Tank Fire Control Systems

[Canis 0]

I can say, though, that the airFriction you came up with seems very low. I'm just sitting around with a G&T watching the Wahoos lose, so I'll do some research.

Thats what I first thought.

Your a gent sir. Don't spill anything on my account.

And many thanks for the data.

[NonWonderDog 0]

Quote[/b] ]OFP demo models, a modiffied BIS Arbams to be precise - had the lods reworked and config changed. Not on ftp anymore but the changes were described by Przezedzieblo (sp?) in the pages I've mentioned.

That should be the addon:

http://mihd.net/wcj6oa

PS: Decompress it with PBO Decryptor v1.5.

ofpec link

Interesting...

There are "HitHullFront" and "HitTurretFront" selections in the config, that correspond to points in the front of the turret and hull, respectively. Were these added by the author? They aren't present in ArmA's configs. It appears to me, from various quotes by Suma, that adding extra selections like this does absolutely nothing.

Other than that, the right track selection has been moved to the engine compartment, and the left track has been moved to the center of the turret. HitEngine is already present in ArmA, so the right track modification isn't necessary, but I don't know what the left track is doing there. What, exactly, causes the AI to bail out?

More questions: what do "material" and "passThrough" do in the "Hit*" selections? If "Hull" or "Turret" is destroyed, is the tank destroyed as well? If so, I could make one of them the front armor, with ridiculously high hitpoints, and another one of them the side and rear armor, with reasonable hitpoints.

[edit] OK, so materials are supposed to be defined in the visible LODs of the model, as "user value." This isn't yet in the models decrypted by Synide. I still don't know what this is for, though, since the wheeled vehicles have material=-1 for almost everything and seem to work fine. I understand passThrough, though: with passThrough=1, destruction of that component is supposed to destroy the tank according to Armored_Sheep. It doesn't.

It actually seems like it would take all of five minutes to make tanks nearly impervious to HE ammo. All you'd have to do is increase armor by 100x, decrease each HitXXX{armor} by 100x, and set armorStructural to 100. That would all but nullify global hitpoints, allowing destruction of a tank only by destruction of its hull, turret, or engine. You might be able to narrow that down to hull or turret, too, by setting passThrough=0 for the engine (and script fire damage to the occupants of the tank if canMove=false, too...). HE rounds would then lose the ability to kill a tank by dealing light damage to all its components at once until the global hitpoints are depleted. They'd have to destroy the hull or turret themselves, which would take quite a while with appropriately low indirect damage and low direct damage.

Of course, this would mean the "hit" event handler would never fire, so I should really use a smaller sledgehammer. And shells need a high indirect damage to kill cars and helicopters with indirect hits.

But, since my canister rounds barely cause any stutters (the projectiles cause no stutters, but the impact effects do...), I think I'm going to add random fragments to all the explosive shells and grenades. The scripting might be pretty heavy, but I'd need a lot fewer than 1200 fragments for each explosive. I can ignore fragments that would fire downwards for shells that detonate at ground level, too. This would make frag shells and artillery a lot more realistic, and I'd be able to keep the indirect damage effect for overpressure and heat effects. This would instantly solve the too-high indirect damage problem with MPAT. In my opinion only thermobarics should kill everything within 15 meters -- HE rounds with a 15 meter lethal radius should be much more random. I'd have to find a way to get rid of the damage reduction to prone soldiers, though...

[Panda-PL- 0]

There are "HitHullFront" and "HitTurretFront" selections in the config, that correspond to points in the front of the turret and hull, respectively.  Were these added by the author?  They aren't present in ArmA's configs.  It appears to me, from various quotes by Suma, that adding extra selections like this does absolutely nothing.

They do allmost nothing. In fact they do quite a lot, anyone who tried to take on this tank with Carl Gustav from all 4 sides did notice a difference.

Their destruction doesn't cause tank to explode or crew to bail, but they reduce dammage delt to other parts of tank when tank is hit in them.

Another thing is that some high velocity rounds will randomly pass trougth these thin layers before the hit is detected - thus there is some random factor in dammage without any scripting.

This is the idea of "hitpoint screening". It worked very well in OFP.

Quote[/b] ]

Other than that, the right track selection has been moved to the engine compartment, and the left track has been moved to the center of the turret.  HitEngine is already present in ArmA, so the right track modification isn't necessary, but I don't know what the left track is doing there.  What, exactly, causes the AI to bail out?

Engine or hull destroyed = tank explodes

Tracks destroyed = crew bails out

Barrel destroyed = tank cannot rise barrel

Turret destroyed = don't remember LOL, but AFAIK tank is out of combat but not destroyed.

This was because it is not realistic for Abrams tank to explode. Most kills are m-kills (mobillity) or other malfunctions that will put it out of combat.

Tracks are moved to force crew to bail out if sides of turret or hull are hit badly.

Barrel selection is moved to the rear of turret to make it even less armoured and to result in putting tank out of combat without blowing it up (in case of Abrams). Of course in case of T-72 it is better to put engine selection there because it would be destroyed if it is hit there.

We wanted much more gradation than just 2 armour values. Tanks have diffewrent armour on each side, not just strengthened front.

For example it is typical that rear of hull is less armoured than rear of turret.

[NonWonderDog 0]

But the selections in the config should be ignored, since OFP or ArmA isn't looking for them. At least, according to:

Quote[/b] ] ... I want creat a new Hit Point ...

I am afraid this is not possible. You can use only existing hitpoint names.

Custom hit selections are really supported ? I tried but only got standart ones to work....

No, I did not say that. HIT zones still remain same from OFP.

"Zbytek" is czech word for "the rest" meaning remaining parts. In case HIThull - "karoserie" in czech - is used, you might not find "zbytek" it the model. All selection names are anyway defined in config.

Maybe it's still applying damage to the vertices, though, and since they belong to an undefined selection this damage is going straight to global hitpoints (possibly divided by armorStructural)? That would be very useful if true.

Also, does engine destruction destroy the tank even if passThrough is set to zero? Is this quote by Armored_Sheep correct?

As you can see in config each turret has its own hitzone definition (class HitTurret, class HitGun) so if you have diferent named selections for each turret, this might work.

passThrough=1 means that the hitzone is vital to the complete model, so if this "weakspot" is destroyed (he might be just 30% of the whole armor) the whole vehicle blows up. passThrough=0 means that destroyed hitzone does some effect (windows textures changed, wheeles not turning), but the vehicle does not blow up.

Engine damage already has an effect of it's own, because I can disable a HMMWV by firing a couple .50 caliber rounds into its engine without blowing it up. I can't imagine why they'd hardcode vehicle destruction if they've already got the passThrough variable. [edit] PassThrough does not behave as described here, and engine or hull destruction always causes destruction of the vehicle. Hmmph. In fact, passThough seems to have no effect whatsoever, before or after the selection is destroyed. It's possible it has something to do with overmatch, though I doubt it.

Turret destruction prevents turret traverse, which seems like a useful effect.

Waiddaminute, Waiddaminute, Waiddaminute. Let's read that again.

As you can see in config each turret has its own hitzone definition (class HitTurret, class HitGun)

This sounds useful, somehow. Maybe. I thought it might be useful to put 100 unmanned turrets on the tank as ERA bricks, but I don't think that would do anything at all except direct the damage to global hitpoints.

[snoops_213 75]

Just been playing around with some air weapons and it seems the BMP2 takes around 50 20mmAP rounds to kill from the back and only 25 from front, where as Brdm2 is around 10-15 for front and 5 for the rear. As for side shots its seems depended on how close to the back or front. Stranger still the T-72 only needs 35 rounds to kill it from the back yet 165 to kill it from the front.

I remember using that tank and wishing some1 would do it for an opfor vehicle, cause side and rear shots made a big difference ! Great work so far! I like your idea and bout the little sparks given off with API rounds! it looks cool at night seeing cobra's and apache's doing gun runs and seeing little sparks kicked up and semi lighing impact area. Im using it in your extaballistics.pbo to define some custom ammo for cobras/apaches atm. Hope you dont mind its for personal use only. Any chance of seeing some ballistic modeling regarding medium caliber weapons? This mod with 3 good Fx mods and 2 AI mods are starting to make ArmA what it should have looked like out of box

The FCS is unreal, it makes being in the tank fun! And i've been playing a couple of mission lately where i've had a good 200-400 man teams play each other with air/armour support as well as a whole shit load of mods running and apart from my gfx card being shit as a brick and slowing things up it runs with out any problems so far.

Keep up the great work!

snoops

[Lawman1965 0]

I simply cannot get this mod to work.

I have installed the NWD_TankFCS into Arma with the @ prefix and I have added the line into my ArmA icon etc.

I have also downloaded the InitHandler mod and I have tried both adding to my addons folder AND creating a Mod folder.

Is there something that we need to do to this InitHandler mod in order to get the TankFCS mod (and the scopefix/ballistics mods) to work?

I am not running ANY tank mods.

I have tried running the mod in both Regular and Veteran modes but still no joy.

Is there anything that anyone can do to help me with this?

Rich

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just been playing around with some air weapons and it seems the BMP2 takes around 50 20mmAP rounds to kill from the back and only 25 from front, where as Brdm2 is around 10-15 for front and 5 for the rear. As for side shots its seems depended on how close to the back or front. Stranger still the T-72 only needs 35 rounds to kill it from the back yet 165 to kill it from the front.

AP rounds probably still have some HE type dammage.

Well, the basic reason for making pointers like this in old CAVS is to work out a system that will allways work.

The reason why BMP is killed easilly from front might be the engine selection. AFAIK IRL BMP has engine moved to the front and with BIS mechanics it is possible it receives some indirect dammage and causes vehicle to explode.

@NonWonderDog

Well, the fact is that sometimes the devs themselves cannot explain how things work. PassTrougth seems to not work or (another theory) maybe it causes that you can "hit" a zone behind it (it gives no screening effect).

On extra turret selections - yup, makes no sense.

Try applying a layer of hitpoints (a custom named selection) ontop of the normal turret hitpoints (but still below the surface of fire geometry), it is probable that they will take the dammage in case of low velocity projectiles and let them pass trougth to another zone in case of higher velocity projectiles (possibly randomly) because of simmulation step difference I have allready mentioned. This requires trial and error to get the distance between "hardened" and normal hitpoints right.

Selections hardcoded.

Hardcoded, hardcoded, hardcoded, everything in this damn engine is hardcoded, this is just horrible I know.

It is better in ArmA but still half of features are hardcoded and many of them don't even work.

Armour/armour structural for custom hitzones

AFAIK - the influence in case of non-hardcoded selections was not discovered. You will have to make a few test configs and check dammage via script and via observation.

Most people came to belive that the part's dammage in this case has no influence to global dammage delt.

But I really don't know/ can't remember.

This is why we used the custom selections for hardest sides of hardest parts of tank and distributed the remaining ones (often not according to their names) to simmulate tank being put out of combat when hit from sides, rear or top, in the back of hull or back of turret etc.

If you ballance it right you can have a tank that is practically undestructable from front, requires a few hits from side or is a one-shot kill from behind. It's a lot of fun when organising ambushes etc.

[frederf 0]

I'm curious if it's possible to have the auto-elevation / range-finding, IR imagine, etc be applied to the Stryker ICV.

I know that your primary interest is probably in the heavy armor. I'm curious if it's possible even if you don't wish to work on it. I could take the burden for a branch development with some dialog with you.

Also I'm curious if you think the SightAdjustment mod could work with vehicle weapons, M136, Javelin. Also if the sight adjust mod could have a "meters" mode to increment in 50m increments

[the_soupdragon 0]

Lawman I seem to be having the exact same problem as you.

although I use Kegetys Arma Launcher.

I just cannot get this mod to work. If I use it in conjuction with the 6th sense mod ARMS actualy crashes just before I get into the map. If I use just this mod ARMA loads but I sont get the Sights or anything.

SD

[NonWonderDog 0]

You should have a the pbo files in a ArmA/@NWD_TankFCS/addons folder, and you can just put extended_init_eventhandlers.pbo in your ArmA/addons folder. Add the -mod=@NWD_TankFCS switch to the shortcut, and it should work.

If you're seeing a blank optics display, i.e. no reticle whatsoever, give it a minute or so to see if it loads. It takes about three seconds to load on my PC, but it might take longer depending on processor speed, hard drive speed and fragmentation, memory speed and quantity, or any number of factors. I'll try to make it preload the textures in the next version.

I intend to do optics for the Stryker, BMP-2, M163 VADS, and ZSU-23-4, but I don't have any sight references.

I just found some pictures of the M151 RWS display here. I don't know anything about reticle scale, if it changes size when zooming, or if it has different reticles for different weapons or zoom levels. I think I need to decide between 8x optical zoom or 32x digital zoom, too. The default reticle is from a Bradley IBAS, which has slightly lower priority than the T-80B gunsight on my ridiculously long to-do list.

I don't have any BMP-2 references, but that's mostly because I haven't looked. I think I have the general idea of what it should look like, though. (I think it just has a few dashed horizontal lines for burst-on-target and no laser rangefinder, but this has most likely changed in recent models.)

I don't know what the M61 LCOS looks like, but I know what LCOS sights look like in general. I intend to make a yellow dual-circle reticle that floats in two dimensions based on traverse and elevation rates and continuous range-only updates to the nearest/furthest aircraft in your frontal arc. That should be pretty close to the real thing. My understanding is that the gun in an M163 isn't radar guided at all.

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the Shilka sights should look like, but I'll see what I can dig up. I don't know if this beast is even manually aimed in normal operation, though. Radar-controlled sights would be ridiculously complicated, but I can't think of any reason I wouldn't be able to program in a C-scope...or why I wouldn't be able to control turret elevation in script the same way I do with azimuth in the Abrams...

Before I start any of that, I need to make this work at multiple zoom levels and make it detect when you're in an inside or external view. I want to get some generic config-based smoke dischargers working as well. (Does red phosphorus smoke spread like HC smoke or burst like WP smoke? I don't know if I've ever seen it, but I'm assuming it spreads like HC because I've got a 8 second dispersal time figure that seems far too long for bursting smoke.)

A minor rewrite of sightAdjustment is somewhere near the bottom of my to-do list as well. There are no more updates forthcoming from gmJamez, but he's released his code as public domain.

It only needs a few things, though, if someone wants to try to update it. Here's my wishlist:

-- support for floating-reticle type scopes such as the PSO-1 and 1P21, using essentially my T-72 optics code instead of the default behavior.

-- support for launcher elevation settings and dispersion (which has no effect currently).

-- support for separate minimum and maximum elevation settings.

-- ability to read range settings from the range card files, so it can display "600m + 0.5mils", for example.

That and the big one, of course: wind. Wind is already tracked by the game, but I think it's only applied to smoke effects. I'm afraid that tracking every single bullet and changing it's velocity every frame would have a terrible frame rate impact if done in script, though. If the frame rate hit is acceptable, I think just adding a windAirFriction variable to the config and changing bullet velocity along each direction as <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">V = [Vx+Wx^2*windAirFriction*dt, Vy+Wy^2*windAirFriction*dt, Vz+Wz^2*windAirFriction*dt] would be good enough. (You'd have to track the current time for it to be accurate, but that's essentially the same formula used for airFriction in the game already.) That should be enough to get rockets hooking into the wind, as well, by using a negative windAirFriction.

Realistic effects of wind on rockets would be a lot harder than that, though. They should weathervane under thrust, but drift with the wind while coasting. If launched from an aircraft with side slip, they should curve back towards the aircraft's direction of travel. If you wanted to get really excessive, they should drift more easily to one side than the other depending on spin rate, with spin rate changing (and even reversing direction) during flight. And high spin rates should reduce lethal radius. I think all of this can be safely ignored, though; no sim yet has simulated rockets to any real accuracy. (I wonder about Black Shark...)

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]I intend to do optics for the Stryker, BMP-2, M163 VADS, and ZSU-23-4, but I don't have any sight references.

I just found some pictures of the M151 RWS display here. I don't know anything about reticle scale, if it changes size when zooming, or if it has different reticles for different weapons or zoom levels. I think I need to decide between 8x optical zoom or 32x digital zoom, too. The default reticle is from a Bradley IBAS, which has slightly lower priority than the T-80B gunsight on my ridiculously long to-do list.

What's funny is I just found those same pictures not but a day ago when redoing 4IB's Strykers. I also found another image here http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000860.html that shows another type of crosshair than the M24-rifle looking one, and you can note it says M2 M2Ball on the screen.

One thing I can't seem to do is make these crosshairs red. Are crosshairs forced to be black and white? Any ideas?

My first thought when trying to get the darn Stryker optics to maintain zero when altering zoom was to use the distanceZoomMax and such like on the BIS Mk12SPR but with no luck.

Floating crosshairs would be very very useful on the Stryker. When you get time I'm all ears and helping hands.

[NonWonderDog 0]

I think it says something like:

200 m

M2 M33 Ball

[Turret Clock]

Anyway, now I know how range is displayed. I think I understand the reticle, too, and it looks like the same reticle is used in day and IR modes. That box shows the area visible at maximum optical magnification. When you zoom in, it would show the crosshair. It's a small box, but the M151 has a ridiculously wide FOV when zoomed out. I should be able to figure out approximate reticle scale from these.

That picture you linked is from a prototype, though, while the other pictures are from a production model. There are apparently a few differences in the display. It looks like the production model has an azimuth/elevation readout above the turret clock, for one. I can't tell much more than that. The display has probably changed a bit more now that they've got stabilized turrets and laser rangefinders.

I didn't have any problem making crosshairs that are red during the day. At night, crosshairs in optics models will be black unless you get tricky. I haven't made any optics models with the new tools yet, but I'm betting you can do it with .rvmat materials settings.

In my scopeFix pack I had to overlay two textures, one bigger than the other and sitting on top. The big one was just a big red mark with nothing special about it -- it's black at night because there's so little ambient lighting. The smaller texture was red with the "shining" attribute. This makes it show up black during the day but red at night. It took a lot of fiddling with alpha levels, but it looks pretty good. Again, this was done before the tools came out; you should be able to do it much more easily with materials.

I intend to add the reticles as display controls, though, so I can change them. Controls just show up however you tell them to.

The turret clock would be a monstrous pain in the ass if I wanted to do that, too. I haven't been able to make actual animations work with display objects, so I'd have to animate it myself with a loop that switches between pre-rotated objects. It's probably not worth it.

[frederf 0]

I agree it seems much too hard to get a nice square-on picture of the gunner screen. I know some folks that are the in the Army and ride in the Stryker, unfortunately he isn't crew and security issues may mean less than a ton of info if I decide to bug him.

The M151 has a 45 deg FOV max according to the company that makes it, so that'd be 45/57.3 radians. Personally I'm shooting for the 8x zoom since that is plenty in the world of ArmA and more balanced with the other units. Two of my biggest gripes is that:

1. minFov seems to have a floor where any value too low is ignored. For example minFov = 0.000000001 should allow you to see bacteria shaking hands on someone on the moon, but once compiled in game is limited to a rather measly 4x or so. The best I've gotten is some value that's at or near the floor value. When I make a minFov that's smaller than that the result is a minFov that is somewhere above the floor value.

2. Lookspring is killing me! Most views will return to initFov when the Num_+ or Num_- keys are released. However, the M1A1 tank optics as well as the Javelin optics do not suffer from this (and probably a few more vehicles). However I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make one act like the other. If you have figured out the lookspring debacle, I am alllll ears.

In my mental barrel-bottom-scrape to think of example crosshairs with non-all-black markings, I totally overlooked your ACOG sight found in the scopefix. I'll see if I can reverse engineer that.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but do you ever intend on using the aircraft hud bones method to create any of these floating crosshair systems?

[NonWonderDog 0]

The aircraft HUD requires model edits, and may require aircraft. I haven't really looked into it.

I have, however, just managed to get a modified version of the BIS Abrams model to work in game. Everything works perfectly, no errors whatsoever (a few pointless warnings in the log file, though). I'm now free to make any model edits I need, and I've already separated the gun rotation and sight rotation axes and put "gunnerview" in the sight housing where it belongs. I might even separate gun elevation and sight elevation entirely and control gun elevation in script. That opens up a lot of possibilities, but it might utterly destroy the AI.

I don't have the T-72 model working yet. Now that I look closely at it, I realize that the T-72 model is going to require some major edits to be realistic. The turret in the real thing is inclined 2.5° (2°26'?) forward so that the tank can fire from hull-down even with the lack of breech clearance. (Ack! It's actually 1°13'--the 2.5 degrees is the difference between max elevation forward and back. The guy who made the BIS model seems to have thought it was 2.5 degrees, though, and inclined the fenders by that amount even as he made the deck level. I'm going to have to make even more edits...) The BIS model is radically re-profiled in order to make the turret sit level. It looks like they did this purposefully, but I'm going to try to make the turret sit the way it's supposed to, damn the consequences. I might have to incline everything except the turret, but that should work too...

I don't know what the floor on minFov is, but I was able to get 32x zoom to work on the HMMWV. Whatever it is, the minimum field of view is small enough. Eightfold zoom is just minFov=0.041666, and that works fine.

Lookspring seems to be simulation dependent and hardcoded for wheeled vehicles. I haven't found any way around it except one: I have the zoom keys bound to a slider on my HOTAS. Lookspring makes changeable reticle size a million times easier, so I'm not really angry about it.

[PositiveG 0]

"Realistic effects of wind on rockets would be a lot harder than that, though.  They should weathervane under thrust, but drift with the wind while coasting.  If launched from an aircraft with side slip, they should curve back towards the aircraft's direction of travel.  If you wanted to get really excessive, they should drift more easily to one side than the other depending on spin rate, with spin rate changing (and even reversing direction) during flight.  And high spin rates should reduce lethal radius.  I think all of this can be safely ignored, though; no sim yet has simulated rockets to any real accuracy.  (I wonder about Black Shark...)"

Interesting.  So that I understand.  

Say I'm standing next to a rocket launcher, both of us looking down range (say this is heading North), the rocket fires. It moves away from me, the observer, north bound.  

Now looking at the rocket  moving away from me, I see the rocket spinning clockwise from my viewpoint.  Does that mean that the rocket should find it easier to move east (its right) versus west (its left)?  Like the torque effect on an airplane propeller?  

So would that also mean that a westerly wind would have more effect on the rocket, versus an easterly one?

[-HUNTER- 1]

Lawman I seem to be having the exact same problem as you.

although I use Kegetys Arma Launcher.

I just cannot get this mod to work. If I use it in conjuction with the 6th sense mod ARMS actualy crashes just before I get into the map. If I use just this mod ARMA loads but I sont get the Sights or anything.

SD

I had the exact same problem.

Then I realised I just made a little mistake with adding the -mod line to the shortcut...

forgot the ; behind it...

Work good now!

Awesome work, I really like this addon. The rangefinder is well made!

[opteryx 1562]

NonWonderDog if you're looking for reticles scan the tanknet forums, there are some Russian tankers that hang out there.

HERE is what I think is the gunnery sight on the the BMP-2, I'm not sure though..

Also I have a folder full of reticle patterns for AFV's and AT weapons, if you want it just send me a PM, but be warned it's a bit messy and not all pictures are correctly named.

[NonWonderDog 0]

Yeah, I think I've seen that picture before on TankNet. It's the 1PN22M1 sight from an East German BMP-1. It should be pretty much identical to the Russian BMP-1 and BMD-1 sights, but the BMP-2 has the BPK-2-42 day/night sight (which possibly includes the 1PN22M2?) and 9Sh119M1 ATGM sight. The manufacturer's page describes the BPK-2, but doesn't include a reticle picture. I think the night channel is pretty much identical to the TPN-3, but I'm not sure of that. (I can't for the life of me figure out why the reticle is off-center in the 1K13 picture, though...and what the heck does "Target identification distance: Non-Standard" mean?)

Back to the rockets, it comes back to Magnus effect and gyroscopic procession. Its not so much that it will move more rapidly into a favorable wind, but that it will get a vertical force as well. If fired North and spinning clockwise, a Westerly wind will deflect a rocket more than an Easterly wind because the Westerly will cause it to fly further. Something like that, anyway.

The effect is mostly negligible, but it's there. I was more or less just making a point. Rockets do not fly straight, ever.

[manzilla 1]

and what the heck does "Target identification distance: Non-Standard" mean?)

Doesn't it have to do with a way to compensate for certain variables( wind speed/direction, air temperature, etc.), in order to accurately hit the target. It sounds like something used for artillery targeting. Just a guess.

[PTV-Jobo 820]

I'm having the same issue, I'm not getting anything from this mod on my screen. I tested a tank in map editor and I still have the stock stuff going. I moved the extended_init_eventhandlers.pbo in the arma\addons folder, and even tried with it also in the 6thSense mod folder as well (not sure if that'll cause issues or not) and I just cant get this darn thing to work. (using ArmA Launcher as well btw).

[manzilla 1]

I'm having the same issue, I'm not getting anything from this mod on my screen. I tested a tank in map editor and I still have the stock stuff going. I moved the extended_init_eventhandlers.pbo in the arma\addons folder, and even tried with it also in the 6thSense mod folder as well (not sure if that'll cause issues or not) and I just cant get this darn thing to work. (using ArmA Launcher as well btw).

Sorry if this was mentioned a few pages back or so. Have you gone to your AddOns file checked that only these are in them?

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Default_Files#AddOns

Then since you're using the launcher, activate only this mod and/or the modfolder for the required eventhandler .pbo( or just put said files in the modfolder for NWD's .pbos.)

If you do this at least you can be completely positive there isn't another addon/mod conflicting. Something like this happened to me with a different mod and sure enough I found one small addon stashed in the AddOns folder, that I over looked, causing the problem.

I'm not sure if you've tried this yet or if it's been previously mentioned. I'm just too tired to go back and read if this was, sorry. If you haven't tried this, I recommend it. You never know.

[frederf 0]

and what the heck does "Target identification distance: Non-Standard" mean?)

Doesn't it have to do with a way to compensate for certain variables( wind speed/direction, air temperature, etc.), in order to accurately hit the target. It sounds like something used for artillery targeting. Just a guess.

I'm sure modern tanks have IFF or similar equipment that tries to make out if the target is friend or foe.

There's also probably settings for at what range the computer will attempt this identification. In this case it is set for a "Non-standard range"?

[NonWonderDog 0]

No, that's not it at all. There's no IFF.

I'm probably mistranslating it, though. I'll bet it has something to do with ATGMs. The 1K13 is the primary ATGM sight on the T-72B, and it has a maximum laser tracker range of 4-5000m. The BPK-2 is not the ATGM sight for a BMP-2, but maybe there's some kind of option. "Non-Standard" could be "Not Standard."

The T-72 is kicking my head in. There are apparently several very good reasons for the turret being level. I've gotten it to mostly work, but the commander's gun is completely screwed up in external view. I've managed to screw up the shadows on the glacis plate, too, and I don't think O2 has useful enough tools to let me fix it. I'm forced to start over from the BIS model again, because I can't find a "detach face" function.

BIS' T-72 model just looks so wrong, though. I've got to find a way to fix it.

[OKO 0]

Hi NWD and all dudes,

Why did you do this addon ?

Before you released it, me and friends were playing nice games without it, on laaarge scale with 50 vs 50 soldiers (included ~35 to 45 humans), with helo / tank / armored / planes etc ...

look here to see details (in french)

http://www.ofcra.org

mission briefings :

http://www.ofcra.org/forum/index.php?board=4.0

And we were enjoying enought about arma tanks.

But you just broke it ... shame on you !

How could I came back to the usual arcade system, now I tested your addon ? huh ?

And the problem is : your actual work have some problem at MP.

It's simply implayable at this time (i just tested the M1A1) you know about it. And I'm sure you could solve this.

So my simple question is : who do I have to kill to ensure you are going to think about MP very soon ? your girlfriend ? you mother ? your cat ... ?

Seriously, your job is fantastic for fanatics of realism like us.

We already appreciated a LOT your real ballistics from the first release day.

We are playing with realistics ballistics, FDF sounds, smoke beta + our own addon made with specials realistics loadouts for soldiers, on very large map (beetween 1/2 and complete sahrani map).

I think your work is used on the most exiting and realistic theatre you could find in the arma's world at this time, and it deserve it.

So, be a great dude, master NWD, think to solve the MP problems of your tanks_FCS addon asap, we are waiting it VERY impatiently to use it on our big battles !

I'd like to invite you to watch for our battles, once you've finished this job. As special spectator, using "magic" cameras as do the battle referee.

You will see amazing engagments, using your work.

Thanks for the work already done, and for the work coming, really, really appreciated.

[colligpip 0]

I just want to say thanks for this - used to play steel beasts and this has bought it all back - well done.

please

please

dont stop till you find out how to get MP working i beg you.