T12um1 black eagle released

[Beagle 684]

Well just another "great" addon by DKM...

Unfortunatly the one and only real problem with most DKM vehilcles exept the Comanche is their size...(Bronco,Tunguska,Black Eagle)

Since the Black Eagle is based on T-80 chasis, and following russian tank design, meaning small size and low profile, this DKMs Black Eagle ist way of in means of proportion...

but still a nice work....

[GoOB 0]

Hrm... I just came to realize one thing. How awfully boring the standard BIS sights are! Why not change them into something like on RHS's T55's? A modern tank such as the T12UM1 would surely have something more advanced, no?

[gazmen 0]

dont forget you would be putting a lot of people off OFP as a game, loads of people dont want to be killed in their tanks after a single sabot hit or hellfire impact.

A better solution would be for all modmakers to group round and make 'second line' in their addons, while the first line would be standard BIS compatibility.

Second line could be the ultra-realistic feel you are after.

Usually this would only entail adding new classes to the addon config, with upgraded armor and damage values.

I think it would be great that RHS & CAUCASUS & OPFR & BOH & DKM & VIT & FDF & FOOTMUNCH & BAS & OFPEC & ALL OTHERS works togheter, to create some kind of :

(Name of files are just suggestion)

- JAM_missiles (All needed missile compatible with choppers & plane & AT-Static, with realistic values)

- JAM_sabotheat (with all needed shells for Tanks)

These two files will quite help addon maker... Also it would provide compatibility and realism between mod  

Think about the problem, every addon maker making is own missiles & sabot & heat, sometime the same ammo have different values, so please make something and create those two files...

JAM_magazines is the first step of something very usefull, so please achieve and complete this project by adding new files  

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hrm... I just came to realize one thing. How awfully boring the standard BIS sights are! Why not change them into something like on RHS's T55's? A modern tank such as the T12UM1 would surely have something more advanced, no?

Hmm.. Well the current T12 is still realy only a prototype so it share the gun and sigth with the T80, most likely.. and that isn't very advanced by western standards..

[GoOB 0]

EDIT: Nevermind, made no sense.

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]The T-55 isn't a western tank as far as I know so wouldn't they atleast be using something similar to the sights on the T-55?

Yes.. but the sight in the modeled T12 is the M1 Abrams sight.. and it almost look like that in the real M1..

The reticle in a Leopard I sight looks like this..

And in a T72:

T80

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm.. Well the current T12 is still realy only a prototype so it share the gun and sigth with the T80, most likely.. and that isn't very advanced by western standards..

I beg to differ, the T-80UK and T-84 have very advanced sights, even by 'Western standards', (whatever that means. Most like it is a cold-war mentality that disctates that nobody but NATO can make good equipment.)

The fire control system comprises a gunner's 1G46M day sight, Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight, commander's PNK-5 observation and sighting system, PZU-7 anti-aircraft sight, 1ETs29M anti-aircraft machine gun mount control system, LIO-V ballistic computer with input information sensors, 2E42M armament stabiliser and other devices.

The gunner's 1G46M day sight has a two-axis stabilised line of sight and incorporates a laser range-finder and a missile guidance capability. It is also fitted with an automatic gyro drift compensation device. The sight field-of-view has magnification values in the range x2.7 to x12.

The integral laser range-finder has a range of 9,990 m and is accurate to ±10 m. The measured distance is shown to digits together with the fire preparation and selected type of ammunition in the lower part of the gunner’s sight field-of-view.

The sight field-of-view is provided with gunnery ranging marks including stadiametric ranging scales for kinetic energy ammunition, chemical energy ammunition, high-explosive fragmentation ammunition as well as for coaxial machine gun. These stadiametric marks are a useful secondary method of range-finding when operating in an emergency. In order to protect the sight optics from bursts of light from the tank’s own gun flash, the optical channels of the sight are fitted with light sensors which automatically shut them down at shot exit. The sight controls enable the gunner to lay quickly and accurately onto targets and track them smoothly.

The Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight includes a gunner's optronic sight as well as commander's monitor and control panel. The thermal sight is usually operated by the gunner, but the commander can override the gunner and aim and fire the main or coaxial armament using his duplicate controls and thermal imaging monitor. The thermal sight enables the gunner and the commander to detect and engage targets under almost all weather conditions at long range and with high accuracy, which can be used to advantage when visibility is poor and during the hours of darkness. The thermal sight also makes it possible to disregard presence of a number of common obscurants such as battlefield smoke.

The commander's PNK-5 observation and sighting system comprises a commander's TKN-5 combined day/night sight and a gun position sensor. The commander's TKN-5 combined sight has a vertically stabilised line of sight and three channels: a day unity vision channel, a day channel with a magnification of x7.6 and a night channel with a magnification of x5.8. Besides, the sight incorporates a laser range-finder, which gives the commander an independent laser range-finding capability, as well as having a lateral lead input device. A simple switch enables the commander to change from the daylight channel to the night (image intensification) channel and back again.

The commander's anti-aircraft sight enables the commander to engage air targets by using the anti-aircraft machine gun from within the safety of the turret.

The outlet windows of the above sighting systems are provided with protective glasses which are capable of being kept clean with the help of a hydraulic and pneumatic cleaning system.

 

PZU-7 anti-aircraft sight  

In order to calculate ballistic corrections, the LIO-V ballistic computer automatically takes into account all the inputs from the sensors including tank speed, angular target speed, gun trunnion axis cant, crosswind speed, target range, and course angle. Additionally, the following parameters are manually input: ambient air temperature, charge temperature, barrel wear ambient air pressure and so on. The computer also computes the time when the high-explosive fragmentation projectile with controlled detonation should be detonated over the target.

The fire control system has a so-called dynamic fire gating capability, i.e., after the gun firing button has been pushed, the gun will only fire when the misalignment between the line of sight and the gun bore axis is within acceptable limits. The fire gate size depends on the target range and some other factors.

 

LIO-V ballistic computer  

The barrel of the gun can be distorted by uneven heating, arising from irregular dissipation of the heat from firing, rain on the upper surface, solar irradiation or a side wind. These effects are greatly reduced by covering the barrel with a thermal sleeve. To automatically correct for the residual thermal gun distortion when computing ballistic corrections, the tank is fitted with a muzzle reference system, which feeds information about the gun barrel distortion value into the ballistic computer.

 

Muzzle reference system mirror installed on the barrel muzzle end  

As an option, the tank fire-control system can also include a projectile muzzle velocity sensor, which measures the velocity in question and feeds information to the tank's fire control ballistic computer after each firing of the gun to allow to automatically correct for gun bore wear, charge temperature and other factors.

 

Projectile muzzle velocity sensor mounted on T-84 MBT turret roof  

To enable a broad sector of terrain to be observed, the crew stations are fitted with unity magnification periscope vision blocks. The commander's station is provided with a number of unity vision blocks to give an instantaneous 'all round' vision facility when closed down. These 'all-round' vision blocks are particularly useful for:

observing a broad sector;

map reading;

keeping stations with accompanying vehicles while on the move;

guarding against attacks by infantry armed with short range anti-tank missiles.

-Morozov Design Bureau

[DeaD_LoC 0]

hehe he told you

[Bergmania 0]

The T-84 have a French ALIS thermal sight... so thats why that one is up to Western Standards  

[dm 9]

dont forget you would be putting a lot of people off OFP as a game, loads of people dont want to be killed in their tanks after a single sabot hit or hellfire impact.

A better solution would be for all modmakers to group round and make 'second line' in their addons, while the first line would be standard BIS compatibility.

Second line could be the ultra-realistic feel you are after.

Usually this would only entail adding new classes to the addon config, with upgraded armor and damage values.

I think it would be great that RHS & CAUCASUS & OPFR & BOH & DKM & VIT & FDF & FOOTMUNCH & BAS & OFPEC & ALL OTHERS works togheter, to create some kind of :

(Name of files are just suggestion)

- JAM_missiles (All needed missile compatible with choppers & plane & AT-Static, with realistic values)

- JAM_sabotheat (with all needed shells for Tanks)

These two files will quite help addon maker... Also it would provide compatibility and realism between mod  

Think about the problem, every addon maker making is own missiles & sabot & heat, sometime the same ammo have different values, so please make something and create those two files...

JAM_magazines is the first step of something very usefull, so please achieve and complete this project by adding new files  

After the reception JAM got (even the people that co-oped on the main design and realisation didnt use it...) I doubt there would be any point in making a JAM system for tanks and aircraft.

"Elitist" or stuck up as it sounds, but th OFP community as a whole is not "mature" enough for a totally universal JAM smallarms/tanks/aircraft weapons system, as everyone wants their own "perfect" values...

(Sorry for the OTish post guys, I'll go away again now )

[TermiPete 0]

Gotta say that's a damned shame - consistency would add so much value to plethora of addons produced within 'the community'.

It would be brilliant if at least some of the leading teams (DKM, RHS, BAS, ONS) could *rationalise* weapon and armor values.

I applaud anyone who has taken the step of using JAM - it is not perfect but is an intelligent move in the right direction.

I believe it would also save a lot of time spent in beta testing new addons to figure out if the play-balance is right.

[TermiPete 0]

DeadMeat - is BAS using similar armour and weapon value calculation methods to RHS? If so, a good start would be to publish these calculation systems.

Sigma - I subscribe to your 'realism has its own rewards' school of thought - have you considered releasing your system?

Maybe if you guys can provide this basic information, perhaps some motivated noobs like Gazmen and myself can kick off a vehicular JAM system that reflects the work already done by RHS and BAS?

Think of the flexibility - chuck a new 'modern era ammo Ural' at a supply dump that can rearm any mod teams BMP2, BMP3 or T72 with no additional config!

(I'm not much of an expert but know my way around configs OK - my only credit so far is producing infantry (featuring JAM!) that are used by the New Zealand Army at the Linton Simulation Centre for tactical training).

[dm 9]

We're basing our values on Sigmas workings, as I believe RHS is too, so theres some hope...

[TermiPete 0]

Are you working from a calculation system or just setting comparable/relative values?

[ag_smith 0]

(...)

(I'm not much of an expert but know my way around configs OK - my only credit so far is producing infantry (featuring JAM!) that are used by the New Zealand Army at the Linton Simulation Centre for tactical training).

LOL, another aplication of OFP, for training real soldiers, right?

Do they use VBS or just regular OFP?

PS. Welcome to our Forums, TermiPete!

[Shadow NX 1]

"Elitist" or stuck up as it sounds, but th OFP community as a whole is not "mature" enough for a totally universal JAM smallarms/tanks/aircraft weapons system, as everyone wants their own "perfect" values...

i think this is aimed at us

Well what can i say, back then i was just the new guy and had not much to say or decide

But i dont understand why noone noticed that the weaps are too accurate wich is extreme on scoped weapons liek for example PKM with scope, mainly because you dont have any elevation of gun while firing.

I dont think that makes us "immature" if we dont want to make it too easy for the player

[TermiPete 0]

Yep - apparently they find it fairly useful. They provided excellent feedback re my config of the current LAW etc, as well as vehicle schematics and photos from field exercises. Unfortunately our modelling team have varied interests and the vehicle product has slowed right down . . .

And just standard OFP - gotta watch the budget down here

Man am I going off topic!

Been watching the forums for a LONG time and thought i should finally say something

[TermiPete 0]

Shadow - surely the magic of JAM is that it can be tweaked based on educated feedback and everybody benefits.

[ag_smith 0]

Shadow - surely the magic of JAM is that it can be tweaked based on educated feedback and everybody benefits.

I don't belive in this anymore, since people will always come up with something like "I can do it better! I can make better sounds, blablabla...".

All we need for vehicles is kind of a table with armor, dammage, etc. values, that everybody would use, so that new addons would be consistent with existing ones. I know there were probably dozens of pages about that in A&M:D. However now, I think is good moment to do that, cos teams like RHS, ONS, DKM and BAS (together!) have enough "power" to set up defacto standard, that everybody else would want to be compatibile with.

@termipete: I found your info about NZA using OFP very interesting. Thx.

[Shadow NX 1]

no jam system is needed for that but a database where everyone adds the armor or penetration values of stuff he knows ( and can proof they are correct or if no data is availeable could be very near the real thing ) could be very usefull

[TermiPete 0]

The database sounds like a good idea and should combine both OFP and real world values - i can't see it creating (m)any disputes. What we need to do is set up a site with a database behind it into which people can submit vehicle and weapon system data.

Who would be best to make and monitor this?

I can probably knock something amateur up to get it started.

TP

[Sigma-6 29]

The T-84 have a French ALIS thermal sight... so thats why that one is up to Western Standards  

That's actually from the Morozov bureau page for the T-84, so if a certain T-84 has a French sight, it's not the standard. The T-84 has (like every T-80 since the UM) the Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight, which is no slouch. It's not quite as good as the M1's thermal sight, but by no means is it below 'Western Standard' (again, confusing and misleading term there. . .)

@ the issue of a standard:

Not a big problem. The standard really would just depend on how you'd want to deal with the problem of how badly OFP models AP vs. HEAT effects.

The numbers aren't really the issue. You can plug in RHA numbers directly and they work, it's just a question of *how* you plug them in, whose numbers you use (though to be truthful, contrary to popular belief, there's not enough variance between the eastern and western approximations of each other's kit to create a serious dispute in any case).

I can't see that JAM has been a 'failure'. I think it has always been a 'comply if you choose to comply, and everybody can certainly comment for updates' thing. If there were a vehicle standard (and I'd be more than willing to contribute directly) that's exactly what it would also be, by necessity.

Yeah though. . . there's a *bit* more to it than just the numbers (there are a few application issues). . .  and a database might create disputes, but you can't argue with facts (some people do, but not because they *can*). . .  

Also, there's another way of doing it. . . . there is the possibility of having certain people 'vote' on what a tank should have (with a selection process and a set of required reading before they vote. . .) that way you get, maybe 10 entries per value and you average them. . . . (or something like that. . .)

[Powerslide 0]

The database sounds like a good idea and should combine both OFP and real world values - i can't see it creating (m)any disputes. What we need to do is set up a site with a database behind it into which people can submit vehicle and weapon system data.

Who would be best to make and monitor this?

I can probably knock something amateur up to get it started.

TP

I think this is an exceptional idea. If it was implemented Operation Northstar would comply 100% with it. We need full parity between addons, a standard compliance system to avoid lopsided advantages by misinformation.

[Bergmania 0]

Have a look here..

TANK PROTECTION LEVELS

[dm 9]

"Elitist" or stuck up as it sounds, but th OFP community as a whole is not "mature" enough for a totally universal JAM smallarms/tanks/aircraft weapons system, as everyone wants their own "perfect" values...

i think this is aimed at us  

No, it wasn't actually aimed at you, but on the point:

Quote[/b] ]But i dont understand why noone noticed that the weaps are too accurate wich is extreme on scoped weapons liek for example PKM with scope, mainly because you dont have any elevation of gun while firing.

Thats why you guys were meant to TALK to us, to provide feedback etc, not just sit there going "it sucks, we're not going to use it". Which is where the immaturity comes into it, as well as the inability to accept other peoples points of view/experience etc...

@Sigma

If you could take your data, and get a little team going to make a "universal armour database" with all the relevant values, data and calculations, we would support you, stick to and back your values (hell, we do that anyway)

So if they can be used for the "greater good" of the rest of the community, that would be excellent, and we [bAS] would DEFINATELY support it.