JAM3 - Beta testers

[twisted 127]

very interesting threqad. congrats on your getting JAM3 acceptance.

after following the conversations i have a couple of questions....

1st - it seems sharing ammo also means sharing firing charactersitics. so (purely for example) a m16 using same ammo as ak74 would fire the same way? and this seems to be a ofp engine limitation. True or False?

2nd - how 'realistic' are the ballastics with JAM3? by this i mean can you expect WGL levels in it as standard? I certainly hope so.

cheers

[cornhelium 0]

Hi Twisted,

1. Yes, exactly. OFP defines all the power and accuracy values in magazines, for small arms at least. That's just the way the OFP engine works - I hope that BIS will change this for OFP2.

2. Hehe, I'm no ballistics expert, but I think we're building on a solid base with the research and tweaking BAS did on JAM2. I have enormous respect for the WGL team and their work, but we don't have the manpower to get it to their level yet.

Within the limits of our skills, we have addressed quite a few of the requests that have been posted here, and I'm confident that the release of JAM3 will stir up more interest and bring more skills to the team.

Cheers mate,

CH

[MintyBoy 0]

Loooong time since I've popped my nose in here (no net connection for over a year...).

Good to see that JAM's still up and kicking, as OFP needs something to try and keep all the various weapon mods compatible.

One thing I've always thought was a bit odd though. JAM's got Soldiers and Ammo boxes defined in it for conveniences sake. What was NOT convenient was having to place every. Single. Damned. Vehicle down as empty, then assigning JAMmed crew. Oh, and if it was a truck/apc, clearing out it's cargo and refilling with JAM mags (nearly said rags there. Curse my icky brain).

What can I say? I'm a purist- If you're gonna use JAM, use it all the way...

So I made myself an extra PBO named JAM_Vehicles containing EVERY normal vehicle in OFP with JAM crew/pilots and cargo. Just to save my own sanity when mission-making.

Cornhelium, if you want a copy of that .pbo to rip apart and cram into JAM 3, let me know and I'll email it to you as soon as poss. Once I've fixed my damn email.

Cheers.

[cornhelium 0]

Hi Minty,

This sounds like a damn fine idea - very handy for mission makers.

The only resources it would need would be a small .cpp file. So it wouldn't be bloating the JAM filesizes.

If you could copy&paste the .cpp and fire it over on PM please, that would be great.

Many thanks,

CH

[MintyBoy 0]

@cornhelium

No probs. Sent the .cpp to your PM. Nearly didn't fit...

About being handy for mission-makers, yup. I'm already bald, but if I hadn't written that .cpp, I'd be bald and grey. I'm trying to get a resistance-like campaign written and about 2 missions in, I said "Bugger this" and wrote that .cpp.

Cheers.

[cornhelium 0]

Cheers mate - nice work

CH

[cornhelium 0]

Hi,

Just picking up an old request:

Quote[/b] ]I suggest to include a 4.6x30 (H&K MP7 PDW) in the new JAM

...it's already in there (JAM_46x30_MP7_20Mag, JAM_46x30_MP7_40Mag). And now, it has a sweet new sound. Just needs someone to make an MP7 now

Also, I've added the Remington SPC 6.8x43mm and Grendel 6.5x39mm bullets, and a selection of magazines representing different barrel lengths, fire modes and ammo counts. SD/HD/Subsonic versions included. Bring on the Barrett M468 !

Cheers,

CH

[ruff 102]

we'll just have to wait for that m468 till an addon maker picks it up

for me im using gordy's m4 pack simulate the spc rifles even though theres only one spc rifle there and 4 m4a1 commandos

good work man

[pajama 0]

I belive a PDW was release not to long ago.

[BlackScorpion 0]

KoFr weapons back, includes 5 MP7's and Barrett M95.

They need to be reconfiged to accept the JAM mags, they don't accept them ATM.

[cornhelium 0]

Cheers guys.

I've put up the planned AT values here in the CAVS thread. They make pretty interesting reading. We'll have a good kick around with these in final beta testing. If they're too drastic we might leave the existing values as they are and add a new set of rounds/units with the new "real-world" values (aargh, me and my big mouth - keep making work for myself )

Cheers,

CH

[General Barron 0]

Just throwing out some more ideas here... I haven't tested them yet, but they might work.

1) Make the AI use smoke grenades, without any scripting:

 What if the AI "thought" that they could hurt enemies with smoke grenades? And then, what if they "thought" that they could actually throw those grenades farther than they truly can? The result: AI encounters enemies about 200m away. AI tries to 'hit' them with his smoke grenade. Grenade really lands about 30m away from AI, but directly between the enemy and the AI, thus effectively obscuring LOS. You could even make the AI think they can kill tanks with the grenades, and thus they will use them whenever armor is spotted.

2) About smoke blocking LOS: I have heard that the original JAM vision-blockers used with the smokeshells do not work that well, and that others have made more effective models. Perhaps those should be used instead.

Also, does the current JAM scripting take into consideration the wind-direction? Obviously the wind blows the smoke around, and so realistically, the place where the AI's LOS is obscured should be wherever the smoke is being blown. This should be fairly easy to work into the scripting, if it isn't already.

3) This is also along the lines of #1 above, but it's more of a stretch: what if you made the AI think they could hurt the enemy with flares? And then if you somehow made them WAY overshoot their targets, so they would end up shooting them above their target's heads? Not sure if this would be possible at all, but it would be an easy way to make the AI use flares.

That's it for now, though I have noticed one thing recently. I've been working on a script that lets you use indirect fire with infantry (like UA for men), and in the process I used the JAM m203 grenades. Apparently, JAM grenades have a max range of about 500m+ (IIRC). Real m203 launchers have a max range of only 400m, according to my references. A minor point, I know, but I noticed it anyway  

PS- any chance that we could get a working leaf-sight for the m203? I know it might be a PITA to zero it and get it to work, but a guy can dream, right? Or has this already been made before?

[stevevcb 3]

Project UKF made an SA80 with UGL that had properly calibrated sights if that counts. Really adds a lot to the weapon.

[ruff 102]

KoFr weapons back, includes 5 MP7's and Barrett M95.

They need to be reconfiged to accept the JAM mags, they don't accept them ATM.

barret m95 looks cool

someone is even doing a xm anti material rifle

but barret m468 is a must

just look at it

it says make me

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborn....68.html

[cornhelium 0]

Hi there,

Just picking up an old request from @cero:

Quote[/b] ]Another thing is the power and acurancy on JAM_W762Sniper_20mag,on JAM_E762_5mag and on JAM_E762_10mag, the sniper rifles, its that being revised as well?

As far as I can gather, the JAM muzzle velocities for these mags are mostly spot on. Here's a table of them as they are in JAM2:

---------------------------------------------------

Mag:                     Fired by:        JAM initspeed:         JAM dispersion:     JAM Damage:

====                     =======       ==========       ========   ==========

W762Sniper_20mag   M21, SR25    853                      .00007125           12

W762_5mag             R700, M24,

                             M40 AWP,

                              L96A1             792                    .00004275            12

W127_10mag           M82                938                       .000114            15

E762_10mag            SVD, SV-98      830                      .000114             12

JAM_E762_5mag      Mosin                   865                  .00015               12

E127_5mag             V-94, KSVK        938                   .000114                 15

--------------------------------------------------

Now, here's all the MV info I've been able to find (in metres per second):

************************

M21 = 853 [fas.org, nationmaster.com/encyclopedia]

SR25 = ?800?

M24 = 823/824 [fas.org, strategypage.com/messageboards]

M40 = 777 [fas.org, strategypage.com/messageboards]

AWP = ?? <914 if firing Lapua round [en.wikipedia.org]

L96A1 = 914 [hem.passagen.se/inlajn/info/info.htm]

M82 = 854 [fas.org, geocities.com/landofsnipers/]

SVD = 830 [milparade.com]

SV-98 = ??

V-94 = ??

KSVK = ??

Mosin = 850-886 (mean=868) [mosinnagant.net]

*********************************

Question: Can anybody fill in the missing muzzle velocities please?

If we can get them all, one approach might be to use mean values for mags used by multiple rifles. Or the other way would be to match the existing mags' MVs to the OFP weapons that are currently using them (BAS/ORCS M24, SR25, M21 etc.), then make new mags for particular rifles.

Either way, real world data on those missing MVs will make things much clearer.

Thanks mates 

CH

[BlackScorpion 0]

Here's few cartridges' ballistics.

NOTE: They are only the cartridges, not rifles.

[Gedis 0]

L96A1 = L96A1

SR-25 = SR-25

AWP =

SV-98 =

V-94 =

KSVK =

P.S. I will update this post, when i will find correct data

[ruff 102]

L96A1 = L96A1

SR-25 = SR-25

AWP

the sr 25 info mv is wrong

thats airsoft man

their not real

but the L96A1 IS

[cornhelium 0]

Thanks guys,

Hmm...looks like there might be a case for:

1. adding a 5rd "W762 Lapua" mag with MV of 914, for AWP and L96A1

2. tweaking the existing W762_5mag to MV 800 (mean of 823 (M24) and M40 (777))

What do you think?

Cheers,

CH

[stevevcb 3]

That'd be great if you ask me.

[MintyBoy 0]

Kooky, he meant which option would you prefer...

From a realism point of view, I'd prefer option 1. But then again, if you take it too far, you're back to one type of mag for per weapon again.

I think you'd best stick with option 2. From a compatibility point of view, that is.

My two pence worth.

[cornhelium 0]

No Minty - Kooky had it right. I plan to do 1 & 2 together, if people approve  

Care to offer your 2 pence worth again mate? (that makes 4 pence in 10 minutes, business is good today )

Cheers,

CH

[MintyBoy 0]

Woopsie, my bad!

To be honest, my previous comment still sort of stands though. IMO you should stay with just one mag for each calibre/capacity/type, as is (sort of) the case with JAM2.

As I said, not perfect from a realism perspective. But hey, having the muzzle velocity/dispersion as a paramater of cfg_ammo instead of cfg_weapons isn't realistic.

JAM's all about mag compatibility between weapons, and I personally think it should stay that way..

If that came across as uppity, I didn't mean it to. It's all just my opinion.

Minty

[Commando84 0]

i think you guys should add the engineers class in the jam soldiers because i think its difficult to find the readme and the weapon names and all that to change the original engineers to jam weapons i would like to have jam engineers to east and west sides

[stevevcb 3]

I'd argue that JAM's not about making standard weapons, but about making standard ammunition.

The L96 isn't the only weapon that can accept Lapua ammunition, so I'd say it'd be a better idea to make both standard 7.62 NATO rounds for sniper rifles, and Lapua rounds. That way, anyone making an L96 won't feel the need to make their weapon fire JAM rounds as well as their own Lapua ammuntion, which would result in less standardisation and less accuracy in terms of performance.

Or something.