Joint ammo and magazines (jam)

[waffendennis 0]

Im sorry, but its just not true that all tracers are the same colour, its commonly known that NATO tracers give off a red colour while Soviet Bloc manufactured tracers give off a green colour.

And if you dont like it, you can always turn off the tracers as STT said.

OR make your Own addon

[shinRaiden 0]

For us 56'kers, could you put the code and data (sounds) in separete pbo's and downloads, so that any patches would only require re-downloading the config pbo instead of the whole pack?

Thanks.

[theavonlady 2]

For us 56'kers, could you put the code and data (sounds) in separete pbo's and downloads, so that any patches would only require re-downloading the config pbo instead of the whole pack?

That's AMORE!

[hellfish6 7]

Suchey retextured the AT4 for JAM and has given his OK for use in the next update.

[ruff 102]

Suchey retextured the AT4 for JAM and has given his OK for use in the next update.

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now thats retexturing for ya!!

[ruff 102]

okay

instead of having those old standard bis soldiers

carry those weapons

can u pls have the cpp also in the dl so we can replace the old bis soldiers with the bas soldier

pls

[Aeon 0]

Quote[/b] ]Im sorry, but its just not true that all tracers are the same colour, its commonly known that NATO tracers give off a red colour while Soviet Bloc manufactured tracers give off a green colour.

I didn't know that, I just saw on TV tracer fired by Serbians and recently by Iraqis they were redish-yellow... If whatever its commonly known that Soviet tracers are green, well ok even if the actual green color is too...green

Quote[/b] ]And if you dont like it, you can always turn off the tracers as STT said.

I know that but it would be more interesting to have default riffle magazine without tracers (and so for untweaked config's cadet server), and at the same time riffle magazine with tracer

for night situation

[SelectThis 0]

re: size. JAM isn't that big that it requires splitting into different pbos. (It seemed big last time because it was packed in with the blackhawks) in the future it will be updated as a seperate file.

re: BAS units using JAM, that will come in a later update of the DeRa units.

re: RPG/At4 damage levels, I've stated it before that my Personal view is that they are too powerful. From a game play perspective, no one would want to sit inside a BMP or M113 with those weapons around.

STT

[theavonlady 2]

re: RPG/At4 damage levels, I've stated it before that my Personal view is that they are too powerful. From a game play perspective, no one would want to sit inside a BMP or M113 with those weapons around.

Is it that they're too powerful, OFP's light armor (BMPs M113s, M2A2s, etc.) too weak, or both?

[jotte 0]

Hellfish,

Will the AT4 come with a proper reticle?

[SelectThis 0]

Jotte, did you try the JAM At4? that has a new reticle.

STT

[jotte 0]

No i hadn't but I tried it out just now. It is considerbly better then the default one but still not as the one I have used. I'm not sure if the "export" version have a diffrent sight or if there have been changes since the mid 90's but here is whats is missing according to what I know:

1. The front post should have 5 "pins", each of these also have a white line on it and a white arc connecting the one at each end and the middle one.

2 The rear post is broader with an "arrowish" top end

There are some pictures here http://www.soldf.com/pskott.html

The top picture in the righthand column gives a good view of the rear post.

And also a pdf of the manual (in swedish but should be usefull nontheless as it shows good views of the sight too) http://www.fmuhc.mil.se/fmpub/pubdok/soldr_mrtl_vapen_ps.pdf

Edit:

Oh and I almost forgot, its good if it is modelled with the "lowlight sight", ie the large hole as the supposed daylight hole is very small and we were tought to use the "lowlight" sight even at day (if the "flap" of the daylight still was there, that is, as it was quite often snapped off on the drill weapons.)

[Eviscerator 0]

This is actually the image i used to create the front sight, so the front sight is realistic, the rear sight is a little more open than the real thing, but you have to remember it is a game, and with the LAW having such an open sight we have to at least make it relatively easy to use, we dont want people to have to spend weeks at an infantry training course just to target tanks with the thing.

[hellfish6 7]

Yeah, the American version is just slightly different from the original Swedish version - the sight, and lack of a front hand grip. There might be a few more technical differences, but I think that is the basic extent of the cosmetic differences.

[jotte 0]

Roger that guys. Then it is A ok as it is.

On a related note, are there any planes for a remodeled Carl Gustaf as RAWS for the Rangers?

[hellfish6 7]

I don't know that they use RAWS anymore - I think they adopted the USMC's SMAW instead. I might be wrong, though...

[hellfish6 7]

OK, after having played with the JAM AT4 and RPG a lot more, I can say that I'm very happy with the warhead values. I played a coop game tonite against multiple enemy vehicles, T-72s and BMPs, and I thought the resuslts of the AT attacks we conducted were pretty realistic. It wasn't easy for us to take out T-72s with the AT4s, but with semi-coordinated volley fire, we were able to do it.

Same with BMPs - one AT4 hit or even one RPG AP (yes, AP) hit was enough to disable the vehicle and force the crew to bail. Much more engaging gameplay than simply blowing it up. Now you have to worry about if the crew escaped, if you only caused a mobility kill and they're still looking for you, or if you just rattled the crew around a bit and they're still fully mobile.

I also spent part of the night inside a Bradley (until a BMP killed me with an AT3 from beyond my view distance) and it was a great relief to have absorbed an RPG or two and live through it instead of being automatically screwed.

Still, my only request/suggestion is that the accuracy of the AT4 and RPG7 get toned down a bit - like make an HD version of the rockets available. Sort of like the SEB Nam LAW and RPGs - I want to shoot at a tank at 250m and not be positive that I'll hit it.

[VipHeart 0]

Major, I'm gonna update the HK pack with JAM compatibilty..

as you may know I joined BAS - the work on LB continues aswell.

As far as we talked about it yet, HK pack will be divided into several packs, each completly JAM compatible.

By the way: you contacted me?? Are you sure? I always reply to mails...

[The Frenchman 0]

Major, I'm gonna update the HK pack with JAM compatibilty..

That is good to hear.

[Gollum1 0]

That´s good news Viperheart.

[Jinef 2]

Indeed.

Now all we need is OFRP to become JAM compatible.

[hellfish6 7]

Indeed.

Now all we need is OFRP to become JAM compatible.

That would be excellent.

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Hmm, would be really nice with some new magazines added in the future. I would really like a 5.56 NATO Single/3-round burst/Fullauto (For HK33,HK53,G41 etc.) and a 5.45 single/2-roundburst @ 1800 rpm/fullauto @ 600 RPM (for AN-94)

And C-mags

Ps. Would really nice with a RPG-29 for the russians, as a counter-part to the M136

[Eviscerator 0]

Ive forwarded those suggestions, and as for the RPG-29, i would say that the RPG-26/RPG-27 is more of an equivalent of the M136, the CG/M3 MAAWS would probably be more of an equivalent of the RPG-29. Either way, it would probably best to request the RPG-26/27/29 from Earl/Suchey, as we dont really have time to make new weapons, however we will of course include it if it is made.

[Matthijs 40]

Currently, if I want to release my weapons as JAM compatible, I will have to provide the whole thing with it, for my add-on to be user-friendly. Complete with units and weapon models, and all.

This adds up considerable amounts of MB's on my add-on, only for the sake of a specific kind of ammo. As an add-on maker, I think it's a real drag.

Why will not release the JAM ammo/magazines as a separate PBO?