M1A2 SEP 3.0

[nominesine 0]

Did I understand you correct?

Lot's of Fire power for those who can edit their own missions. A nice all-round-tank for everyday use for everybody else?

A good solution IMO. Looking forward to the update.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

@Homer

If you have a chance to test it on a linux dedicated, please test it!

Beside the texture error, I really hope that the main scipting and the suspension script work fine in multiplayer and not creating lag and/or desync.

MfG Lee

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Is it me, or is this PBO some how protected?

I cant DePBO it with PboX or PBO Decrypter 1.5

[Johannes 10]

the .pbo is protectet. But it isn´t very difficult to crack it.

[shinRaiden 0]

Is it me, or is this PBO some how protected?

I cant DePBO it with PboX or PBO Decrypter 1.5

you, along with a whole bunch of other posters, are completely missing the point.

King Homer and the rest of those who worked on this addon did so to make it to a certain standard, and coordinated with RHS to make sure that their addon was as realistic and balanced as possible given the engine limitations. Most of the so-called balance "problems" are clear-cut cases of deliberate user incompetence.

This variant was not designed or intended to be balanced against various people's personal whim compilation projects, whether they be FFUR or even ECP, and it's not intended to be balanced against the BIS standards either. The config coders chose to use the values they did for the reasons specified, you chose to ignore and disregard the explanation posted previously. Who's fault is that really?

PBO Encryption is futile as a content protection measure. Rather it serves several other purposes now : first to slow down the parting out and mucking around with the content by inexperienced addon makers, and second to hopefully serve as a conscience speedbrake to those people who have a disdain for other's time and effort.

So what do you need a decrypted pbo for?

* To make bug fixes? Post the bugs and suggestions here so that all can benefit from a coordinated effort rather than have cheat-risky mismatched versions shotgunned all over the place.

* To integrate into a total conversion? How about instead of just ripping it off and "thanking them in the readme" for permission you didn't get in the first place then castrating the functionality, talk to the dev's FIRST and coordinate it the right way. And while you're at it, fix the other addons as well, don't just copy and paste in addon configs.

* To learn how to make an addon? Well you could try to brute force and reverse engineer it and try to guess or assume what was going on in the mod maker's head, and second-guess what they're going to do in the future, or you could take 30 seconds, send them an email, make a friend, and get a ton more actually helpful information in the process.

So what are we as the community going to do? Continue to thrash addons the moment they drop because we "know better" therefor that becomes our authority to do whatever we darn feel like to someone else's work?

Or are we going to grow up, get some maturity, a dose of respect and civility, and do it the right way?

@devs : Nice tank btw, it's great to see the quality ongoing support you put into it, and the attention to detail. Thanks.

[Snake Man 401]

Is it me, or is this PBO some how protected?

I cant DePBO it with PboX or PBO Decrypter 1.5

Head over to WrpTool forum topic to check out how to unpack this addon pbo.

[action man 0]

* To integrate into a total conversion? How about instead of just ripping it off and "thanking them in the readme"

First off just so peep's don't take this the wrong way,this addon looks great and is great! All the hard work that as gone into it is very much appreciated! However it would be a very unwise man indeed who implemented this into is conversion.That is because the frame rates you would get with more than one of these tank's would be so low the game would be unplayable(they have made the lods to high,big mistake) when i play with 3 of these tanks i can compare it to a snail trying to wade through treacle.

[Jezz 0]

lol kenji just showed me these

he says they make good reflex targets .

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Is it me, or is this PBO some how protected?

I cant DePBO it with PboX or PBO Decrypter 1.5

Head over to WrpTool forum topic to check out how to unpack this addon pbo.

Thank you

[king homer 1]

Okay the update is almost done. We're just waiting for the new track textures made by M9ACE. After implenting them we'll have some betatesting on a Linux server and if everyhings works correctly it's ready for release.

[Shadow NX 1]

Nice to hear that

And to balance the tanks even more i think we also add the newest Russian development for the T80s to be choosen via initline.

Now we just need to get the exact data of this new round.

Btw sorry for hijacking but didnt even knew that myself but you can add the ammo types of the newer T80s also to the older like BV if you follow the instructions in the readme... didnt even read it myself

[tankieboy 0]

Okay the update is almost done. We're just waiting for the new track textures made by M9ACE. After implenting them we'll have some betatesting on a Linux server and if everyhings works correctly it's ready for release.

Did you correct the drivers turn out view?

[king homer 1]

Okay the update is almost done. We're just waiting for the new track textures made by M9ACE. After implenting them we'll have some betatesting on a Linux server and if everyhings works correctly it's ready for release.

Did you correct the drivers turn out view?

No, because there is nothing we can fix. The drivers turn out view works for most people, including Inquisitor and me. I tested it with a clear OFP-install and I don't get the bug, even with 20 other Abrams' on the map (thought it could be a LOD bug) but it works properly. Guess it's a conflict with some other addon.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]And to balance the tanks even more i think we also add the newest Russian development for the T80s to be choosen via initline.

Now we just need to get the exact data of this new round.

There seems to be a little problem here. Most probably Russian used mid 80`s rounds (BM42 as regular, BM32 as "emergency") in 90`s. And more - is is possible that were unable to produce enough BM42.

In the same time, in 90`s, US used for sure 2 generations of M829 (both M829, M829A1 saw action in 1991), probably also M829A2... and now, started XXI century with M829A3.

So if want to have realistic loadout for Abramses and Russian T-s for 90`s, US got advantage.

However when a little more futuristic loadout is considered (f.e. with STAFF, just like by King Homer), Russian would have better rounds, with penetration more than 650 mm RHAe/2000 meters... which is about M829A1-A2 level

There are also some projects of 125 ammo, also for Obj. 640 "Black Eagle" (but those rounds most probably will not fit into T-72/T-80/T-90 autoloaders). Very, very Far from the line, I guess.

Of course, for some balance is the essence. All T-80s and M1s could be equal in armour and firepower values. But it would be a step back - even orginal BIS Abrams and T-80 were not fully equal.

Custom ammo loadouts might be the good choice. Also, just like ORCS (sorry I mentioned, please do not close this thread! did, BIS values version.

2-3 values standard... interesting idea. BIS, Sigma/RHS, CAVS

[USSRsniper 0]

nice tank, but i think it's abit powerfull   It just not great to drive and shot all enemy tanks.... Enemy just doesn't put pressure on you to use tactics... I could drive in to enemy base with 10 T-90 and drive back alive. But real Abrams was never in real fight against experienced tank crew.. most of time crew in enemy tanks use tank as it was car with crew like this abrams would not survive long too.

[king homer 1]

nice tank, but i think it's abit powerfull It just not great to drive and shot all enemy tanks.... Enemy just doesn't put pressure on you to use tactics... I could drive in to enemy base with 10 T-90 and drive back alive. But real Abrams was never in real fight against experienced tank crew.. most of time crew in enemy tanks use tank as it was car with crew like this abrams would not survive long too.

Well at least the Abrams was already in a fight and proved well. The T-90 wasn't. And no, I'm not going to start a new discussion about which tank is better. If you would have read the other 113 posts in this thread, you'd have seen the reason why the Abrams is so powerfull.

[blake_ 0]

Explain in 2 words,King,plz

[nominesine 0]

Technical question...

What is it that make the AI decide to "abandon ship" when the tank reaches a certain damage level. I'm no addon maker, but i assume it's defined in the config, right?

Thus I wonder, is it possible to stop this from happening with a script? It seems that they jump out when the tracks are destroyed i.e, when

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

?!(canmove tankName)

returns true.

Is there a better way to check this. What happens (in game engine terms) when the crew abandons the tank?

Is this tank different from other tanks?

[b_ringer25 0]

nice tank, but i think it's abit powerfull   It just not great to drive and shot all enemy tanks.... Enemy just doesn't put pressure on you to use tactics... I could drive in to enemy base with 10 T-90 and drive back alive. But real Abrams was never in real fight against experienced tank crew.. most of time crew in enemy tanks use tank as it was car    with crew like this abrams would not survive long too.

but what you don't understand is that the M1A2 SEP does destroy T-80's like they the M1A1 did to T-72's in the Persian Gulf. They hit it right and the turret is in the air. I have seen footage of a M1A1 from 2ACR doing this. Pretty amazing. This abrams is not really over powering its just how it is in real life. They did not make the tank for the OFP world like the Abrams and the T-80 that came with the game. 2 Hits to kill a T-80, lol ok. It generally takes 1 hit.

[Mr ThunderMakeR 0]

Like others, I felt the Abrams was way too overpowered. So Ive been doing a lot of testing with this addon on desert island to try to determine what makes this so imcompatible with other addons. My conclusion: it really isnt that powerful after all. The M829A3 destroys pretty much everything I have with one hit. The best I can do against the Abrams is destroy it two hits with RHS T80UM1 and 2 hits with various ATGMs I tried. But it gets a lot worse with weaker rounds, such as the RHS T80B's, T62's and T55's. They pretty much bounce off it with no effect. The same happens with most RPG addons I tried, even the advanced ones.

I think the problem here is with this addons survivability. Ultimately this is probably due to the game engine limitations and the way it simulates damage. The Abrams can take a lot of punishment, and Im sure it would take several rounds to completely destroy the most modern versions of it, in the same manner that we destroy tanks in OFP. The problem is that this addon cant be disabled by lesser punishment. With OFP its either black or white: you either hit it 4-5 times and completely destroy it, or you hit it 1-3 times and it trounces around the battlefield completely unphased. And getting in 4-5 hits with any weapon, without being hit once by the Abrams is nearly impossible in OFP.

There needs to be some grey area in the damage here: where you hit the Abrams with an ATGM or a decent armor penetrating round, it isn't destroyed but its operational capability is severely hampered i.e. losing different components or just being completely disabled, without being destroyed. I understand that OFP's engine is limited in this respect, but maybe ways could be found to at least simulate some form of disabling the tank? A good example of this would be the way some helicopter addons simulates losing engines, or the tail rotor, or weapon systems.

I dont think reverting the M829A3 to the previous version is the real solution to balancing the playability/realism for this addon. Maybe add the M829A2 as a weapon option that is a little bit weaker and would be better for playability?

On a sidenote, the biggest problem with RHS T80's versus this is the detection ranges. The Abrams can detect a T80 at roughly 2000+ meters, while the T80, and most other addons I tried can only detect the Abrams at around 900m, which is more in line with the viewdistance I use. However for most other addons I tried, and even the BIS tanks, the Abrams could only detect them at around 1400m, leading me to belive the T80 might have too high of an IR signature. Still, the detection range of the Abrams seems like it might be a little to high compared to the viewdistances we use in OFP, even if it is realistic. It would be better for playability to reduce this some.

[furia 10]

Well saying that I love this add on graphics and features I have to add that Abrams was "sold" on the military marketing as the ultimative almost undestructible MTB.

Events in Iraq have proven that the Abrams can be destroyed even by non conventional weapons.

M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

Same goes to the Apache, the flying tank.

Battlefield atrittion have not spared those two, and considering that they were not facing highly trained and equiped units with latest armour technoology but basically scum ragheads with car bombs and RPG.

There are reports of Abrams M1A1 (I know it is different than the M1A2    ) being destroyed by single AT shoots.

I do not mean the Abrams is a bad tank, because it is probably the best in the world after the Leopard 2 A6    however I believe we should not think of it as something 10 time better than the T-80.

Anyway I tested the Full RHS t-80 pack versus the Lates version of the Abrams and it is quite balancec, of course on the Abarms favour but not as much as if you make it fight against any BIS unit or even the FFUR T-80.

So basically to have a capable counterpart for this excellent add on that can survive if properly skilled you need the RSH T-80 full pack, other tanks and vehicles are just cannon fodder for this Abrams

[tankieboy 0]

Its not bad you know. This topic got quite far before the armchair experts started the "best tank in the world" debate.

[Messiah 2]

'This is not the best tank in the world, no, this is just a tribute.'

[Pathy 0]

With regards to Thundermakers comments, it is possible to set up a tank so that parts can be disabled. Never got your gun knocked out and had the rest of your tank in perfect working order with the original BIS tanks? Or had a track destroyed? ect.

Havent tried SEP so i dont know if it happens with these.

[king homer 1]

Well saying that I love this add on graphics and features I have to add that Abrams was "sold" on the military marketing as the ultimative almost undestructible MTB.

Events in Iraq have proven that the Abrams can be destroyed even by non conventional weapons.

M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

[im]http://www.sixty8.net/albums/Iraq/DESTROYED_M1_ABRAMS.sized.jpg[/img]

Same goes to the Apache, the flying tank.

[im]http://www.sixty8.net/albums/Iraq/DESTROYED_APACHE.sized.jpg[/img]

Battlefield atrittion have not spared those two, and considering that they were not facing highly trained and equiped units with latest armour technoology but basically scum ragheads with car bombs and RPG.

There are reports of Abrams M1A1 (I know it is different than the M1A2 ) being destroyed by single AT shoots.

I do not mean the Abrams is a bad tank, because it is probably the best in the world after the Leopard 2 A6 however I believe we should not think of it as something 10 time better than the T-80.

Anyway I tested the Full RHS t-80 pack versus the Lates version of the Abrams and it is quite balancec, of course on the Abarms favour but not as much as if you make it fight against any BIS unit or even the FFUR T-80.

So basically to have a capable counterpart for this excellent add on that can survive if properly skilled you need the RSH T-80 full pack, other tanks and vehicles are just cannon fodder for this Abrams

No one said it's 10 times better than a T80, no one said it's better than Russian tanks. Only YOU Russian tank lovers started a debate about this. I never doubt it Russian technology isn't as effective as European or US technology. It was just you who started to moan about it.

I offered a fair deal with older ammunition type, but it seems no one who's talking about the Abrams Super-MBT cares.

Sure some Abrams' were disabled in Gulf War, but hey, remember the Iraqis used a lot of Russian tank exports like T54, T55, T62, T72 and plenty of them were destroyed too. You're always pointing out the Western technology only. I'm getting already sick of it. Now please get back to the addon discussion or else I'll ask some mod to close this.

PS:

Thanks for the apt remarks, tankieboy and Messiah.