2s6m tunguska released

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Very good work!

But I have some suggestions.

You need more smoke if possible, if you can, multiply the smoke from the guns firing by at least three-fold.

Again if possible(somebody is probably say the OFP engine cant do it......)

Shell ejection. From watching the Tungaska in the live fire exercise video, I noted that while the gun fired, the spent shell cassings where automaticly ejected out of the rear of the gun. I know there is shell ejection for small arms, but would it be possible for vehicles?

Last thing, the Tunguska has 4 30mm cannons to my knowlage, it looked as if your model only had two.

Very good work

[Col. Kurtz 0]

And another thing......

The names are mixed up.

When you select the 2S6MGreen in the mission editor, you get the 2S6M Fall, when you select the Sand model, you get green, with the fall model, you get the sand model.

[Chill 0]

Thers a problem too! when it fires it cause so much lag. I mean computer lag. Is this because of its high rate of fire?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 23 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good work! Good to see the West now have some threats againts their jets. <span id='postcolor'>

SO GODDAMN TRUE. I am anoyed that not even a group of shilkas, planes and choppers are capable to face three F14's. I am realy angry that I cant put the planes into a mission cause they are just tooooooooo strong. From now on modelling for west should be forbidden

[Speeeedy 0]

Real nice but the gun should have tracers, As used in real life

[Gen.Carnage 0]

thanks for the feedback ppl, keep it coming....

tracers are disabled intentionally... it would reveal the fact that there is only ONE stream of bullets.

We are currently looking at the smoke, shell ejections, breech flashes, armor values and if possible, rotating radar.

might also have another look at the skins, if i find the time

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 23 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">thanks for the feedback ppl, keep it coming....

tracers are disabled intentionally... it would reveal the fact that there is only ONE stream of bullets.

We are currently looking at the smoke, shell ejections, breech flashes, armor values and if possible, rotating radar.

might also have another look at the skins, if i find the time<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you very much.

Should make it a much better add-on.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 23 2002,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">thanks for the feedback ppl, keep it coming....

tracers are disabled intentionally... it would reveal the fact that there is only ONE stream of bullets.

We are currently looking at the smoke, shell ejections, breech flashes, armor values and if possible, rotating radar.

might also have another look at the skins, if i find the time<span id='postcolor'>

About the tracers... even if it revealed only one line of tracers, I still think it would make it more realistic as AA guns almost ALWAYS fire tracers from what I've seen. Also I think the amount of smoke coming out is fine...too much smoke and you wouldn't be able to see anything.

As for the textures I DEFINITELY think that you need to split these up into seperate PBO's. I'm not sure if you got the textures mixed up, but the "sand" texture (which looks like a greyish color" to me is the best one because it looks the most neautral and the least cartoonish. Plus it blends in better with the BIS made units. The other two are WAY too bright and stick out like a sore thumb. If these textures take up lots of megabytes, please limit it to the grey textured version or like someone else mentioned, simply make them available as 3 seperate and independent .pbo files.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sadico 1]

Another great addon by DKM. Damn, all your addons are great!

[Cosmic Evolution 0]

This thing is great. I'm glad someone is working on eastern vehicles...

A couple of things though. I only got to try it out for a few minute last night, but I was having problems with guys getting into and out of this when I inserted it as an empty unit. I couldn't get a gunner to enter the vehicle, he kept getting stuck underneath it and my commander wouldn't get out until I started moving forward, then he ejected? Also, when I was gunner and using 3rd person view I couldn't move in a full 360 circle, it would stop like the boats do, at about 110/120 deg. of motion, but if I was in optics I could go all the way around. (at least I think I could.) Hope this helps....

Cosmic

[Stag 0]

Beautiful work, but I have reservations; my intention is constructive criticism.

My problem with the Tunguska is the same as with your ADATS; those chassis are just not that strong; they are only lightly armoured.

Why go to the trouble of producing such good models, then making their armour so innaccurate?

[munger 25]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cosmic Evolution @ Oct. 23 2002,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was having problems with guys getting into and out of this when I inserted it as an empty unit.  I couldn't get a gunner to enter the vehicle, he kept getting stuck underneath it and my commander wouldn't get out until I started moving forward, then he ejected?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I noticed a similar problem. When you try to get in the vehicle you appear under it for a moment, and the AI seems to have trouble with this. Could do with being looked into.

[Vikingo 0]

Great!!! So nice. I like that the driver hatch is simulated! (if someday a BTR-80 for the game finally see the light I hope that such feature will be there also) Like also that the periscopes of the driver cockpit are in great horizon position an you can see well outside! (Why the original Shilka ones are still wrong? buuaa ) The model is of great quality. Good to have new units for the Soviets :-) Thanks DKM!

BTW... If you want that feature -driver hatch- also for the original Shilka you can download the Addon right here...

Shilka III

and thanks to Tovarish for the nice link to the site of the videos!

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 22 2002,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Oct. 23 2002,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One question, is it the shilka thats being replaced with this or vice versa?<span id='postcolor'>

This is the replacement to the Shilka. I saw a pretty good video of it, I'll see if I can find it

<span style='color:red'>*edit*</span>For the video go here: http://www.rusarm.ru/comp.htm> Click on "video", scroll to the very bottom, the video for the tunguska is at the bottom left. Looks impressive <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for the video links. Good to see videos of those systems on the 'net. I'm sure they appreciated my *.navy.mil poinging off their server too

The only thing I didn't like was the mission impossible music on like half of them. Thanks again.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

Rotating radar still cannot work, nor will empty casing ejection, but at least i got this working...

[USMC Sniper 0]

*drool* Can you make lots of smoke when the missile is shot, or is it impossible?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Very nice new pics, but I think that the smoke needs to be a little whiter.

[munger 25]

The smoke looks good but to be honest I think it should be reduced, or at least just left as it is, because if you fire a long burst from the cannons it can cripple your framerate due to all the cloudlets being drawn. Someone else mentioned this before and they are right. I don't have a slow PC so it's not that. Something to bare in mind anyway.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

But in real life(if you watch the video) there is very much smoke coming off the guns. It might conceal you gun sights and make it hard to fire anything over a small burst, but thats just real life.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

irl, the guns are radar guided and computer controlled, only if you go to visual mode you would need to see the target..

[Sefe 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ACES_KEVIN @ Oct. 23 2002,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not completely 100% realistic but still a kickass fun addon to play with.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

Not completely realistic? I was able to kill an M60 with a two-second burst of the gun. That's the firepower of the A-10's GAU-8A cannon which fires armour piercing ammunition in the size of milk bottles, not anti-aircraft fragmentation shells. The Tunguska wins every 1-1 duel with an M1A1 (!). When you hit an aircraft with the missile it's thrown back about 30 meters. Three missiles can kill an M60. Well, you can call that "not completely realistic".

Over all, the gun is too accurate and too powerful. The missile's punch is much too big and the armor is way too strong. The Tunguska needs to be tuned down massively.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Oct. 23 2002,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only thing I didn't like was the mission impossible music on like half of them. Thanks again.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL np guys. And yes that music got on my nerves after watching the third or so video. I turned media player's volume all the way down.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Three missiles can kill an M60<span id='postcolor'>

It also only takes 3 RPG's to do the job, so that's not unrealistic IMHO. As for the cannon being able to take it out, the real problem here I think is that teh A10's cannon in OFP is underpowered. But yeah, the fact that it can easily take an M1A1 is too much.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

the only thing that will be turned down is its armor, its firepower is relative to other tanks as in real life

[munger 25]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the only thing that will be turned down is its armor, its firepower is relative to other tanks as in real life<span id='postcolor'>

This problem is really due to the way the OFP engine works. In the game, weapons slowly wear down armour from a fixed value, e.g. the M1A1 has 1000 armour points and every weapon fired at it will reduce these points depending on how many equivalent damage points they do. This is totally unrealistic, yes, but it also means there's no way around vehicles like Shilka's which have extremely fast firing guns, being extremely powerful. Whilst in real life a Shilka's 23mm round would not penetrate Abrams armour (and thus it would take no damage), in the game it will lose however many armour points the 23mm round does in damage. While this damage is negligible if it gets hit once, because of the rate of fire of the Shilka and the number of rounds which will hit the Abrams in a very short time period, the Abrams can be destroyed in seconds. Unless the OFP engine is changed to reflect this inaccuracy (which it won't be), AA vehicles will always be a lot more powerful in the game than they are in reality.

[Blake 0]

Will you be adding tracers too to this great addon? One stream of tracers is much better than no tracers at all...

And could you also have it make less smoke. AI isn't troubled by it but human players certainly are. It might also be lag issue and frame rate issue.