Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In zeus the nationalist militia Motorized Btr 70 groups in indfor spawn as opfor units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bukain said:

Is 57-N-231(89) suppose to be the improved steel cored regular Russian PS bullet which started manufacturing around 1989, or is it suppose to be the 7N23 armour piercing variant which developed around the same time?

57-N-231 and 7N23 are distinct GAU/GRAU indices respectively, nothing will have more than one index, it wouldn't make sense then would it?

 

Yes, 57-N-231(89) is late model 57-N-231 with PS core. 7N23 is BP core.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BlackSomethingDown said:

57-N-231 and 7N23 are distinct GAU/GRAU indices respectively, nothing will have more than one index, it wouldn't make sense then would it?

 

Yes, 57-N-231(89) is late model 57-N-231 with PS core. 7N23 is BP core.

So rhs 57-N-231(89) is not armour piercing bullet, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kilo-bravo said:

US army 4 infantry  division  using ARMA 3 and RHS for training 

https://www.army.mil/article/228190?dmd

So does that  make  RHS Milspec?


So when do we get a PC with Arma 3 runnibg RHS simulated in Arma 3?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bukain said:

So rhs 57-N-231(89) is not armour piercing bullet, right? 

It's generic standard PS steel core, probably has a bit of extra armour penetration capabilities than the original

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M-ATV and Super Tucano are just lovely.  I have been using the Stryker in PVP, even in its current release form its a blast.   

Thank you. 

 

I see there is a OCP(as opposed to OEF-CP) variant of the ACU in the Dev Branch.   I typically play PVP and the OEF-CP has the down side of being really light tan at a distance, just the way things render I suppose. So light that on most A3 terrians it is easy to spot OEF-CP from a mile a way.  The new OCP in the Dev Branch looks even lighter than OEF-CP to me...  

Here is UCP, OEF-CP and OCP in order left to right.   

3-patterns.jpg

 

I understand there is variation in OCP as it is rolled out.  Look around these internets and you will see every conceivable tone of OCP.  I do not think the OCP you guys have in the dev branch atm is that far outta wack.  And without getting in to the nuance of the Coyote Boots vs the Desert boots or.... blah.   As a PvP oriented guy it would be nice for US Army units (woodland) to not look light tan at 300-500m.    

 

 

RHS is top quality.    Please do not take this as a complaint.  Just take it as one guys whining. 

Thank you for the mod.

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not much point critiquing it since the OCP uniform is not accurate almost by design. It's entirely the wrong cut of ACU uniform for that camo

As stated before we don't entirely intend to put it in a stable release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Impossible to create custom T-72B with an other Commander than "rhs_msv_emr_crew_commander" or "rhsgref_cdf_reg_crew_commander" or other (Depending inheritance).
 

Quote

class CfgVehicles

{
    class rhs_t72ba_tv; //(Tested with CDF, CDF_b, Insurgent)
    class Whatyouwant: rhs_t72ba_tv
    {
        editorSubcategory="EdSubcat_Tanks";
        scope=2;
        side=0;
        faction="OPF_F";
        crew="O_crew_F";
        class Turrets;
        class Turrets: Turrets
        {
            class MainTurret;
            class MainTurret: MainTurret
            {
                gunnerType = "O_crew_F"; //(Tested here too)
                class Turrets;
                class Turrets: Turrets
                {
                    class CommanderOptics;
                    class CommanderOptics: CommanderOptics
                    {
                        gunnerType = "O_crew_F";
                    };
                };
            };
        };
    };
};

 


All is OK
But the Commander still the same as default rhs_t72ba_tv : "rhs_msv_crew_commander"

 

Quote


                    class CommanderOptics;
                    class CommanderOptics: CommanderOptics
                    {
                        gunnerType = "O_crew_F";
                    };

This define Commander Classname but something dont allow to change Commander and stay as default.

 

Where is the issue ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Batouuu - Your config is not being compiled most likely since
 

        class Turrets;
        class Turrets: Turrets
        {

Is not possible

You can take a look how proper inheritance look like in rhsgref_c_vehicles_ret addon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it not possible to load vehicles into the c130? In the past I was able to put the vehicle inside cargo section and use the attach setting in the editor and it was working fine. I tried yesterday and noticed that such vehicles are hitting to airplane and getting damaged 😞 No more vehicle drops possible I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed in the config viewer there is an ammunition listed ATACMS. Is the MGM 140 in RHS? I couldn't find it in the M142 MLRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cry me a river said:

I've noticed in the config viewer there is an ammunition listed ATACMS. Is the MGM 140 in RHS? I couldn't find it in the M142 MLRS

Yes, you can change loadout in the editor obraz.png.7ab9cbb6b601edb9a0a35b0d4df129a5.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most horrifying death I've ever experienced in arma looking up and watching that thing burst over my head 😅

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 8:51 PM, Navalny for president said:

Hi boyos, how s your T-64 going? 😁

on personal sensations I think that precisely a good complement for RHS will the MBT T-62. It is very necessary to create scenarios for the Syrian war, as for the T-64, it can be used only for scenarios of Donbass War. I've seen some screenshots of the T-64B here but as far as I know no one is working on the T-62 at the moment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any intention of doing stryker dragoon in the near future what with the advent of the regular stryker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why heli in RHS has so little fuel (AH-64D, Mi-24,maybe others too). I flew 50 km to the target, then was near the target for 10 min and flew back 50 km, and the heli (AH-64D) was completely empty (has no damage). AH-64D has range of action 400-450 km (must fly to target 400-450 km and back 400-450 km). 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1
39 minutes ago, ShaKodemon said:

 AH-64D has range of action 400-450 km (must fly to target 400-450 km and back 400-450 km). 

Not quite. Any helicopters range is affected by weather, altitude, payload. In practice, Apache real-world range is much less.  In Afghanistan where both altitude and ambient air temperature work against rotary-wing operations, Camp Bastion is, for example already 800m above sea level and it's hot. Very hot.

Also, you say it has a range of ~450 km, and then say it flies ~450 to target and then 450 back again? That's 900 km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ShaKodemon said:

 AH-64D has range of action 400-450 km (must fly to target 400-450 km and back 400-450 km). 

Combat Range != Combat Radius

AH-64A's mission radius is quoted as 150km by most sources - that is to fly there with ordnance, perform the mission (unknown duration) and return. Total range for the mission duration was 400km.

AH-64D has a marginal increase in total range with similar ordnance ~470km without external fuel tanks.

 

But yes vehicles in the mod generally have a shorter maximum range, partially for gameplay reasons to encourage logistical support, but also because Arma doesn't simulate a number of factors that affect fuel consumption (like tankbuster mentions), and most players don't operate the vehicles at anything less than max speed (which would be bad for fuel efficiency IRL).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FInally I've got ArmA3 on my PC and installed RHS as first mod. Great quality as always, guys. SInce OFP days.

Sorry for noob question, but does decals system work through editor fields in 'attributes' menu of unit? Or does it work only through the command typed in init field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

First of all, excuse my english, I'm spanish.

 

I want to ask for help for a mission that I'm editing, I hope someone can solve the issue ...

 

The thing is I have a HALO jump from an RHS C-130J, the plane has AI crew. The plane is attached to an object on the ground to stay in flight and with the engines on. Paratroopers placed inside the plane (but not embarked as passengers) can walk down the ramp and jump.

 

I have managed to use the cargo and jump lights, that works fine!!! but I can't get the plane with landing gear up... I have tried several ways and nothing. If I take pilot as player I can use the landing gears action without problem... I thik is an AI issue... Can someone help me with this? Thank you very much!

 

Best regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lau Jah said:

Any AAV-7A1 for Marines ?

At this point the ACV would be better to have than the AAV. CUP has them if you want to use them now but http://www.rhsmods.org/faq

  • Like 3

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

×