31st NORMANDY MOD - WW2 Â -BETA RELEASE

[Enigma85 2]

Haha kept that one hidden away :P

flamethrower will be awesome for those pesky bunkers that are guarded but fanatical Germans (or campers XD)

Also will fit right into the pacific side when needed.

would there be any way to have the fuel tank as a vulnerable section of the weapon though?

or do you think this would be a bit out of the way.

I would imagine a stray bullet hitting a tank of flammable liquids could cause some problems for the user.

i guess seeing as the effects are there for flame throwers now it shouldn't be too hard to configure it for flame tanks as well?

Churchill crocodile,American M4A3R3 and the British converted M4 Sherman Crocodile and a like.

good job though,

that's definitely not going to be a fun thing to run into at close quarters

[Aqu 0]

Looks like cat got out of the bag  

Don't get too excited, it is still heavily WIP. It was originally just kind of prototype or proof of concept. As you can see no textures or the gas bottles yet.

It has a pile of technical problems still (game technical that is). One of them is what to define the bottles to be. If you make them part of the flamegun, then they move same way as you move the gun (not good). If it is part of the soldier model, then how could you drop them and pick them up (to be used by any solider class). Also making it MP compatible is bit tricky (in a nice way, without messing very much around). At the moment I'm thinking making the bottles same way as the RPG (even they are not weapons).

As you mentioned the Pacific...I actually got the idea when I watched some USMC footage of taking Iwo Jima. I thought we got to have one of those in ArmA (not the island, but the flamethrower...well the island would be nice too ).

About flame tanks. The file comes with the backpack flame thrower plus the vehicle mounted one which has a bit more range and bigger tank. USMC used couple of Sherman types with a flamethrower, but no idea if they were used elsewhere.

The vid doesn't give a full idea what it can do already. The gas is sticky (like IRL it was thickened gasoline) so it gets stuck to walls or trees. It also stays burning on surfaces for some time like shown in the vid. Night time the flames light up the surroundings. Even if the burst doesn't hit you directly you can get burns from splashes.

[Enigma85 2]

Sounds good on the way it clings to all the surfaces it touches as IRL.

i guess the same sort of "stickiness" could be used in napalm in game.although the splash and splatter would have to be random.

As i recall some fighter bomber pilots started to drop napalm on the heavier German tanks in normandy due to there armor being too thick to penetrate.

The napalm would essentially cook the crew alive.

Not a nice way to go,To say the least

From what i know on the flame tanks the British converted M4 Sherman Crocodile and the Churchill Crocodile saw action in Normandy to clear out stubborn positions

[toadball 35]

Just a thought of the top of my head, iirc when your making a weapon there are the selections that define the weapon and one for the muzzle flash effect as such, if you excluded the models of the tanks from these selections would they not be independent of the weapons movement?

Just a thought, not familiar with how ArmA's selections work in comparison to OFP at present so you'll have to excuse me if it's blatant stupidity

looking good though.

[Aqu 0]

Just a thought of the top of my head, iirc when your making a weapon there are the selections that define the weapon and one for the muzzle flash effect as such, if you excluded the models of the tanks from these selections would they not be independent of the weapons movement?

Just a thought, not familiar with how ArmA's selections work in comparison to OFP at present so you'll have to excuse me if it's blatant stupidity  

looking good though.

Mmmm... The model is quite simple. At the moment it has no animations (or bones). I have no named selections which I would have used in the config to somehow define the gun part which moves with the hands (there is a named selection for a muzzle flash, but no other special afaik). Not made guns before so I have no indepth knowledge of making them. If there is a way to define part of the model as 'immune' to hand movements I would like to know. I guess there are no other hand held weapons with such a requirement, so no big surprise if there isn't a way to do it in a single model.

[toadball 35]

My knowledge is a tad out dated as I learnt my weapons config stuff from this tutorial however IIRC the same principles apply, if you read through that tutorial (mainly the later sections regarding selections within O2/p3d models) then read my post I think what I posted may be a little clearer and possibly/hopefully offer a solution to you.

I'm actually hoping a more experience modder can come along and refute or confirm what I'm saying as I'm not entirely sure myself hehe

[Basstoass 0]

Hi, just a question: can we expect so see the the enemy running around and burning. Im thinking of the effect from OFP ECP when you shoot a vehicle and the crew sometimes were burning. Nice feature to have this roll animation in ARMA now, so you can make them first run around a bit and then let them roll on the ground to turn the flames out (what would not happen;) )

[Enigma85 2]

ECS in ArmA has Burning crew members as well.

they basically run around without weapons on fire until they fall down dead.

i'm sure making the victim drop weapons and run would be a pretty good way of doing it at the minute.

but not for ridiculously long periods of time.

[Aqu 0]

Heh. I was thinking about bit that kind of anims. Not running around but screaming and 'dancing' in flames before collapsing.  

Not sure if there are already suitable anims for all that. No idea how to make own anims.

I added yesterday a feature that small flames stay on corpses bit longer and small trails of smoke and puffs come out.

My knowledge is a tad out dated as I learnt my weapons config stuff from this tutorial however IIRC the same principles apply, if you read through that tutorial (mainly the later sections regarding selections within O2/p3d models) then read my post I think what I posted may be a little clearer and possibly/hopefully offer a solution to you.

I remember looking at that, but I decided to name the selections like in the BIS mlods. I used iirc M4 or AK-74 as an example. There are some differences to the manual you mentioned. For example Arma weapons do not seem to have "zbran" ("weapon") in the memory lod. In the resolution lods they have used only "magazine" and "zasleh" (muzzle flash).

Of course I could experiment with "zbran" and other OFP style

[fritz160 wolf 0]

hey i found a problem with the gliders they freeze the game if ya try putting them in the air in editor

[Enigma85 2]

There fine for me I'm afraid,

are you all patched up to the latest patch/fix?

It might have had some problems with the downloading or extracting process.

I'd suggest you re-download it and see if this fixes the problem.

i have no problem starting the horsa in flight with troops in cargo

or on it's own.

[fritz160 wolf 0]

i do got all the patches . and i got it all from armaholic. maybe they got a bad file.

[Enigma85 2]

I downloaded mine from Armaholic.

it all works.

I'm a bit confused on this one.

all i can suggest is re-download re-patch and see if it still occurs.

[rip31st 98]

UPDATE:

Worked on the map a bit tonight. It's coming together nicely. Still lots to do. We estimate there will be close to 250 towns on the map when we are done with it. IT should make a great map for all sorts of gameplay. From single player to multiplayer missions. The towns are relatively close together now and we are elimination most open areas.

[ck-claw 1]

Thats excellent news with the map Rip!

[Aqu 0]

Great to hear  

It is really needed especially in veteran level when you don't have icon for your position on the map. Without landmarks you could be in Sahara as well.

Any flamethrower experts here? How deadly one burst (about as long as one burst from M4) should be compared to e.g 105mm howitzer round, hand granade etc?

[Enigma85 2]

well from what i know and have looked up in books.

the M2A1 flamethrower gave roughly 8-9 seconds of burn.

it's effective range was 22.9-35 meters

max range under good conditions was 36.5 meters

as for the damage is obviously a different type of damage then grenades and bullets.

there is no explosive shock wave,shrapnel or projectile to cause internal injury.

the flamethrower was a pure system shock weapon.

death isn't instantaneous and the wounds are all exterior.

leaving the victim in agony until the body goes into shock and shuts down.

I would use it as a one shot one kill weapon in the effective range area.

if you get doused in the fuel you are pretty much guaranteed to be killed or at least mortally wounded.

on another topic about the flamethrower.

how are you going to work the shots?

I would simply have it as a set burst mode.

0.5 second giving you 16-18 bursts

and 1.0 second burst giving you 8-9 extended bursts

this way your not going to get flamethrower operators burning the whole tank in one extended shot.

Hope this helps you a bit

[Aqu 0]

Thanks for your comments. I had managed to dig up the 8-9sec tank and range info. It is modelled by M2-2 flametrower, but the specs seemed to have been pretty much same still in Vietnam.

The weapon is currently fully automatic, but has not so good accuracy and it is slower to move than rifles.

I understand the principe how it works and also somewhat what kind of special effects it can have (like consumes oxygen making crew either bailout (and usually roast) or suffocate to death (and roast).

What is bit unkown to me what sort structural damage it causes to buildings and armoured vehicles. If you keep flaming a tank, how soon it should blow up? Also should bunkers suffer structural damage? Somehow I feel you have to flame a concrete bunker quite long before it is reduced to rubble.

Currently a direct hit of one burst causes around 75hp which is comparative to 30mm AP round in BMP-2 or about 4 handgranades. Indirect effect is not big and the range is only 3-4m, but objects very close nearby can get splashes and start burning from it. If an object starts to burn it suffers constantly some damage until it gets destroyed or the fire burns out. Currently all soft targets (men and unarmoured vehciles) get destroyed from one direct hit or very soon if caught fire from a nearby hit. Armoured targets (tryed T-72,BMP, BRDM) are destroyed soon after starting to burn if not directly. Buildings require more bursts if want to destroy directly and might get destroyed after starting to burn after one shot. Sometimes (maybe 50%) the fire burns out before the building collapses

[Enigma85 2]

attacks on tanks didn't so much make is explode.

a hit on the engine compartment could cause complete immobilization due to the burning fuel melting wiring.

much like the Molotov cocktail did on the eastern front.

I would think catastrophic explosion would take a long while for the fuel to reach flash point.

Bunkers wouldn't break down so much as they were reinforced concrete and could withstand a considerable amount of damage.

Heat doesn't have a huge effect on concrete at temperatures below 300 degrees,is there any information relating to the temperature at which the concoction burnt?

It's use on bunkers was basically to render it unusable by the soldiers using it by making it in to a concrete oven.

the damage seems high at the minute.

when the tank is covered in it then yes i would imagine crew at least would die quickly from oxygen deprivation and heat exposure.

Maybe decrease the initial hit and constant damage slightly.

a hit on a man perhaps the initial hit followed then by a second or two burning before death.

this would also make the victim burn whilst stood up/running for a second or two before dying in game.

[rip31st 98]

crispy critters?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

For several reasons flamethrowers were quite ineffective

against AFVs. If the crew remained buttoned up then they

were reasonably safe as it was next to impossible to direct

fuel into the vision slits. The "consume all the oxygen" thing is

a myth. As mentioned above, a hit on the engine deck could

immobilise it by damaging wiring, but that was a difficult shot

unless firing from an elevated position.

In reducing bunkers they worked by physically burning (or by

destroying the morale of) the occupants, not by asphyxiation.

Flamethrowers were also ineffective against bunkers unless

the fuel could be directed right into the slits. This is why

tactics prescribed covered approaches to enfilade positions

for the operators and a cover fire plan with close support by

other infantry. The more flame units the better, but that in

turn raised problems of control and coordination.

Slit trenches and fighting positions similarly had to be enfiladed and

attacked at touching range, and often several  "wet-shots"

(squirting unignited fuel) had to be used first.

It was acknowledged that the morale effect of flamethrowers

was much more important than their actual physical effects.

They were very effective against buildings, however; the

structures usually being set ablaze and gutted very quickly.

Flamethrowing tanks made more impression upon the enemy

than manpack units did.

One last thing. Despite what you see in comics and movies;

manpack flamethrower tanks didn't explode in a huge fireball

if hit (the only probable exception is a hit from an Incendiary

or AP-Incendiary round). The tanks contained inert propellant

gas and a fuel which was relatively hard to ignite.

Flamethrower igniters were very heavy-duty for that reason.

Training manuals were at pains to emphasise this to the

trainees.

[rip31st 98]

Flame throwers are awesome! I think that's all that matters!

[Enigma85 2]

^ ^ ^

Agreed!

anything that shoots flame across the battlefield is badass XD.

[Aqu 0]

^ ^ ^

Agreed!

anything that shoots flame across the battlefield is badass XD.

It will be then only 40m battlefield  

The info if a building is a normal house or a bunker is quite impossible to test, unless you put all the bunkers under one base class. That would be best working solution. Another one which might work (not tested) is to put a value into the config file (CfgVehicles). E.g. "hardness=1.0". If there is no such value or if it is 0 it is considered flammable (can catch fire) and 1 is impossible to burn with flamethrower. Value 0.5 is something between.

Looks like the it needs some more scripting. If the damage caused depends only on the script you do not get kill scores.

[Enigma85 2]

^ ^ ^

Agreed!

anything that shoots flame across the battlefield is badass XD.

It will be then only 40m battlefield  

well i didn't mean the whole battlefield

i think that flamethrower attacks on tanks we're rare at best.

it was predominantly an anti infantry weapon so i would configure it for this use.

give it a initial damage of a large enough amount to cause a near fatal amount of damage to infantry.

then set the longer period burn damage to kill them a second after being ignited.

it's mainly going to be a Player weapon i'd imagine?

i don't think AI will handle it very well.