Operation northstar tank pack

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Get 'em here!

I'm downloading them right now!

The pack includes:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">T72M1:

This is a standard early version T-72 used by Russia and many of her export partners for many years, including Iraq, during the Gulf War. The T72M1 is one of the most prolific and ubiquitous pieces of kit in the world. This is also what the T72 that shipped with OFP was supposed to simulate. This model is far more accurate.

T72B W/ Kontakt ERA

This is a late-model T72, introduced in the 1980s, it has the turet roof boron plate extended and thickened, the forward turret armour has been expanded, and among many other modifications is the addition of Explosive Reactive Armour boxes applied by the Regiments. As the T72s, the T72B is the current export version of the T72, and is supplied for export by Rosoboronexport.

Serb M84

Licensed for production in Serbia by Russia, this is a heavily modified T72M1, the most obvious modifications being improved optics, fire control, and the addition of an NBCW sniffer mast.

T90

The holy grail of this collection is the T90, provided here near as gameplay will allow to its export version, T90S. The T90 is the latest MBT in Russia's arsenal (with the possible exception of prototypes like 'Black Eagle' ). Based on the T72 chassis, features include the SHTORA countermeasures system, Kontakt 5 ERA, a greatly improved armour package all around and the ability to fire ATGMs from the main gun barrel.

The other two pbos included in this pack are as follows:

SIG_T72M1I

Iraqi T72M1

This is the T72M1 export version as used by Iraq. The armour is rolled homogenous steel, and it is armed with an older APFSDS penetrator and an older HEAT round.

SIG_UStank

This is for those of you who will want the M1 in its modern versions, as you'll find that BIS' settings are not realistic in any way. The 120mm SABOTs they shipped with the game are woefully underpowered, among other issues. This pack uses the BIS model for the M1 and contains the following:

M1A1 (M829A1)

The M1A1 as it served in the Gulf War (Except it isn't in desert camouflage here). This simulates the Chobham armour of the period as well as the M829A1 'silver bullet' APFSDS-DU round used during that conflict.

M1A2 (M829A2)

The M1A2 (newer version of the M1, with improved FCS, optics, armour, etc. . .) armed with the M829A2 improved DU APFSDS round.

M1A2 (M829A3)

The M1A2 armed with the newest American Depleted Uranium APFSDS round, the M829A3.<span id='postcolor'>

Sweet!

[Guest]

Very nice Just tried them out and I'm was very pleasently surprised.

[hellfish6 7]

I just subjected them to my 'tank test'. What I do is pit a platoon of M-1s (in this case, Sigma 6's M1A2 w/the A3 sabot) against a company (10-12) of enemy tanks - the Soviets attack a hull-down US position. Against T-55s, I get no losses and all T-55s killed. Against T-80s, I usually loose 2 M-1s and kill the T-80s.

I tried the Iraqi T-72M1s first.. they killed me (personally) but not before I got three of them. When the screen faded to black, I had only 1 M-1 left against 2 T-72s (from what I could see).

Against the T-72B w/Kontakt ERA, the entire platoon was wiped out with about 25% the T-72s surviving from what I could tell.

I am afraid to try against T-90s...

Wow. We've got real Soviet tanks now.

Edit: just playing around, it is possible to take out T-90s with just one round (from the A3 sabot). However, T-90s can ALSO take YOU out with one round.

[suchey 0]

Excellent work...great addon !

[Assault (CAN) 1]

One slight problem:

From certain angles and distances, parts of the tank do not appear.

[ralphwiggum 6]

pppppppfffffffffff.......Canadian made. not to mention leaky sub

ok..joking aside. is this fixable bug? i'd like to see this fixed, although it is a minor problem

[Sigma-6 29]

I'm currently looking at a few things for the next update, and I'll list them, but first, a disclaimer:

This is version 0.1a, the 'Alpha'. The 'bug' you are seeing is the simplified 9.000 Resolution LOD. It's cut down to achieve the 300 polys required for the main LOD to cast a shadow. The next update (very soon) will resolve this, along with adding more LODs for various distances. The next version, incorporating recommended bugfixes, will be the first 'beta' release.

updates in the first 'beta', which will be 0.2b

1. complete resolution LODs

2. a more detailed base visual model

3. a more detailed specific armour model

4. a hyper-realistic formulaic armour and penetration system based on the international standard 'equivalencies of RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armour)' for both tank armour and round penetration. I have a very experienced source for this data. He knows his stuff *extremely well*.

5. various paint schemes

6. a harmonization of many different tanks to this system, including:

a: all the T72 variants already included, as well as the included T90 and M1A1 and M1A2*

b: M60A3

c: T55

d: T80

e: Leopard 1A4 (Leo C1)*

f: Leopard 1A5 (Leo C2)*

g: Uparmoured Leo C2 (1A5 with massive spaced composites)*

*= new oxygen created models, others are BIS' model with harmonized performance data to make keep everyone happy when they're engaging the game tanks. (though the ingame T55 is pretty close to what it will be changed to right now, actually.)

[Mr. Snrub 0]

Great work, as per usual from Op. Northstar. Good to see some good Russian/East units coming out nowadays...I particularly like the commander's NSV on top of the turret - even if it is inactive, its nice to see it being modelled.

Just a couple of questions...

1. The gunner can't change weapons (ie. from Sabot to MG) while the commander can - is this to make the commander's role larger?

2. When selecting the Sabot (at least in the M1 tanks) does he say "meat"?

Excellent work, keep it up

Edit: Just discovered Q.1 is only relevant to East tanks, not the M1s

[tankieboy 0]

Can we get some screen shots?

[dkraver 1]

Really great models. And also really like the firing sound. Here are some other things to look into for the next update.

Bugs.

-T72M1 and Iraq version.There are two black lines behind the commander turret when looking from the outside and going around.

Visual Improvements.

- Could you remove the "camoflaged" from the T72B and maybe call it BC instead. And also just call it T72B Kontakt ERA instead of w/ kontakt ERA. Looks better that way.

- Could you make the PKT and the NSV under weapon selection just like all other OFP tanks.

- The turret HMG are in a locked position when driving turned in in real life, so it shouldnt follow the periscope but just stay backwards/forwards when driving.

- Even though i couldnt find that many pictures with markings on them i would also like to see some on the tanks.

Markings

Maybe also a red star placed somewhere on the turret.

- Maybe if its possible (think i once read that vehicles cant fire smoke but not sure, maybe it can be scipted) make a menu selection to fire smoke screen. Would be something like, 6 smoke canisters being fired in the canons direction (2 straight forward, 2 slightly to the right and 2 slightly to the left. One from each direction going low and the last 3 going high). And have 2 shots.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Smoke screens would significantly slow down your game, I'm not sure that is such a good idea.

Sigma-6, a couple of question:

You are planning on using a formula to simulate specific hit points and to simulate real-life armour, is that correct?

Your next version of these tanks, will they include "updated" BIS models (and new O2 models) that follow the above formula(e), or will you downscale your tanks to fit in with BIS tanks?

Are you planning on making realistic armour-penetration weapons, such as reworked LAW's, CG's, TOW's etc.?

Other than that, great work, looking forward to the next release

[Sigma-6 29]

>-T72M1 and Iraq version.There are two black lines behind >the commander turret when looking from the outside and >going around.

could you be more explicit? perhaps a screenshot of this?

>Visual Improvements.

>- Could you remove the "camoflaged" from the T72B and >maybe call it BC instead. And also just call it T72B Kontakt >ERA instead of w/ kontakt ERA. Looks better that way.

Maybe it looks better, but everywhere it's written, (FAS, Janes, pretty much every other reference) it says w/ Kontakt ERA, because it's not a 'T72 Kontakt ERA', it's a T72 *with* Kontakt ERA.

>T72BC

I *could* do that, but that's not its designation, so I won't.

>- Could you make the PKT and the NSV under weapon >selection just like all other OFP tanks.

They are. Hit your spacebar when you are the highest ranking crew member. This has more to do with what the *player's rank* is than whether he's the commander.

- The turret HMG are in a locked position when driving turned in in real life, so it shouldnt follow the periscope but just stay backwards/forwards when driving.

? They're remotely operated by the commander, attached to the cupola. Is there something I've missed? I don't think so. . .

- Even though i couldnt find that many pictures with markings on them i would also like to see some on the tanks.

I may put markings on the Iraqi ones, but the others are in use by too many countries to put specific Russian markings on them, particularly not when the Russians don't.

>- Maybe if its possible (think i once read that vehicles cant >fire smoke but not sure, maybe it can be scipted) make a >menu selection to fire smoke screen. Would be something >like, 6 smoke canisters being fired in the canons direction (2 >straight forward, 2 slightly to the right and 2 slightly to the >left. One from each direction going low and the last 3 going >high). And have 2 shots.

I had lofty aspirations to do this, but it's not possible. Vehicles cannot fire smoke canisters.

>1. The gunner can't change weapons (ie. from Sabot to MG) >while the commander can - is this to make the commander's >role larger?

The commander orders ammo changes. The gunner will fire what he's told, damn him. In fact, the gunner can order ammo changes, as long as he is the highest ranking crew member. . . get in as commander, switch to gunner position and you will see this.

>2. When selecting the Sabot (at least in the M1 tanks) does >he say "meat"?

He says 'heat'. In the next version, he will say 'shell'. he should say 'Sabot,' but unless somebody wants to get me a good sound file of an M1 gunner with an American accent yelling 'SABOT', he's going to use the default 'shell' from BIS' sounds.

[Sigma-6 29]

>You are planning on using a formula to simulate specific hit >points and to simulate real-life armour, is that correct?

It is.

>Your next version of these tanks, will they include "updated" >BIS models (and new O2 models) that follow the above >formula(e), or will you downscale your tanks to fit in with >BIS tanks?

They will include BIS models with updated CPP code. They will also include updated o2 models with updated CPP code. One to look forward to, though it's only half-done, is the Chinese Type-98.

My Tanks fit in with the BIS tanks in the sense that their Armour is roughly along the same lines.

For example:

The T72M1 they modeled has an overall armour value of 400. The actual real-world T72M1 (and my version) has the equivalent of 400mm RHA. The BIS values on the T55 and the M60 also correspond roughly to their actual levels if you take that T72 400 value to mean 400mm RHA. 400 is also the default 'tank' class value.

The T80 in the game corresponds roughly to its 1985 version using this data, however, as everyone is going to tell me (and they're going to be correct) the T80U and other *current* versions have significantly increased armour. The T-84, for example, has Kontakt 5 ERA, just like the T90.

The only issue then, is the fact that, for the sake of gameplay, the APFSDS rounds do not have enough punch on any BIS tank rated higher than the T72M1. even the T72M1 is using a pre-1979 penetrator in terms of its power. As many people know (and the Russians insist, while testing seems to confirm their insistence) that they were able to put a 125mm Tungsten Carbide APFSDS round through about 580mm RHA in 1979. The American A1 variant of the DU APFSDS round will do about 690-710, to say nothing of the A3. . . (way more than enough to kill a T72M1 at any range.)

>Are you planning on making realistic armour-penetration >weapons, such as reworked LAW's, CG's, TOW's etc.?

I don't need to. They are more-or-less accurate as they are against my tanks. You'll find that a good close range CG shot *can*, if you're lucky, kill or injure the crew of a T-90 (internal spalling would account for this, depending on where you hit it.)

As for the TOW, I'm sure Desert OFP will go out of their way to make theirs as accurate as possible. . .

Also, ON*'s next Canadian Weapons update will include the Canadian/French 'Eryx' ATGM as well. . . (it's really cool)

[BlackDeath-CFH 1]

ever plan on makeing a bmp3 or any other updated soviet armor?

[Vikingo 0]

GREAT WORK SIGMA-6 !!  

Finally the tanks of the game have the migthy monster NVST over turrets (like I love to see in the early pics and videos of the game before the gun was taked out due can't be used). Thanks for listen us and add them!

The models are of great quality and now I will try to replace the T72 of the game campaign with your units! (editing the main CPP. I will post here if I finally can do it so all can have that if they want. Just the model not the values cos maybe can make bugs in the AI of the campaign... I want that NSVT and tank models inside the main campaigns! hehe)

Just a little petition for next versions. The only thing I "don't like" is that when you are in turn-out position under commander the 3D model of the hatch is too big and you can't see well to the front... And when you look the  commander from other tank or from the ground is like the hatch is too big and the commander can't "see well" to the front. PLEASE can you make them just more little? (like BIS model ones) Or place the commander a little more up in that position. The gunner can see well to the front cos his hatch don't cover the line of sight. Thanks for any comment from you about this special -bothering hehe- request.

Again the models rocks and the NSVT is SO nice and  I don't mind I can't use it , it looks great over there and the tanks look much more aggressive!

So... now we have this in game:  

yeah!! Thanks to Sigma-6!!

[The Sharpshooter 0]

GREAT WORK !

Really great Addons ! And you say they are not even a beta, I´ll just have to wait and see what you have in store for us.

Can you, for the next version, add the tanks under "Operation Northstar MOD" in the east side ? That is so we don´t confuse them with the originals, and they are more easy to find too.

[acidcrash 0]

great job, you can tell theres alot of hard work gone into them

now for the feedback:

The scopes, when you raise it so much, blacks out...is this meant to happen? makes shooting at low flying helo's alot harder

i know it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but when trying to switch to shells of some sort, you have to change to the NSV first, then to shells/ATGM...is it meant to be like that?

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Sharpshooter @ Dec. 05 2002,15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you, for the next version, add the tanks under "Operation Northstar MOD" in the east side ? That is so we don´t confuse them with the originals, and they are more easy to find too.<span id='postcolor'>

Too true

It makes things a lot easier/neater

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'll be happy to wait for next version

[Gollum1 0]

I was a bit disappointed with this pack, until I came here and saw that it was the Alpha version. PHEW!

1. Change the horrible wooden color of that tube in the back of all the tanks! It spoils the entire model. (don´t care if it´s realistic, just make it gooo!

2. Make the tanks engage aircraft, like the Kyllikki Realism Pack tanks.

3. It is possible to make the NSVT semi-active, just look at the Paladin self-propelled howitzer where the gunner controls and MG on the roof that actually shoots.

4. Tank names should be simplified.

Please think about this, I´m really looking forward to future versions! Thanks for this pack, Sigma!

[Sigma-6 29]

>1. Change the horrible wooden color of that tube in the back of all the tanks! It spoils the entire model. (don´t care if it´s realistic, just make it gooo!

That 'tube' is a log. It's supposed to look like that, and IMHO, that's what *makes* the models, as it was sadly *not present* in the original tanks, and is on *every* T72, M84, and T90 in the real world. It's not going anywhere.

>2. Make the tanks engage aircraft, like the Kyllikki Realism Pack tanks.

I can do that.

>3. It is possible to make the NSVT semi-active, just look at the Paladin self-propelled howitzer where the gunner controls and MG on the roof that actually shoots.

I don't like that idea one bit. Personally, I wasn't too fond of that addon either, for one thing, the M2HB on it was about seven times larger than it should have been, and you should bear in mind that where MBTs have COAX MGs, SPGs do not.

>4. Tank names should be simplified.

Sorry, the tanks' names are what the tanks' names actually are. If they were 'simplified' as you say, there would be no sense to that, because you couldn't distinguish variants. . . why would you suggest this anyway?

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gollum1 @ Dec. 05 2002,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Make the tanks engage aircraft, like the Kyllikki Realism Pack tanks.<span id='postcolor'>

I had two AH-1Js from the Nam pack get shot down by these new T-72s last night. I don't know if it's because the tanks are capable of shooting down the aircraft themselves or because these helicopters, unlike the original BIS ones, can be shot at by infantry.

[Gollum1 0]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sigma-6 @ Dec. 05 2002,202)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That 'tube' is a log. It's supposed to look like that, and IMHO, that's what *makes* the models, as it was sadly *not present* in the original tanks, and is on *every* T72, M84, and T90 in the real world. It's not going anywhere.

>4. Tank names should be simplified.

Sorry, the tanks' names are what the tanks' names actually are. If they were 'simplified' as you say, there would be no sense to that, because you couldn't distinguish variants. . . why would you suggest this anyway?<span id='postcolor'>

I tought it LOOKED like a log, but I didn´t believe it...what´s a log doing on a modern MBT?

With "simplified" I mean that "camouflage" could be "camo" and you could remove the "W/". Just a minor request...

">3. It is possible to make the NSVT semi-active, just look at the Paladin self-propelled howitzer where the gunner controls and MG on the roof that actually shoots.

I don't like that idea one bit. Personally, I wasn't too fond of that addon either, for one thing, the M2HB on it was about seven times larger than it should have been, and you should bear in mind that where MBTs have COAX MGs, SPGs do not."

Your MG is just the right size. And why should I bear in mind that they have coaxes? Do you mean that you can´t have both on one tank in OFP?

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gollum1 @ Dec. 05 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your MG is just the right size. And why should I bear in mind that they have coaxes? Do you mean that you can´t have both on one tank in OFP?<span id='postcolor'>

you can't

[Sigma-6 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tought it LOOKED like a log, but I didn´t believe it...what´s a log doing on a modern MBT?

<span id='postcolor'>

It's an unditching log. Very useful.

'camo' is a little too unmilitary for me, man. you want ot change it, go ahead.

I'm not removing the w/.

I already posted around here somewhere as to why, but the reason is (again) that that is the tank's designation. It is not a 'T72B Kontakt ERA', it's a 'T72B *with* Kontakt ERA'. This (T72B w/ Kontakt ERA) is how it's written pretty much everywhere, because to phrase it any other way does not make sense. w/ is the standard abbreviation. . . hell, if I'd used the word 'with', people might have suggested switching to the abbreviation. . .

anyway, I asked you why you'd even suggest that the names be shortened, because it seems like a pretty silly thing to do, let alone suggest.