sputnik monroe 102 Posted August 23, 2005 Good work, I hope it catches on. I would love to see JAM,ACES,and CAVS unified and working together. Would be nice to finally have some standards in this game like SP4 in Falcon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 23, 2005 Me too! With the new values loaded into EECP 0.44 for all the current (non-1985) units in use, it certainly does change the dynamics in existing missions. This of course would be different for 1985-consistent units. An example is a small test mission I used to mess around with: A US mech infantry team with Bradley are positioned in the main street of Goisse, awaiting an attack by a small Russian force. A M60 is moving up to reinforce as fast as it can. The Russian force is 3 BMPs full of troops with a single T72 spearheading the attack. Normally, the small American team can deal with the incoming threats and survive quite OK - the intial TOW launch from the Bradley often kills the T72 (which it shoudl against a T72M1) and LAWs and 25mm cannon knock out the BMPs. With CAVS/EECP 0.44, the T-72 is a T72BV with Kontakt-5 and it takes an absolute hammering! The TOW-2A launched off the M2A2 ODS has a hard time hitting the fast moving T72 at close range, but even when it does it still takes multiple AT4 rounds to kill it. The LAW and AT4 just don't cut it against frist-line MBTs with modern protection. The BMPs still aren't too much trouble TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunderbird 0 Posted August 23, 2005 I still use WGL values in FFUR except the recoil, which has been adviced by militaires though, However I'm curious to get a look on cavs values too , are they more realistic than WGL ones or ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 23, 2005 Hey Thunderbird Really admire your work on FFUR! I like WGL a lot too - the big reservation I have is that their armour and munitions figures don't deal with the whole OFP engine limitations around CE/KE. Have a read through this thread and at my CAVS page to have a look at the logic behind CAVS. My driving desires are to have addons that are consistent and an OFP that provides a great armour experience. So that's why I am a big fan of JAM, and why CAVS and ACES need to happen. And also why Kuriyami is working in JAM and CAVS into EECP, to provide a base OFP that all JAM and CAVS compatible addons can work with. It's NOT too late! Utopia is within reach . . . TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunderbird 0 Posted August 24, 2005 Thanks , I will contact you asap for more informations Regards Thunderbird84 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SPQR 0 Posted August 25, 2005 Hi TermiPete  I had a look on your bin, as I currently don’t have ECP on my PC, unable to test them in “Liveâ€. Well, you stroke pretty hard while giving as opponent a T-72BM having Kontakt-5 ERA. It’s nearly as strong as a T-80U or a low grade T-90. There’s no more huge difference between your T-72B and T-80UE, as it used to be between the T-72A (M1) and the T-80BV in the original game. Maybe a Kontakt-1 ERA equiped T-72BV could be enough for second line troops ?  I saw some points puzzling me : - T-54 Guerrilla : while all tanks have Engine 0.8 and Tracks 0.6, the T-54 has 0.45 and 0.25. With 200 points of Armor, it is more vulnerable than a M2A2, and even maybe the M113A3 (thanks to its Armor Structural). Also, using “Combat Weight (tons) x10 or Best CE Armor value = armorâ€, the T-54 Armor should be 360 (Hull 0.53, Turret 0.56)  - Why does the M113A3, an APC, use Gun, Engine and Tracks values (2, 0.8, 0.6) while the BMPs, IFVs like the M2A2, use 3, 3 and 3 ? - Currently, unless I made a mistake), the AIs will fire their .50 ball M2 HMG upon the BMPs (Armor 125) but not the M113A3. If in the reality those two AFVS are vulnerable to HMG fire against their side armor, actually BMP frontal armor (34-40mm) is imprevious to .50 AP rounds (and 20mm over 1500m) while the M113 (the A3 has spall liner and improved mine resistance) has 38-44mm aluminium frontal armor (grossly 22.8-26.4mm RHA equivalent). For OFrP, using Bobmoran damage rules and ammo modifiers I have as draft : Light AFVs ARMOR PROTECTION LEVELS Ammunition               DIRDMG                      ARMOR 7.62mm Ball                 11                        110+ 7.62mm AP                   13                        130+ 12.7mm Ball                 16                        160+ 12.7mm AP                  19                        190+ 14.5mm Ball                 19                        190+ 14.5mm AP                  23                        230+ Exemples : VBL (7.62 ball) = 110 VAB (7.62 AP) = 150 Uparmoured VAB (12.7mm AP) = 200 BRDM-2 (7.62 ball) = 120 BTR-60 (7.62 AP) = 150 BTR-80 (12.7 ball) = 180 M2A1 Bradley (14.5 AP) = 250 BMP-1 (12.7 AP) = 200 M113A3 (7.62 AP) = 150 AIs will fire with their rifles and MGs upon a targeted light AFV unless the latter has more than tenfold the bullets direct damage value as Armor value. A twisted trick to simulate the inefficiency of light ammos against some armor. As you work with JAM values, the reference ARMOR values would have to be corrected accordingly. - You should also correct the soviet shells initial speeds. 2000m/s is rather odd, as velocities can nawadays be found in the net. Later, I’ll give you formulas (from Bobmoran) in order to calculate the signature of the AFV from their size, the value CAMOUFLAGE. To finish, I like the idea that my old buddy birdy-wolfy would use values coming in part from my own work. He’d be obliged to thank me in his readme...  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xela89 0 Posted August 26, 2005 ...For OFrP, using Bobmoran damage rules and ammo modifiers I have as draft : ... http://www.ofp-fr.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=3252 Quick recapitulation direct hit ((power kj)^0.25)*8 indirect hit: ((power j)^0.5)/25 indirect hit range: ((power j)^0.5)/500 which it gives Kalashnikov AK47 direct Hit : 9.5 indirect Hit : 1.8 Indirect Hit Range : 0.09 FN-FAL direct Hit : 10.8 indirect Hit : 2.3 indirect Hit Range : 0.12 M16A2 direct Hit : 9.3 indirect Hit : 1.7 Indirect Hit Range : 0.08 M2HB direct hit : 11 indirect Hit : 6 indirect Hit Range : 1.2 © Bobmoran Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 26, 2005 Hey - good to see you back SPQR! Please get ECP + EECP on so you can do some testing - it is sorely needed! Given my testing experience - it feels like a 1985-themed and equipped EECP would make the OFP + Res campaigns and missions playable. The really new stuff changes the game quite a bit. As for your comments: * T-54 - i haven't done that yet! * M113 - doh * BMP & M113 armour values vs .50 cal - been thinking about fixing that. Just been doing some reading about alu = 0.6 RHA * we'll go with the BobMoran table - JAM only goes up to 7.62 long MG rounds with dmg of 10.5. I will publish this up on the CAVS page * i haven't really taken much heed of the round speeds - so far * look forward to seeing the camouflage formula! From what your saying, OFrP is essentially CAVS compliant - is this correct? It WOULD be great if TB84 decided to support CAVS, along with Kuriyami. What we need is a wide base of BASE OFPs that support CAVS. TP out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 27, 2005 Just updated the CAVS page with the new info and an updated spreadsheet. Most of the useful info is making it into the first 2 pages There has been some lively discussion around CAVS in the JAM3 thread so there is some good exposure happening! King Homer has indicated that he might add a CAVS config to the next release of his excellent M1A2 SEP! Sorry I am taking so long to get stuff done - real life is very real and very lively TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 29, 2005 Hi everybody/anybody(?) Â I've posted up an updated config.bin but am re-tweaking it now. What I've found is that our Light IFV class armor multipliers for engine/tracks of 2-3x the base armor for the vehicle result in these areas never being knocked out individually. Mobility kills just don't happen, and after obliterating a BMP the track sections still look pristine! We will need to adjust these, probably more in line with med/heavy AFVs. In other news, I am working on a CAVS compliant config update for King Homer! Yay! Stay tuned for further developments. TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panda-PL- 0 Posted August 29, 2005 Some kind of simple program would be nice, wher You'd simply imput data like armour thickness,k armour of tracks, turret, engine (armour on back), type of armour used, etc. that would use all the complicated rules You all posted to calculate what should be the armour values (also armour structural). Same for AT launchers (like dammage calculated somehow from piercing capativity and indirectdammage and indirectdammagerange from explosive mass). Digging trough all the things that ModXX invented and ModYY thinks will simply take too much time. If You made such simple utility You'd save people like me the effort of downloading different addons and looking into their configs. I guess many people would gladly wellcome such calculator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Konstantin 0 Posted August 30, 2005 If you want realistic tank combat play Liberation 1941-1945: Barbarossa. Distance from which the round is fired, type of round, part of tank where the round hits, armor thickness, and armor slope determine whether the armor is penetrated. If the round dosen't penetrate the armor the tank dosen't get damaged even if you keep firing at it multiple times. So a dozen grenades won't destroy a tank like in ofp. Also tank cannons, tracks, and engines can be disabled. http://ofp.gamezone.cz/index.php?showthis=8502 http://ofp.gamezone.cz/index.php?showthis=8513 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 30, 2005 Hi there Panda - I'm not a developer so while it is a good idea it is outside my expertise. In terms of digging through mods, most of the discussion on principles has already taken place. Konstantin- I've only played Liberation very briefly, but now that you mention it i do recall that they did some (well - a lot! of clever stuff. Do you know how they implemented it? Interested to hear . . . CAVS has to be easy to work with and implement so extensive scripting and re-editing of models will not help make CAVS succeed. TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twisted 127 Posted August 30, 2005 this is a great thread. especially with Armed Assault on its way. it's the ideal time to see standardised weap/armour/ damage agreed on so more mods can play together and work with 'real' or 'expected'm results. good luck guys. PS - i'm only a newcomer to the boards compared to some of the heavy hitters who have been here for years. but i see the need for this kinda standardisation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted August 30, 2005 Hey thanks Twisted - it is certainly nice to see the overall level of support for the principles of standardisation and compatibility! If only I had more hours in the day. 24 seems . . . . . . such a small number. TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SPQR 0 Posted August 31, 2005 Quote[/b] ]I've posted up an updated config.bin but am re-tweaking it now. What I've found is that our Light IFV class armor multipliers for engine/tracks of 2-3x the base armor for the vehicle result in these areas never being knocked out individually. Mobility kills just don't happen, and after obliterating a BMP the track sections still look pristine!We will need to adjust these, probably more in line with med/heavy AFVs. With coeffcients like 2-3 for the gun and tracks, it is pretty obvious. Currently, with those figures, the tracks give a huge protection to the hull against direct impacts. For the heavy AFVs, with the current chosen track (0.6) and engine (0.8) values, added with high Armorstructural value, infantry would need countless RPG just in order to make a simple mobility kill... Moreover, tracks are usually a vulnerable part of the AFV, turning it into a simple bunker. Maybe, as we chose as armor values the front turret and hull protection levels, we could use the CE value of the side hull armor (or the KE value if the chosen CE protection level doesn’t help for a mobility kill) Within the same logic, the gun may have the protection level of the AFV’s gun mantlet (CE, or KE if we want it to have a slighlty increased vulnerability). About the protection level of the light AFV, as you intend to make CAVS work with JAM3, instead of using OfrP ammunition damage values, you’d better replace them with JAM3 values, and define with Cornhelium the damage level of the .50 and 14.5mm ammunitions (for the AP type, apply damage (ball) x 1.2, as any AP round). Simulnateously, the JAM3’s JAM_Vehicles.pbo.cpp file could be modified in order to propose and test basic OFP AFVs, according to the prototype CAVS rules. I also see that in the Armor Structural calculations, you remove points, some I consider critical, like the heavy ammunition protection level. I modified some coefficients, in order to prevent AS to increase too high... Quote[/b] ]ARMOR STRUCTURAL =BASE AS : Light AFV (vulnerable to AIs light firearms)                                     = 3 Medium AFV (invulnerable to AIs light firearms, <20mm)                          = 2 Heavy AFV (combat weight > 35 tons)                                         = 2 ARMOR TYPE : Aluminium/Steel RHA                                                      = + 0.0 Laminate 1st generation (T64/72)                                             = + 0.5 Laminate 2nd generation (T-80/90)                                            = + 1.0 Chobham 1st generation (M1/M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Leopard 2A1-A3)           = + 1.0 Dorchester/Chobham 2nd generation (Challenger 2, M1A2 SEP)                     = + 1.5 Satory/Chobham 3rd generation (Leopard 2A5+, Leclerc)                          = + 2.0 ERA 1st generation (Kontakt-1)                                               = + 0.5 ERA 1.5st generation (Brenus, IDF)                                           = + 1.0 ERA 2nd generation (Kontakt-5)                                              = + 1.5 DU applique                                                             = + 0.5 Light spaced armour (Leopard 1A3-A4, up-armoured AMX-10RC)                   = + 0.25 Spaced armour (Merkava, ERC-90 hull)                                        = + 0.5 BDD armour (T-55, T62)                                                    = + 0.5 ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENTS : Spall liner                                                                = + 0.25 Anti-mine reinforcements (add Engine coeff. 2+)                                 = + 0.25 Partial hardened top (Leopard 2A6Ex, maybe Leclerc)                             = + 0.25 Full hardened top (Merkava 3+, T72/80 with Kontakt top armor)                      = + 0.5 EXPLOSIVE/FIRE SOURCES : Petrol Engine                                                             = - 1.0 Diesel Engine/Gas turbine                                                   = + 0.0 Turret traverse power :        Manual/Electric                                                     = + 0.0        Hydraulic/Electro-hydraulic                                            = - 0.25 High explosive ammunitions protection level :        None                                                             = + 0.0        Protected                                                          = + 0.5             [Engine Passthrough=0]        Partially compartimentalized (50%)                                      = + 1.0             [Engine & Turret Passthrough=0]        Fully compartimentalized (90-100%)                                    = + 1.5             [Engine, Turret & Hull Passthrough=0] FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM : None/Manual                                                              = + 0.0 Yes (ethylene-bromide,...)                                                    = + 0.2 Yes/Halon                                                                = + 0.25 Quote[/b] ]MAX SPEED =Instead of using the Max-Off-Road, which is a data not always available, here are two formulaes giving a medium figure, from road max speed and engine power rate. TRACKED AFVs :    Engine Type                                                 MODT      Diesel                                                    0.0      Petrol                                                     5      Diesel Turbo/Supercharged/Direct Injection                       5      Gas Turbine                                                7.5      Diesel Hyperbar                                             10 Quote[/b] ]    Final maxSpeed = [MaxRoadSpeed + MODT + HP/tons]/1.5 HP/tons is the Engine Power (Hp)/Combat Weight (tons). WHEELED VEHICLES : On-Road Speed : known max road speed Off-Road Speed  : calculate Terraincoeff (config.cpp), according to its model :      Combat AFV =         Engine Type                                                 MODW           Diesel                                                    50.0           Petrol                                                    45.0           Diesel Turbo/Supercharged/Direct Injection                       40.0 Quote[/b] ]    Final terrainCoeff = MODW / [HP/tons] HP/tons is the Engine Power (Hp)/Combat Weight (tons).      Military class (trucks) = 3      Civilian road vehicles = 4 Quote[/b] ]DETECTION =From Bobmoran’s researches. CAMOUFLAGE : Visual stealth of an object or a class. The higher the number, the higher the probabilities to be seen. It has nothing to do with the target identification, it’s ACCURACY’s job. AUDIBLE : Sound detection. ACCURACY : It matter with the target’s identification. The higher the number, the harder the chance to identify it. With 0, the identification is automatic, with 1000, it’s impossible. It can be very useful inside the config.cpp to distinguish classes with their own suclasses. For exemple : Tank => East Tank => T-72 => T72BV Tank => West Tank => Bradley => M2A2 SPOTABLENIGHTLIGHTSOFF : Coefficient applying to the Camouflage, to spot vehicles lights off. SPOTABLENIGHTLIGHTSON : Coefficient applying to the Camouflage, to spot vehicles lights on. VISIBLENIGHTLIGHTSOFF : Coefficient applying to the Accuracy, to identify vehicles lights off. VISIBLENIGHTLIGHTSON : Coefficient applying to the Accuracy, to identify vehicles lights on. For humans, a parameter is modifying to spotting probability, depending on the target’s position : visibleSize       Standing  : 1.00       Seated   : 0.60       Lying     : 0.28 (modified by FDF for exemple : 0.25 BIS’ Camouflage values are pretty rough :   Man                  = 1.0   Civilian               = 1.2   Sniper                = 0.6   Blackops              = 0.7   Default car            = 2.0   Truck                 = 4.0   Tanks, IFV, APC,...      = 8.0 With this system, low profile AFVs, like the BMP family (and most eastern AFVs), loose one advantage. Quote[/b] ]NEW CAMOUFLAGE FORMULA :camouflage = { ( Length x Width x height˛ ) ^0.4 } x coeffA x coeffB x coeffC Length :hull length in meters, excluding fuel drums,... Width : hull width in meters Height : turret top height, in meters, excluding periscopes, antennaes, machineguns,... ^0.4 : to the power of 0.4 coeffA : visibility through “color“    Obvious and garish (pink with flashy green)      = 1.2    Uncamouflaged civilian                      = 1.1    Camouflaging paint                         = 0.9    IR Camouflaging paint (russian Dazzle paint,...)   = 0.85    Camouflaged with stealthy behaviour           = 0.65    Extreme camouflage, ghillie (sniper)            = 0.5 coeffB :Gun length    Default                                    = 1.0    Long gun juting out above the hull (exceed ? jut ?)  = 1.1 coeffC : Gas turbine IR signature    Default         = 1.0    Gas turbine     = 1.05 Smoke generating engines should be rattached to the Audible value, because when the engine is off, it shouldn’t worsen spotting probabilities. Camouflage exemples (dimensions L-W-H) :   Civilian (0.5, 0.8, 1.80)             = 1.2 (as BIS)   Soldier                          = 1.0 (as BIS)   Sniper                          = 0.6 (as BIS)   BMP-1 (6.74, 2.94, 2.15)            = 5.48   T-55 (6.45, 3.27, 2.32)              = 6.57   T-72BV (6.86, 3.75, 2.19)           = 6.79   T-80U (6.982, 3.582, 2.202)         = 7.09   M113A3 (4.863, 2.686, 1.85)         = 4.12   M2A2 (6.453, 3.2, 2.565)            = 6.42   M60A3 Patton (6.946, 3.631, 3.27)    = 9.29   M1A2 SEP (7.918, 3.657, 2.438)      = 8.15 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kieffer 0 Posted August 31, 2005 SPQR for President ! Nice idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted September 2, 2005 Hey SPQR The tracks don't provide the massive hull protection as they have passthrough=1. Damage IS going to the hull. With the current stats Mobility kills are *fairly* common. I'm not sure about using hull side armour values for tracks/wheels as it is harder to find this info for AFVs I've PMed Cornhekium from JAM3 about the HMGs. I'll rework the AS numbers and info in the spreadsheet. Great info about camouflage! TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SPQR 0 Posted September 2, 2005 The tracks don't provide the massive hull protection as they have passthrough=1. Damage IS going to the hull.With the current stats Mobility kills are *fairly* common. I'm not sure about using hull side armour values for tracks/wheels as it is harder to find this info for AFVs. I know the tracks won't give massive protection, but with some high ArmorStructural values, light AT rocketlaunchers might need too many ammos to make a mobility kill. Against light AFVs, it would be great if heavy sniper rifles could disable the track with one or two shots. I was thinking about using side armor value for tracked AFVs. For wheels, I thought about a constant value, depending of the type of the tire (classic, protected,...). When the side armor value would not be available, we could guess a value from similar AFVs. Also, with an unique file as JAM3 vehicles, we could easily and faster chosen figures and correct them through tests Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted September 4, 2005 I've discussed HMG rounds with Cornhelium from JAM3 and he has OKed the values. I have added thes to the CAVS page. I've also added JAM3 Core fixed and JAM3 fix patch files to the JAM page on OFSI. (I've already let Cornhelium know about the xtra mirror). SPQR: * Mobility kills do seem to happen with the heavy IFVs, but we do need to test this further. * I agree - light IFVs do need to be vulnerable * side armor for tracked IFVs makes sense, but I'm not sure how much info IS available * constant values for wheels also makes sense, and shoudl be easier to do Re the 'JAM vehicles' idea - this is a good approach to getting closer to JAM and making for easier testing! I will start making this TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DragoFire 0 Posted September 8, 2005 To those interested I've post part of the orginial Config.cpp that I started 2 1/2 years ago. Here! I will attach to the topic the master fill also. DragoFire Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted September 13, 2005 Sorry for lack of progress peeples. Sick kiddies and work overload! TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TermiPete 0 Posted October 4, 2005 Getting there! The JAM/CAVS config file is coming along slowly but nicely. Have done BMP-1P, BMP-2, M60A3 and M113A2 and set up numerous weapons and rounds. I'll post it up when I've done the rest of the basic vehicles. TP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rikki Tikki Tavi 0 Posted October 5, 2005 Nice, really looking forward to this one! Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t80 0 Posted October 5, 2005 Can this be of any use? Protection: M1- 400 vs KE 600 vs HEAT M1A1- 450 vs KE 700 vs HEAT M1A1HA- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT Leopard 2A4 - 700 vs KE 1000 vs HEAT M1A2- 760 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT M1A2SEP- 840 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT Leopard 2A5- 870 vs KE 1500 vs HEAT Challanger 2- 960 vs KE 1700 vs HEAT Leo 2A6 may be as high as 1000mm vs KE. Now compare to Russian tanks: T-72B - 530 vs KE 620 vs HEAT T-72BV- 580 vs KE 1120 vs HEAT T-80B- 550 vs KE 650 vs HEAT T-80BV- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT T-72BM- 780 vs KE 1220 vs HEAT T-80U- 820 vs KE 1350 vs HEAT T-90- 1000 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT http://community.discovery.com/groupee....1104906 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
