BWMod Gepard and updates released :)

[metalchris 0]

hmm Leo2 A6 might be one of the thoughest tanks in the world... but anyway it is NO problem for a Leo2A6 to kick a T 80E (which are supposetly the BIS ones) around the block without a scratch.

But you are right , M1A1 has the same Maingun and should do the same damage...

[Praet 0]

Rest assured, the whole story about "shock deaths" due to minor injuries caused by high-speed projectiles and/or fragments is just an urban legend, nothing else.

[Harmed 0]

Are you also planning to make a Super Lynx Mk.88A in the future??

[Praet 0]

No, most probably not.

[Harmed 0]

why not? I really love the super lynx or a F-104 starfighter, man I would love to see it made by BW-mod's talented addonmakers

[Przezdzieblo 0]

hmm Leo2 A6 might be one of the thoughest tanks in the world... but anyway it is NO problem for a Leo2A6 to kick a T 80E (which are supposetly the BIS ones) around the block without a scratch.

But you are right , M1A1 has the same Maingun and should do the same damage...

DM53/DM63 APFSDS rounds used by Leos 2 are probably one of the best AT round in the world. There are not many other regular rounds with similar performance (M829A3 - former E3 - could be slightly better - but it is newer round, not fully fielded), especially when DM53/DM63 are fired from long (L/55) Rheinmetall gun. Armour of T80B (which are the most probably the BIS ones) would not stand it. And newer T80U and T90 would be in troubles, too.

It looks like (in config file) that BW used popular round penetration estimates as a base of their weapons damage values. Maybe a little overpowered (DM53/DM63 fired from L/44 gun would penetrate rather 650 mm RHAe than 700 as in BW Leos; both round fired from L/55 gun would do rather 750-800 mm RHAe than 850), but no crime

For me it was rather strange that Leopard 2A5 has the same HitPoints (Armor) that Leopard 2A4. It should have same protection level as Leo 2A6. Odd.

For sure MK 20 (armament of Wiesel and Marders) IS overpowered. Due to high fire rate and probably high damage values this is almost ultimate weapon. In multiplayer Sigma`s T90/T80, if miss first shot, would be easy pray for Wiesel! Especially HE rounds are very "effective", would kill armoured target (nevermind if it is BIS standard, WGL standard, CAVS standard) faster than f.e. VIT`s 30 mm gun from BMP-3/BMD-3 or "normal" BIS 30 mm gun. No Gepard is needed, vehicles with MK 20 would kill any target... So, this is IMHO a thing should be changed.

But... I must say that BW mod makes fantastic work. Their Leos are beautiful (probably only Strv 122 from SFP4 is nicer ) and this mod is one of my favourite. High class addons, gents.

[Praet 0]

why not? I really love the super lynx or a F-104 starfighter, man I would love to see it made by BW-mod's talented addonmakers

There is no use for it, simple as that

So much more is out there which would serve a purpose in OFP, so all that would be a better investment of our short resources.

Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, but neither the Lynx nor the Starfighter are currently planned to be such an exception.

It looks like (in config file) that BW used popular round penetration estimates as a base of their weapons damage values.

I have tried to make up values based on both the capabilities of the used rounds (not only RHA penetration, but area effects of the DM12A1/DM22 rounds as well), the used gun (L/44, L/55) as well as the protection levels (RHA vs. KE, RHA vs. CE) of BIS reference targets. The main problems with those results are the extremely limited weapon/damage system that OFP uses and the absence of standardized values for vehicles and aircraft like JAM does for infantry weapons. Especially the latter leads to mod specific values ranging from "uber-tanks" like RHS or Sigma to vehicles that are way too weak due to game balancing like the BIS units.

If there was such a realistic JAM standard for armored vehicles based on real-life data and effects, we'd be among the first to adopt it - provided it serves its purpose.

For me it was rather strange that Leopard 2A5 has the same HitPoints (Armor) that Leopard 2A4. It should have same protection level as Leo 2A6. Odd.

That would be a config glitch then. A5 was intended to have the same armor protection as the A6 offers.

For sure MK 20 (armament of Wiesel and Marders) IS overpowered.

We'll have a look into that as well. Again, the weird OFP weapon/damage system prevents decently balanced values.

Just judging from the config values, the MK20 should not have this anti-armor capability. The results in OFP are somewhat different, though.

[Harmed 0]

There is no use for it, simple as that

So much more is out there which would serve a purpose in OFP, so all that would be a better investment of our short resources.

Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, but neither the Lynx nor the Starfighter are currently planned to be such an exception.

Ok, they're not planned yet, but do you think, they will be? ever?

[kavoven 4]

What Sea-Units do you plan? Their is a section on your DL page, but without any entrys. I mean, they're not that important, but if there is a section, you must have planed anything, isn't it?

[hardrock 1]

Ok, they're not planned yet, but do you think, they will be? ever?

What's that all about? If they are not planned, they are not. No-one can tell what the future holds.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

It looks like (in config file) that BW used popular round penetration estimates as a base of their weapons damage values.

I have tried to make up values based on both the capabilities of the used rounds (not only RHA penetration, but area effects of the DM12A1/DM22 rounds as well), the used gun (L/44, L/55) as well as the protection levels (RHA vs. KE, RHA vs. CE) of BIS reference targets. The main problems with those results are the extremely limited weapon/damage system that OFP uses and the absence of standardized values for vehicles and aircraft like JAM does for infantry weapons. Especially the latter leads to mod specific values ranging from "uber-tanks" like RHS or Sigma to vehicles that are way too weak due to game balancing like the BIS units.

If there was such a realistic JAM standard for armored vehicles based on real-life data and effects, we'd be among the first to adopt it - provided it serves its purpose.

Try Common Armour Values System

And Termipete`s siteTermipete`s site

About MK 20 - what are your values for both AP and HE ammo?

Some examples of medium calibre weapons values using CAVS method:

20 mm x 102 MP LD M70 ammo (new ammo for f.e. F16 fighters):

hit=25;

indirectHit=14;

indirectHitRange=0.25;

Ammo is multipurpose, but with limited splash effect.

Old Russian 23 mm OFZT (HE-T) would be:

hit=10;

indirectHit=10;

indirectHitRange=3;

and old Russian 23 mm BZT (API-T):

hit=25;

indirectHit=2.5;

indirectHitRange=0.03;

[the_shadow 0]

Quote[/b] ]

It looks like (in config file) that BW used popular round penetration estimates as a base of their weapons damage values.

I have tried to make up values based on both the capabilities of the used rounds (not only RHA penetration, but area effects of the DM12A1/DM22 rounds as well), the used gun (L/44, L/55) as well as the protection levels (RHA vs. KE, RHA vs. CE) of BIS reference targets. The main problems with those results are the extremely limited weapon/damage system that OFP uses and the absence of standardized values for vehicles and aircraft like JAM does for infantry weapons. Especially the latter leads to mod specific values ranging from "uber-tanks" like RHS or Sigma to vehicles that are way too weak due to game balancing like the BIS units.

If there was such a realistic JAM standard for armored vehicles based on real-life data and effects, we'd be among the first to adopt it - provided it serves its purpose.

Try Common Armour Values System

And Termipete`s siteTermipete`s site

About MK 20 - what are your values for both AP and HE ammo?

Some examples of medium calibre weapons values using CAVS method:

20 mm x 102 MP LD M70 ammo (new ammo for f.e. F16 fighters):

hit=25;

indirectHit=14;

indirectHitRange=0.25;

Ammo is multipurpose, but with limited splash effect.

Old Russian 23 mm OFZT (HE-T) would be:

hit=10;

indirectHit=10;

indirectHitRange=3;

and old Russian 23 mm BZT (API-T):

hit=25;

indirectHit=2.5;

indirectHitRange=0.03;

could you PM me a list of ammo and armour values for CAVS?

// The_Shadow

leader of SCWC addon team

[Praet 0]

About MK 20 - what are your values for both AP and HE ammo?

MK20 (20 mm x 139) HE-T is 20|15|2 (direct|indirect|indirect range) at the moment.

AP-T is 75|0|0

While the HE values are not that different from the examples you posted, the AP values are. I haven't heard complaints about the AP ammunition, yet, though. Interestingly enough, the original values we wanted to use für the AP round were noticeably lower, much closer to your example values. These made the MK20 virtually useless even against lightly armored vehicles such as the BIS standard BMP-1.

My main concern about CAVS is that, while a bunch of variables are used to determine the final values, it does not take the case length into account. Might have missed that one, just had a quick look on the CAVS page, but if I haven't, this is a major flaw in the system.

[bonko the sane 2]

dunno if this has been reported, but the handgun is aiming way too high, its zeroed to like 200m or more :|

[Thunnder Bunny 0]

There is no use for it, simple as that

So much more is out there which would serve a purpose in OFP, so all that would be a better investment of our short resources.

Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, but neither the Lynx nor the Starfighter are currently planned to be such an exception.

Ok, they're not planned yet, but do you think, they will be? ever?

The G8 mod made a F-104 long ago. The mod site is still up, but info there seems old. Not sure if the team is still active or not. G8 MOD

For PERSONAL use I added a few things to their bird and corrected the stray landing gear. And you should be able to do the same with no problem. And yes I to would like to see it updated but it works for my needs.......although it's probably not a realistic rig, it suits me just fine

F-104

[tankieboy 0]

re Gepard (forgive me but I thought this is what this topic is for)

Love it apart from the anims, or lack of. Gunners and Commanders hands pass into the control station.

[Harmed 0]

There is no use for it, simple as that

So much more is out there which would serve a purpose in OFP, so all that would be a better investment of our short resources.

Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, but neither the Lynx nor the Starfighter are currently planned to be such an exception.

Ok, they're not planned yet, but do you think, they will be? ever?

The G8 mod made a F-104 long ago.   The mod site is still up, but info there seems old.  Not sure if the team is still active or not.   G8 MOD

For PERSONAL use I added a few things to their bird and corrected the stray landing gear.   And you should be able to do the same with no problem.  And yes I to would like to see it updated but it works for my needs.......although it's probably not a realistic rig, it suits me just fine

F-104

Still no BW-mod quality

[metalchris 0]

Quote[/b] ]Love it apart from the anims, or lack of. Gunners and Commanders hands pass into the control station.

Yes that was on my wishlist too , but unfortunatly noone in our team is capable of (complex) character animation.

Hopefully i will understand the RTM Plugin for 3dsmax and make some Systemcheck Animations for Commander and gunner.

Regards Chris

[tankieboy 0]

Thanks for the reply.

[kueppcera 0]

Great addon...as usual!

[echo1 0]

any word on the G36 addon?

[metalchris 0]

We work on it , but our ressources are limited...

[killagee 0]

Does anybody know why the UH Tiger has no AT missiles? Just stingers? Am i missing something?

[AOCbravo2004 0]

Does anybody know why the UH Tiger has no AT missiles? Just stingers? Am i missing something?

You have to add the ATGM's via the units INIT line. It is all in the readme exactly how you do it.

[Praet 0]

Am i missing something?

Indeed. Reading the readme, for example...

We are aware that it's more difficult that just the average "just-place-it-on-the-map-and-have-fun" addons, but there is a description for a purpose.