MAAM: Mutually Accepted Ammo & Magazines addon

[SelectThis 0]

The RPG-29 is the tank killer, check the 20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials (link in my previous post).

The PG-7VR is dangerous but not as bad as the RPG-29

M1A1 v PG-7VR

Note: Two members of the crew suffered minor injuries and no serious damage was done to the tank.

Note 2: There is still doubt whether it was a PG-7VR or not. Not enough damage?

As to what values to use in the game...playability is a big issue. Make the AT weapons too powerful and armor is basically written out as a viable unit in the game. It's a matter of making a compromise on the "realistic" damage levels to allow the game to play as they would in the real world...take the use of Army armor in Najaf with the Marines as an example of their effectiveness in urban areas. If that was in OFP with high damage AT weapons, the armor would be destroyed in the first 2 minutes..killing most of the foot units in the process with their fuel explosions.

PS the AA rounds do air detonate The reason they were added in was to allow the AI to do things which human players could do at will. Damage was reduced on these to allow for heli's to at least have the chance of surviving a hit.

STT

[theavonlady 2]

However, that brings me to my main question. Can the content in Amore be MP validated?

I'm guessing no. Does the validation method allow for checking for a non-PBO file in a fixed folder location? If it does, then it should work.

After reassessing how the server checkfiles command works, I see no reason why it cannot be used against AMORE files. This should work, since AMORE has fixed folder and subfolder names. The full path to any AMORE file can be explicitly defined in the checkfiles statement.

At least that's how I see it for the moment.

[theavonlady 2]

As to what values to use in the game...playability is a big issue. Make the AT weapons too powerful and armor is basically written out as a viable unit in the game. It's a matter of making a compromise on the "realistic" damage levels to allow the game to play as they would in the real world...

Are you of the opinion that JAM2's defintions for RPG's, LAWs and and AT4s already refects those "compromised" values or that further tweaking is called for?

[calm_terror 0]

actual in that m1a2 pg-7VR the damge was enuff (buy wiring and hydrologics lines plus burning etc) to take out the tank ie make it combat ineffective actual i don't see anytihng wrong with correct damage ratings the JAM ones ARE NOT good they are really crapy. and the AA do nto air burst except at liek 2km's.

the other problem is most armour is nto set correctly on tanks.. it is actual way to low. and the structure value is set to low so that when the armour is well taken out it jsut blows up wich is bull. most armour is jsut made combat ineffective.

that is why I made most all Lost brothers armour with a veyr high structural ratign so the thing is jsut damaged and the crew bails out. like in real life.

[DanAK47 1]

That tank was hit in a weak spot underneath the skirt and between the wheels.

[ebns72 0]

If the purpose is for a single MAAM config that is accepted by all, then Killswitch had the very first thing that must be done..

-Workflow and approval. Someone must be there to give final approval of additions/changes.

After this, maybe a selection to poll on by the community each week:

**M16 sounds to vote on**

1- BIS's (bis wavefile attached to listen to)

2- Suchey's (Suchey's wavefile attached to listen to)

3- Fischkop's (etc)

4- Red's

5- ...

**RPG sounds to vote on**

1- BIS's (bis wavefile attached to listen to)

2- RHS's

3- Red's

4- ...

Just some thoughts so most ppl are happy (by democratic vote- no electoral college- the majority anyway )

Scrub

Hmm, not BIS's, suchey and earl's or if not the INQ weaponpack sounds (which are esentially america's army sounds)

As for rpg, as long as it sounds remotely like a rocket it is good in my book

[Pappy Boyington 0]

yea i vote for INQ/Americas Army M16 sound

[theavonlady 2]

yea i vote for INQ/Americas Army M16 sound

Again, you don't need to vote on this. You can simply replace the relevant sound file in \OFP\Amore\MAAM\Sounds. Presto!

[shinRaiden 0]

In testing, I have been able to fragment the cpp as much as I want, so long as it stays inside the pbo. I been unable thus far to #include hpp files that are not inside a pbo where the root cpp file is inside a pbo.

When I try to link in external include files, I get a preprocessor error and an updated config.bin, but I can't read suffiecently into the parameters to see what the filesystem path was where it crashed.

However, as in the case of my config.cpp and resource.cpp research thus far, if the master cpp is a non-pbo'd file, then you can have all the realspace includes you want.

- edit -

In seperating the sections of code out I have been experimenting with a number of different ways to split it up. The current itteration splits by caliber size, however in retrospect I think that by target gun model my be better, and I plan to re-split it accordingly.

The intent and purpose of JAM as I see it is to allow a wide variety of different gun models of a similar class (all m16's, all ak47's, etc.) to potentially use the same mags. The primary intent was so that for example if the code were updated properly, it would not matter if you were using INQ, BIS, or BAS m60's, the mags would be interchangable.

Switching mags between significantly different guns, such as the sa80 / m4 comparison mentioned earlier was imho a far lesser concern, and I think should continue that way. If you want to get creative, I suppose that somebody could make a "refill magazine" script to handle such scenarios, although the usefulness in the scope of OFP operations could be a bit hazy.

As soon as I can get the resplit done, I'll send it to Avon for consideration. The potential I feel is that interested parties would then be able to easily disect the sections of code relevant to their interests and mod projects, and make the minute changes to resolve the concerns about inconsistancies and imbalances.

[theavonlady 2]

In seperating the sections of code out I have been experimenting with a number of different ways to split it up. The current itteration splits by caliber size, however in retrospect I think that by target gun model my be better, and I plan to re-split it accordingly.

That's logical. Just don't waste weeks figuring out how to parcel out the cpp. It may simply be impossible to work out.

Quote[/b] ]The intent and purpose of JAM as I see it is to allow a wide variety of different gun models of a similar class (all m16's, all ak47's, etc.) to potentially use the same mags. The primary intent was so that for example if the code were updated properly, it would not matter if you were using INQ, BIS, or BAS m60's, the mags would be interchangable.

Precisely, for those of you that still don't understand that JAM never was a weapons mod and MAAM will never be one either.

Quote[/b] ]Switching mags between significantly different guns, such as the sa80 / m4 comparison mentioned earlier was imho a far lesser concern, and I think should continue that way. If you want to get creative, I suppose that somebody could make a "refill magazine" script to handle such scenarios, although the usefulness in the scope of OFP operations could be a bit hazy.

I, too, think it's a bit overboard and unnecessary.

Quote[/b] ]As soon as I can get the resplit done, I'll send it to Avon for consideration. The potential I feel is that interested parties would then be able to easily disect the sections of code relevant to their interests and mod projects, and make the minute changes to resolve the concerns about inconsistancies and imbalances.

Thanks.

Another idea I would like to consider incorporating in MAAM: tank rounds and missiles (both land and air launched). This is a big task but it would give the potential of having a fair or accurate fight bewteen various addons firing equivalent or similar munitions.

Of course, this would not resolve, for example, the problems of different armor values for different team's addons. But it would go as far as possible in helping to make a more balanced battle.

What do you folks think?

[calm_terror 0]

Well the SA80 mag and an m16mag is dumb they should just use the same mag since you could switch mags between them in real life. and if you go into the whole they sound different tho. well tough cookies bis made the sounds attatched to the ammos not the weapons blame them..

as for the vehicla ammo and air ammo.

we at the lost brothers have made 2 pbos of ammos to cover alot of the ammo types out their..

lobo_ammo and lobo_airammo..

the values are as close to real life as i can gather..

[theavonlady 2]

as for the vehicla ammo and air ammo.

we at the lost brothers have made 2 pbos of ammos to cover alot of the ammo types out their..

lobo_ammo and lobo_airammo..

the values are as close to real life as i can gather..

What say yee we try to incorporate such an effort here, with the potential to be used by any addon firing a defined type of ammo?

[calm_terror 0]

sure alot of the the values are based on a few other add-ons plus tweaks and with an effort to research the real life values. IE range, speed, etc..

the only thing with vehicla ammo is there is no need to have a "shared" one since you can't take vehicla ammo from another etc.

it is better to have univerisal value set tho.

ie you release an vehical ammo pack and the other add on makers cna jsut take what values you put and slightly custom it forthemsleves etc.

i would be willing to give you the airammo and ground ammo pbos i have so you cna base the vehical and air MAAM on them.

just pm me and I will upload the files to an public area and you cna don't load them.

all models are unbinzed so it is very simple to change over. and if you want to hex edit them the tag is lobo wich is 4 letters so everytihng would be quick and painless..

[shinRaiden 0]

BAS was headed down that track, if you notice how the pavies used air_weaps instead of internalizing it like the -47, -6, -58, and -60 packages. The idea I saw in there was why redo the minigun code three or four times, when you can do it once and share it across vehicles.

Unfortunately, since the pavies came right at the tail end, we haven't had the opportunity to see the usefulness of this in a recoding of the earlier models. Understandabley, reloading is a far less concern in vehicles in OFP than for grunts, however the advantage really comes home in addon development. Rather than re-invent the wheel each time, just hook into a shared spec.

[pajama 0]

One thing that I was wholefully disapointed about JAM was the fact that you can't use M16A2/A4 mags on M4A1/M16A3s or any other 5.56 weapons that have full auto.

In that, BAS implemented the "JAM_W556_30Bmag" BURST mag just for the M16A2...hope there is a way around this.

Perhaps someday we can somehow implement "fire select" through the action menu...I just hate cycling

Thank you

[calm_terror 0]

nope can't do that because of the way BIS made the fire mode in the mags not the guns.

it is really fubar

[stgn 39]

actual in that m1a2 pg-7VR the damge was enuff (buy wiring and hydrologics lines plus burning etc) to take out the tank ie make it combat ineffective actual i don't see anytihng wrong with correct damage ratings the JAM ones ARE NOT good they are really crapy. and the AA do nto air burst except at liek 2km's.

the other problem is most armour is nto set correctly on tanks.. it is actual way to low. and the structure value is set to low so that when the armour is well taken out it jsut blows up wich is bull. most armour is jsut made combat ineffective.

that is why I made most all Lost brothers armour with a veyr high structural ratign so the thing is jsut damaged and the crew bails out. like in real life.

no if you read the tank was fully operationel after it was hit, nobody was killed, the tank diden't stop and where imobile, it only shoked the crew, it was able to continue to fight. And a M1A1(HA?) is not that same as a M1A2 wether there is difference to the side amour I don't know but can't just say M1A1=M1A2.

STGN

[theavonlady 2]

OK folks, time for me to move on. As I said at the end of my initial post:

Quote[/b] ]Get a team together, mutually agree on implementing configuration changes and take advice from the players and addon makers.

I do not have the skills to personally develop this addon's potential to the max.

I have no military expertise. I cannot assess what realistic ammo attributes are and compare one to another.

If I was not clear enough until now, I'm dropping this addon into the community's lap. Here's what I see is needed:

1. Discussion and agreement on existing defintions and, if necessary, their modification.

2. Same for new defintions of ammo types not yet defined.

3. Inclusion of defintions for armor, vehicle and aircraft munitions. For example, this would guarantee that a Hellfire's attributes will potentially be the same, no matter which addon fires it.

4. Making optional addon files that interface existing popular addons to these ammo/magazine standards.

As I've mentioned, if such serious changes are implemented and appreciated by the community, BAS will allow this addon to revert to using BAS' JAM tags, which would make it 100% compatible with existing JAM supporting addons.

Calm Terror, looking at the files you've sent me and considering your participation on this thread so far, you look like a likely candidate to help in moving this addon along. Team up with some others, get community feedback and let's roll!

[Ironsight 1]

OK folks, time for me to move on. As I said at the end of my initial post:

Quote[/b] ]Get a team together, mutually agree on implementing configuration changes and take advice from the players and addon makers.

I do not have the skills to personally develop this addon's potential to the max.

Bushfires will use MAAM but we will use it in a full conversion of the game

[cornhelium 0]

Hi,

Digging in the JAM config I think I've found a small missed opportunity:

The 5.56 Burst magazines use the following files from JAM_Sounds for single shot and 3 round burst:

M4Fire.wss

M16Burst.wss

...there is a file M16Fire.wss that seems to go completely unused, while M4Fire.wss is shared for both M16 and M4.

The 30 round single/burst and 20 round single/auto (ie. M16A2 and M16A1) mags could be edited in config.cpp to use these files instead:

M16Fire.wss (for single shot, and auto on the M16A1)

M16Burst.wss (for burst on the M16A2)

...then M4Fire.wss would be used exclusively for the 30 round single shot/full auto mags, and the M4Fire.wss itself could be swapped/edited.

-> The point of all this would be to give us M4/CAR15s that sound different from M16s. I believe they're supposed to be a bit louder due to the shorter barrels?<-

Food for thought anyway.

Cheers,

Cornhelium

[pajama 0]

Just wondering...perhaps MAAM could add some of the weapons/mags from default Resistance that BAS did not convert to JAM

[calm_terror 0]

what mags are not in JAM?

oh the scoprion and the bizon?

also the strigner and SA7

there should also be different mags and sounds for the bolt action sniper rifles and the normal semi-auto sniper mags

[pajama 0]

Yes definetly on the seperate bolt rifle vs semi silence...

missing mags/ammo:

32 MAC10

5.7mm (P90,AP-Army)

PS: Was the G11 neccesary

[theavonlady 2]

Digging in the JAM config I think I've found a small missed opportunity:

The 5.56 Burst magazines use the following files from JAM_Sounds for single shot and 3 round burst:

M4Fire.wss

M16Burst.wss

...there is a file M16Fire.wss that seems to go completely unused, while M4Fire.wss is shared for both M16 and M4.

I have no such file, M16Fire.wss.

I've just released MAAM V1.20. Made the following minor change:

Quote[/b] ]1.20 - Corrected missing flying bullet sound effects (with thanks to OFP player Cornhelium).

This error exists in the original version of JAM2 as well.

See this thread's first post for the download link.

As I feared, no one has taken an initiative since my last post to seriously upgrade MAAM into something bigger and better. So be it. At least I tried.

[cornhelium 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have no such file, M16Fire.wss.

Ah, curse my meddling. I'd introduced that file myself

Still, I might give it a go. Will report back if it works out.

To get things a bit more manageable, how about I work through the thread and post a summarised list of all comments and suggestions so far? That way, when someone adds a new suggestion they can either number it themselves or I can go through every now and then and add the last 10 suggestions to the list.

Then, if/when it comes to getting the final package together, there'll be a fairly comprehensive list to work to.

Cheers,

Cornhelium