T-80's, that's all. So when I encountered the Armata with the TOW Humvee, I was like " -_- >_> O_O Get us the F*** OUTTA HERE!", but we never got the chance to get out alive. :'D

Anyways, great work so far! 

[dragon01 902]

Let's get the Cold War back on! 🙂

Now we only need the M16A2 and we're all set. 🙂 

 

On a more serious note, is there any chance for a BDU in M81 Woodland camo? An OTV vest in M81 would be nice, as well, for that classic ArmA 1 look. TBH, for how widespread the M81 Woodland is, surprisingly few items actually use it in RHS. 

[da12thMonkey 1943]

4 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

On a more serious note, is there any chance for a BDU in M81 Woodland camo?

We're using Delta Hawk's BDU model for HIDF. If you want it in other Woodland or other US camos, we advise you to use the original addon

[dragon01 902]

Ah, I thought it was a bespoke job for RHS. TBH, I was just messing around, seeing if I can recreate the OFP-era soldier with RHS equipment only. 🙂 I just found it unusual that only the ERDL variant of the BDU has been added, given the range of camos available for other equipment, such as PASGTs and the like. I suppose it's there if I ever have an actual need for it.

 

I have to say, the equipment selection in GREF is quite impressive, seeing as the US guy is only missing the period-appropriate rifle. However, the Russian soldier is even better, and he's only wearing ARRF gear. You could probably make an OFP/Afghan-era Soviet faction just out of that mod alone.

[evrik 841]

I agree. The amount of content in the four packs is seriously impressive now for making up new factions, especially with the older kit in GREF. I've been doing exactly that for some Cold War units. Kudos to the team!

[Dallas Medina 50]

11 hours ago, G.Drunken said:

Good job with the update, I do love the new vehicles.

But the T-14 Armata… Not gonna say it's OP, but here's some footage of it eating a Cruise Missile.

I feel like it's... fragile. I don't think the crew should be getting killed from the tank exploding, because all that really means in game terms (and real world) is the ammo detonating and fuel burning. Given what we're told about the T-14, it would seem that the crew should remain unharmed in their little armored capsule even if the ammo is blown to kingdom come. I'm curious to know if it's possible to do that in Arma: have the T-14 blow up, but the crew able to climb out with just minor injuries.

 

But yeah, I've already done testing and had T-14s blown up by frontal shots from Abrams and T-72s.

 

It's really a shame all the beautiful tanks in this mod are so limited by Armas 1999-style simplistic vehicle damage mechanics. 

[soul_assassin 1723]

5 hours ago, Dallas Medina said:

 

But yeah, I've already done testing and had T-14s blown up by frontal shots from Abrams and T-72s.

 

It's really a shame all the beautiful tanks in this mod are so limited by Armas 1999-style simplistic vehicle damage mechanics. 

Again...the T14 armor is really not finished. Also a lot of people confuse reality with "what they feel it should be" or propaganda. We simply punch in the numbers we see in blueprints and spec sheets and let the simulation take care of it. Its really that simple. When people say an RPGs shouldn't kill an Abrams etc its meaningless unquantifiable unprogrammable bs. We have a round, it has so and so penetration, we have a frontal sheet of such and suck thickness. Boom turns out it would penetrate.

[dragon01 902]

What is true, however, is that ArmA doesn't handle explosions all that well. Armata excels in protecting the crew specifically, at the cost of protection everywhere else, the turret in particular (even from the front). It would be fine if an ammo explosion didn't kill the crew anyway, because of how ArmA does this. Even early Abrams tanks have blowout panels to prevent just that from happening.

[easyeb 137]

Love the new update, especially the new M1238 and M1239. The deployment versions look absolutely killer and I’d love to see that kind of stuff on more vehicles sith cargo and bits and bobs added! 

 

Is it possible to have the ammo cans on the roof show on the versions that don’t have it? The empty racks look like it’s low on ammo.

 

anyway, great update. Can’t thank you guys enough.

[Damian90 696]

8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

What is true, however, is that ArmA doesn't handle explosions all that well. Armata excels in protecting the crew specifically, at the cost of protection everywhere else, the turret in particular (even from the front). It would be fine if an ammo explosion didn't kill the crew anyway, because of how ArmA does this. Even early Abrams tanks have blowout panels to prevent just that from happening.

 

Please, keep in mind we still do not have a proper blow off panels and isolated ammo storage simulation implemented.