Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eviscerator

Joint ammo and magazines (jam)

Recommended Posts

Ive started this to detach the JAM discussion from the BAS thread, please post any comments or suggestions below, we are currently working on fixing any bugs and providing an AAE compliant version of JAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you Eviscerator. This is a huge step forward in the OFP Mod community, and an excellent idea overall. I just hope more mods buy into it. *cough* FIA Mod *cough*

Edit: Had to add some crap so it isn't considered spam. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so its less scary...

Anyway bugs found so far:

1.

Quote[/b] ]#define TEast 1

#define TWest 1

Where is should be:

Quote[/b] ]#define TEast 0

#define TWest 1

2. RPK-74 uses AK-47 sound.

3. Ai had a hard time handling M60/PK recoil.

4. Local check on smoke grenades.

5. PK muzzle velocity and rate of fire corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive started this to detach the JAM discussion from the BAS thread, please post any comments or suggestions below, we are currently working on fixing any bugs and providing an AAE compliant version of JAM.

Could you explain what JAM means for the OFP community? I don't understand what it should be. Something universal...please, explain for me and for others who don't understand. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that the AI uses teh M203 launcher less when you give them the M433 Vest??? I have yet to have a grenadier use the grenades when I equip them with the vest.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

must be just you, they use them all the time with me, pretty accurately too crazy_o.gif

@ dusand

Its a standardisation for ammunition and weapons... when fully implemented i seem to remember seeing it said that a BAS soldier would be able to pick up ammunition from say a Codeblue soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the m60 HD starts off using a regular m60 mag, then you have to reload, and you get the other 3 hd mags crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remove this "grenade vest"

Not a chance. There are always the single grenades (and soldiers that use them) if you do not wish to use it, however the vest is the only way to get a realistic amount of grenades onto the grenadiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crews and pilots are missing wink_o.gif. And while you're at it could it be possible to make vehicles that use these JAM crews or pilots. It's not good when enemy soldiers are using hd weapons and then some bailed out enemy crew members cause havoc with their normal weapons.

*edit* typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ dusand

Its a standardisation for ammunition and weapons... when fully implemented i seem to remember seeing it said that a BAS soldier would be able to pick up ammunition from say a Codeblue soldier

Thank you, Acidcrash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be difficult to execute, but do you think the next step of JAM would be one commen weapon. I mean we now have commen magazines, but wouldn't it be nice if had one m4 series and one a ak-74 series (just to name an example). That would be better for gameplay as the ingame weapons wouldn't differ to much from each other. Your addons directory would also be greatly reduced in size thus making the game run smoother (since less addons would have to be loaded in your memory).

Though I hope something like this would happen, I must admit that many modmakers wouldn't like it. They have all spend alot of time and energy in their addons and would hate it for that to be all in vain. However, should someone be able to pull this of, then I think it would be a great thing.

Anyway tell me what you think of this.

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This might be difficult to execute, but do you think the next step of JAM would be one commen weapon. I mean we now have commen magazines, but wouldn't it be nice if had one m4 series and one a ak-74 series (just to name an example). That would be better for gameplay as the ingame weapons wouldn't differ to much from each other. Your addons directory would also be greatly reduced in size thus making the game run smoother (since less addons would have to be loaded in your memory).

Though I hope something like this would happen, I must admit that many modmakers wouldn't like it. They have all spend alot of time and energy in their addons and would hate it for that to be all in vain. However, should someone be able to pull this of, then I think it would be a great thing.

Anyway tell me what you think of this.

Arch.

We (BAS) have discussed this exact concept with another addons developer, you'll just have to wait and see if anything comes of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just hope more mods buy into it. *

Edit: Had to add some crap so it isn't considered spam.  wink_o.gif

Our mod (IMUC) is thinking of using JAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the grenade vests. For MP games, it might not be that great. But when you want to play realistically, it's totally necessary. One of my many positions in the Army was as a 203 gunner. I never got to fill my vest (I was never in a combat zone with the 203) but I always wanted all 24 rounds available to me. JAM provides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This might be difficult to execute, but do you think the next step of JAM would be one commen weapon. I mean we now have commen magazines, but wouldn't it be nice if had one m4 series and one a ak-74 series (just to name an example). That would be better for gameplay as the ingame weapons wouldn't differ to much from each other. Your addons directory would also be greatly reduced in size thus making the game run smoother (since less addons would have to be loaded in your memory).

Though I hope something like this would happen, I must admit that many modmakers wouldn't like it. They have all spend alot of time and energy in their addons and would hate it for that to be all in vain. However, should someone be able to pull this of, then I think it would be a great thing.

Anyway tell me what you think of this.

Arch.

We (BAS) have discussed this exact concept with another addons developer, you'll just have to wait and see if anything comes of it...

Hmmm, digital grenade rock.gif Nah j/k I know you won't tell us smile_o.gif

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one little thing,

i noticed that the sniper rifles had no HD version, which make sense in a way, but they are really to deadly as a assault weapon as compared to other HD weapons, could there be some hd versions anyway with more dispersion when one is not in a well sitted prone position (not breathing like mad) ?

dont shoot, i am just asking ;)

I love JAM, really i love it a lot !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilots added in the update, will add crew as well.

The problem of one big combined weapons addon would be the shear size of the project...it would be rather larger. Also it would take away from the many skilled weapon modellers out there. As it stands, JAM is mostly code which actually reduces the amount of work other addon makers have to do without taking too much away from their creativity. SO while there may be joint ventures to combine weapon packs between mods, I dont see the need to try to make custom modelled JAM Weapons a universal concept.

re: HD Sniper rifles.

We decided not to add HD versions of these as they are meant to be highly accurate. I guess it comes down to careful useage of them by mission makers (same with the vest)

SelectThis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a huge step forward in the OFP Mod community, and an excellent idea overall. I just hope more mods buy into it.

i totally agree !!! rock.gif  

btw the sounds are great...

thx BAS & DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to throw a topic on the table and see what people think.

AT4 and RPG7 damage values and flight characteristics.

Plain, Air targetting, Personnel Targetting.

Damage values on the plain one (450) is too high in my opinion.

Please give reasons for your thoughts, taking into account both realism AND game play.

SelectThis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the AT4 in real life is a pretty powerful weapon. Should be able to take out, say, a T-72G, from the side or rear. The RPG-7, I'm not so sure about, but I'd argue that the RPG-16 is about equivalent to the AT4.

IIRC I shot a plain JAM AT4 at a BMP the other day and it caused the crew to bail, but I didn't get a catastrophic kill.

OK, I just ran a couple of tests with the AT4:

BMP-1: 1 rocket to side to disable, crew bail. 2nd to C Kill

BMP-2: same

BMP-3: 2 rockets to side to disable, crew bail. 3 to C Kill

BTR-80: 1 rocket to side to disable, crew bail (though you can shoot out BTR tires and cause a crew bail). 2 to C Kill.

BMD-3: 1 to turret to cause crew bail. Otherwise, 2 to side to cause catastrophic kill.

T-72M1 with ERA: 2 shots to get a weapon kill, 3 to get crew bail out. No C Kill.

Asad Babyl: Same

BIS T-72: 2 shots to get crew to disable, crew bail. 3 for C kill.

I'm kind of wavering on this... one side of me really likes these results and thinks that they could be very realistic. Another side of me wants to see one-hit catastrophic kills on the BMP/BMD/BTRs and only one or two more hits for the same on an export T-72. I've never fired an AT weapon at a real target, so I can't validate the results as being realistic or not. My military training as a Dragon gunner leads me to believe that anything more than an M72 LAW should cause very near death to most IFVs and some older tanks. But my training also told me that my NBC gear would protect me and I never believed that for a second...

Either way, I think I can say that to decrease the values would be a mistake, IMHO.

However, I wouldn't be averse to seeing some more dispersion with these rockets, like in the SEB Nam Pack. Right now, you can pretty much hit anything at 400m, no problem. With some dispersion, you wouldn't be able to aim for, say, the gun barrel at 100m and know you'll hit it. Or to aim at a BMP at 400m and know that you'll hit it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as to not get people started on the wrong foot about AT values I'm going to provide some information....

When it comes to pure RHA value, that is to say, the armor's equivalent amount of armor relative to rolled homogenious steel (the standard of measure), the BMP series starting at the BMP1 chasis all the way up to the BMP3 and BMD series chasises have roughly 30-40mm RHA protection. This is of course without ERA or other advanced armor that was available before 1990. ** Information taken from US DOD OPFOR Rest of the World Guide **

Here's some realistic data on AT and armor...

- AT4 M136 rocket does 400-420mm of penetration (depending on source of info)

- LAW penetrates 300mm of armor

- RPG7V penetrates 300mm of armor

- RPG7VL penetrates 620mm of armor

- Carl Gustav (FFV 751 round) does 550+mm

- Javelin does roughly 600mm

- TOW (depending on model) can do between 700-900mm

- AT5B Konkurs-M (missile on a BMD3) can do 900+

- Hellfire penetrates all known types of armor

- Maverick and Kh25T both also penetrate everything

- All of the man-portable AT weapons mentioned above (excluding the Javelin) also have ranges no greater than 300-400 meters against standing targets, and something like 200 and less against moving targets.

- Basic T55 has 200mm worth of frontal armor depending highly on model and sides are generally 60% of the front, rear is 40% of the front or less, while the top is also weak.

- T72A, your average T72 in ofp, has 500mm worth of RHA frontal, decreasing like the T55 on the sides, rear, and top.

- T80 data is hard to come by, so you're basically guessing based on some scattered information. Americans like to claim it's 2/3 as much as the M1A1 but that would be less than a T72 so that's bunk.

- M60 has somewhere around 300-350mm armor.

- M1A1 (non HA model from the early 90's) has roughly 580-620mm of frontal armor. However because of the makeup of the armor it is nearly immune to HEAT rounds. HA models have armor somewhere around the mid 650's. Newer models are obviously classified and again you're just guessing. The trick with the M1 is that it has superior optics and systems, as well as the best APFSDS ammunition available. It's main advantage and purpose is to destroy armor a long ways away before the enemy even fires. As we saw during Iraq, well placed salvos of RPGs to vulnerable spots at short range can do a good bit of damage.

So in short, don't get carried away with what we think AT and armor should do. In actuality the gap between west and east is pretty narrow and comes down to small factors, many of which can't be recreated in OFP (like HEAT vs. M1A1). ERA and newer tech on tanks will of course do the same, and make them even stronger. But overall what should we all know? Russian APCs and light tanks have shitty armor, but are fast and the APCs carry nasty missiles. Russian armor generally won't even stop a high caliber round like a .308 or .50cal. American armor is heavy, slow, and has good guns. American AT is designed to deal with what americans during the cold war would have encountered.... weak ass APCs, which is why the AT4 is actually pretty shitty (because it doesn't need to penetrate much) and basically is replaced with the Javelin nowadays.

Ultimately, the best way to destroy armor is with other armor or air power. Your average small squad of infantry is way underpowered to do it in reality (but not in OFP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit I think I strayed off topic.... Anyways...

In the works from myself an others is a project called the WarGames AddPack to reconfigure all of OFP to realistic values starting with AT weapons and working our way into every vehicle in the game. Actually, it will be released in the next day or so and I would be interested in seeing what sort of response it gets from you official forum pro-realism folks. I like to refer to it as "The JAM of Everything Else". I've been meaning to start a thread and resurrect the long lost weapons standards thread where people waxed on about how it would be cool to reconfigure everything. Well we've done it.

In my opinion JAM is not the place to put AT weapons unless they are configured relative to the OFP BIS universe where things seem nearly arbitrary in nature. If JAM codes the AT realistically then they will either A) be too weak if they use realistic figures, or B) will need to use numbers that aren't realistic or based on RHA data and easy to use throughout the community to balance it against the bizarre BIS figures on vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT4 didn't get replaced by the Javelin. The Javelin replaced the Dragon at platoon and company level. Rifle squads still carry the AT4 - look at pics from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines are starting to field the Predator, which is similar to the French/Canadian Eryx, IIRC. It's got a max range of 600m but a very capable warhead. I don't know if that's going to replace the AT4 in the Marines, though, or just supplement it.

You're also ignoring the tracking aspects of some of these missiles. The Javelin (and Predator and TOW-2B) are designed to kill the tank by hitting it on the top armor, which is even less armored than the rear is (usually). None of that can be modelled in OFP, though, as far as I know. It does, however, make a good case for simulating a larger warhead than it really has. But this is probably best suited for another topic...

Even according to your own figures, the AT4 should be able to take out a T-72 from the side. Surely it should be able to achieve a catastrophic kill on a BMP, right? But that's not the case. I can get a catastrophic kill with a BIS LAW, but not a JAM AT4.

The only reason I don't think I mind this, having a non-catastrophic kill with the AT4, is because I really don't think vehicles blow up as easily as OFP would have you believe. Often times, just getting hit with an AT round would cause a crew to bail, even if no serious damage was really done. Examine a lot of battlefields (at least where M-1A1s didn't take on T-55s) and you probably won't find as many burned out tanks as you think. The JAM AT4 simulates this well.

Edit: This was posted in response to your first reply, and I didn't see your second reply. But that second reply makes a lot of sense. I look forward to seeing your new project. Will it totally replace the default BIS units, or add new, realistic units?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×