acidcrash 0 Posted September 18, 2003 about the BTR80 wow yes i just noticed that... destruction derby anyone? edit: turns out that the crew get injured after hitting a few times but the vehicle is fine... my gunner died after ramming another BTR80 first time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Hehe, I would like to see the battle when you have the oppurtunity to ram the enemy at full speed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted September 18, 2003 The BTR doesn´t explode, it just "crumples" and doesn´t even get blackened. If you did it for some kind of realism reasons (BTRs don´t explode because...etc) I still think a real explosion is the lesser evil compared to a completely silent implosion that looks pretty ridiculous Anyway, I´m having a lot of fun with the pack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted September 18, 2003 Very nice addons. But maybe some things I would do differently to balance things a bit.1) Radar for gunner for the tanks? It does not seem realistic and it practically gives too much advantage against even MBT's at long ranges (as mentioned before already) 2) The dispersion in heavy MG's seems to be too much in my opinion. Normally high caliber machineguns are very accurate at long ranges. Good tripods effectively remove the recoil of the guns adding to the accuracy of the weapons 3) Firing rate of MG's and 23mm AA guns too low Most heavy MG's don't have a particularly high firing rate. But I've only fired the American Browning M2 .50 cal HMG so maybe the Russian HMG's are different. However the twin barrel ZSU-23's should have a fairly high firing rate although normally they fire in bursts. If you watched the photage from Bagdad during the Invasion of Iraq, you could see and hear various types of ZSU-23 AA guns firing in bursts. The reason for this is because if they fire for longer periods of time their barrels will melt. Even in bursts they still have to change the barrels periodically. As for recoil, tripods do help decrease the recoil quite a bit, however trust me, you still get quite a bit of recoil that shakes the weapon around. Digging in the feet of the tripod into the ground and placing sandbags on the feet of the tripod help reduce this, but it still shakes quite a bit. But I agree with you that in general HMG's are fairly accurate out to long ranges when fired in bursts which is one big reason why the M2 has been used in the US military for such a long time. From what I understand the Russian HMG's are likewise fairly accurate and reliable and are very similar in capabilities to the Browning M2 .50 cal HMG. So yeah perhaps they have a bit too much dispersion. The same is true for the ZSU-23HD. But to be fair, the reason for this is to give you a chance at survival. It's very exciting when you're getting fired at by these heavy weapons. Using the normal weapons they kill you very quickly. But with these you have a decent chance of survival so you won't die immediately. Finally, the radar I think is yes not realistic, however in a way this simulates your TC (Tank Commander) who looks for and identifies targets for you. The driver and gunner also do the same. So if you look at it that way it's not that unrealistic. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akm74 1 Posted September 18, 2003 Quote[/b] ]The same is true for the ZSU-23HD. Everything marked HD for single player only. It very inaccurate and intended to use by “enemy†AI only. BTW real NSV/KORD have 800/min fire rate. I reduce it to make units more balanced in game. Same for ZU Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted September 18, 2003 The radar is in my opinion good. As MilesTeg said it simulates the commanders field of vision and perhaps other forms of intel received before the mission. But a radar-less version of the APC's/IFV's would be good for MP. When all the parts of the crew in one IFV/APC is being played. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Ok, I have one issue: The BTR-80 transports the soldiers sitting on the roof. Now it looks lovely, but it completely ruins the purpose of an APC: protecting infantry against small arms fire. So while it looks nice in cut-scenes, it effectivly also renders it useless in the game. Perhaps you could make two versions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norsu 180 Posted September 18, 2003 So while it looks nice in cut-scenes, it effectivly also renders it useless in the game.Perhaps you could make two versions? Â This should be easily fixed by placing cargo proxies 1-9 inside the BTR-80 and rest on top of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DKM-jaguar Posted September 18, 2003 The thread says it's AKM74's and DKM's work. So why is the PBO filename prefixed with VIT? Also, no sample missions and even a readme file is not included. OK OK... missions I made are sitting on my desktop without breifings, cutscenes but they basically function. If anyone wants to finish them off then they are welcome to. I have no webspace to put them so if anyone has any ideas... Why doesn't a great addon team like yours put out a wanted add for quality mission makers to join the team? ....thanks alot, I'm sure that i am not offened by this in anyway... oh wait, yeah i am. Might be becuase you've seen nothing of my work yet you already want someone else to do it. Thanks so much, this is whyi LOVE the ofp community. [/immense sarcasm] BTW: i am going to finish the missions myself, all i need to do is learn breifings. Anyone want to help me in this task (i know nothing about them, what with only being a mission maker for a few months) then please Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dauragon 0 Posted September 18, 2003 The thread says it's AKM74's and DKM's work. So why is the PBO filename prefixed with VIT? Also, no sample missions and even a readme file is not included. OK OK... missions I made are sitting on my desktop without breifings, cutscenes but they basically function. If anyone wants to finish them off then they are welcome to. I have no webspace to put them so if anyone has any ideas... Why doesn't a great addon team like yours put out a wanted add for quality mission makers to join the team? ....thanks alot, I'm sure that i am not offened by this in anyway... oh wait, yeah i am. Might be becuase you've seen nothing of my work yet you already want someone else to do it. Thanks so much, this is whyi LOVE the ofp community. [/immense sarcasm] BTW: i am going to finish the missions myself, all i need to do is learn breifings. Anyone want to help me in this task (i know nothing about them, what with only being a mission maker for a few months) then please what do you do in dkm jaguar ?? just out of pure curiosity Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted September 18, 2003 The thread says it's AKM74's and DKM's work. So why is the PBO filename prefixed with VIT? Also, no sample missions and even a readme file is not included. OK OK... missions I made are sitting on my desktop without breifings, cutscenes but they basically function. If anyone wants to finish them off then they are welcome to. I have no webspace to put them so if anyone has any ideas... Why doesn't a great addon team like yours put out a wanted add for quality mission makers to join the team? ....thanks alot, I'm sure that i am not offened by this in anyway... oh wait, yeah i am. Might be becuase you've seen nothing of my work yet you already want someone else to do it. Thanks so much, this is whyi LOVE the ofp community. [/immense sarcasm] BTW: i am going to finish the missions myself, all i need to do is learn breifings. Anyone want to help me in this task (i know nothing about them, what with only being a mission maker for a few months) then please what do you do in dkm jaguar  ?? just out of pure curiosity Apparently he gripes after someone compliments his team's skills or tries to offer constructive criticism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Ok, I have one issue: The BTR-80 transports the soldiers sitting on the roof. Now it looks lovely, but it completely ruins the purpose of an APC: protecting infantry against small arms fire.So while it looks nice in cut-scenes, it effectivly also renders it useless in the game. Perhaps you could make two versions?  This has been discussed a lot before in the ole Seademon BTR-70 thread. Some people came with information that Russian troops in Chechnya ride on top of their APCs for most of the time, because it´s more comfortable and offers protection from mines (supposedly). But I really doubt that said troops would ride on top of their APCs into a combat situation! Like Denoir, I would like two versions, one for cutscenes and semi-peaceful/ambush missions, and one for actual combat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted September 18, 2003 Well... you have to remember that the BTR-80 isn't a fighting vehicle. It's basically a battlefield taxi. The troops are supposed to dismount from the vehicle before they're in contact - they don't ride into battle inside of the vehicle. The BTR80 has really weak armor - it's only supposed to protect the troops from the main threats in the rear area (mines, artillery, partisans, etc.) not act as an infantry fighting vehicle. That's what the BMPs do. They're designed to fight back. The BTRs are designed to protect themselves and their cargo. It's the same with the US Army's new Strykers - people are whining about it not being as well armored as a tank or a Bradley. Well duh, it's not designed to do the same things as a tank or a Bradley. It's designed to get troops from point A to point B fast, not to lead their assault. So if you're complaining about the troops riding up top, you're probably not using correct motorized warfare doctrine. You dismount before you come into contact. Infantry isn't much good inside of an APC anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted September 18, 2003 I disagree Hellfish. If I had been sitting on top of the French VAB's in Kosovo, I'd be dead now. APC's are not IFVs but they're lightly armoured transport vehicles. If the troops were not meant to be inside then trucks would be used and not APCs. The fact that troops dismount before engaging the enemy has no bearing on if people sit inside or on top during transport. As I said the primary function of APCs is to protect troops from small arms fire during transport. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akm74 1 Posted September 18, 2003 Quote[/b] ]The fact that troops dismount before engaging the enemy has no bearing on if people sit inside or on top during transport. Even before engaging the enemy, riding on top give them much better protection against land mines. And they can disembark in seconds in case of any ambushes. Like Hellfish6 sad already, BTR80 not fighting vehicle, it troops transport. Solders must disembark before they will engage enemy no mater if they on top or inside... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Jaguar, why don't you dowlnoad Chris's OFP script editor it has briefing and overview wizards which negate the need for HTML skills to write briefings. Great pack I just can't think of missions fast enough. As for the BTR-80, Troops would sit on the roof if the alternative was to walk into or out of combat, wheeled APCs and similarly lightweight tracked vehicles like M113 and FV432 can be used to fire and manouvre into small arms range although this would only be practised with cannon armed vehicles IRL, and even then it wouldn't be the first choice. Anyway long to the short I say just make the first 9 proxies the internal ones, therefore you can avoid having people on the roof by restricting squad size to 9...easy peasy. Also you might want to have vulnerable troops on the roof in ambush missions, or missions with multiple drop offs, where maybe a support detachment or flanking section are deployed further back from the FEBA while the internal squad proceed to a frontal assault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Even before engaging the enemy, riding on top give them much better protection against land mines. And they can disembark in seconds in case of any ambushes. Â Like Hellfish6 sad already, BTR80 not fighting vehicle, it troops transport. Solders must disembark before they will engage enemy no mater if they on top or inside... You get good protection against small arms fire. I have been shot at twice while riding in a French VAB APC (in Kosovo). The bullets ricochet off the VAB and nobody got hurt. Had we been sitting on the roof we would had taken casualties for sure. The whole point of having an Armored Personel Carrier is to protect the troops inside during transport. If you decide to ride on top of it, you're not using it for what it was designed to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted September 18, 2003 AKM74 is there any chance of an ambulance version with maybe extra casualties being sat and laid on the roof, just for effect? Cpt Moore's dustoff Huey had a pretty good stretcher anim as I recall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Quote[/b] ]If you decide to ride on top of it, you're not using it for what it was designed to Soldiers do have a habit of doing that. Besides mine protection and ballistic protection are totally different things for instance in Lebanon a BMP-1 drove over a dual purpose mine the APC and crew continued back to base, but the passenger compartment was a slaughter house, zero survivors, in a similar situation in the first Gulf war a LAV-25 drove over the same type of mine and had three wheels blown off, but the crew and passengers all survived because the vehicle was designed to disperse the force of the blast through itself in order to protect the occupants (hence the roof suspended seats, the shock would travel through rigid seats and shatter your spine), for the same reason British Saxon APCs are designed so that the large mudgards will blow off in a mine explosion in order to diffuse the blast. In fact an Irish SISU/Patria XA-180 APC in Lebanon drove over an anti-tank mine and drove back to base on five wheels and full crew, and its armour can barely stop 7.62x39 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Soldiers do have a habit of doing that. Yes and no. If you feel secure then yes. If you on the other hand know that there are probably people nearby who would not mind putting a bullet in you, then you wear your helmet and are greatful to be in the cramped space of an APC. As for mines, most modern APCs (I don't know specifically about the btr 80) are designed to endure AP mines of all forms and sizes. As for AT mines, it's difficult to tell as they come in many different forms and yields. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Well this APC just lets you choose whetehr the soldiers feel comfortable or not (or it will do if/when the proxies ar ordered so that seating is on a first come first serve basis.) I forgot to mention another possible reason for the whole Chechnya roof sitting habit, according to a friend of mine who was working near the border in 99 half th Russian APCs were towing the other half, in one case he saw a tractor (as in CET not massey ferguson) pulling two or three armoured vehciles behind it as they were travelling without spares. JDs doesn't mention any or the CMW measures featured on the Piranha Series (for instance) on the BTR-80, i.e. Anti-spall lining on the floor, roof suspended seats, any design features to deflect the blast. AKM74 do you know if there have been any upgrade programs for the BTR-80? I know Poland and the Czech republic have been adding these and other features to their OT-64 modernisation programmes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted September 18, 2003 The thread says it's AKM74's and DKM's work. So why is the PBO filename prefixed with VIT? Also, no sample missions and even a readme file is not included. OK OK... missions I made are sitting on my desktop without breifings, cutscenes but they basically function. If anyone wants to finish them off then they are welcome to. I have no webspace to put them so if anyone has any ideas... Why doesn't a great addon team like yours put out a wanted add for quality mission makers to join the team? ....thanks alot, I'm sure that i am not offened by this in anyway... oh wait, yeah i am. Might be becuase you've seen nothing of my work yet you already want someone else to do it. Thanks so much, this is whyi LOVE the ofp community. [/immense sarcasm] BTW: i am going to finish the missions myself, all i need to do is learn breifings. Anyone want to help me in this task (i know nothing about them, what with only being a mission maker for a few months) then please what do you do in dkm jaguar  ?? just out of pure curiosity Apparently he gripes after someone compliments his team's skills or tries to offer constructive criticism. pretty much I would say.. I must agree with denoir (or whoever said the thing about the top cargo)... you should either make two versions or possibly a way to remove the "get in btr 80 as cargo" action and then replace it with two actions, "get in btr 80 on top" or "get in btr 80 inside" or something... I know that BAS did something like this on the Chinook, where the jeeps that get in cargo are automatically transferred to the cargo hold where they are meant to be... (because all they really are, are "passengers" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Why not just have the forst nine passengers get inside instead of complicating matters with two versions or arsey configs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goeth 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Just like norsu said, do it like that and everybody is happy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2A42 0 Posted September 18, 2003 In Best Of Addons soon Little foto exclusive http://www.boa.flashpoint.ru/Beta/btr_1.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
