A.C.E. Advanced Combat Environment - Public Beta *2*!

[dmarkwick 261]

Yep, I have a "@Maps2" folder for all ArmA2 maps. @Maps1 is for ArmA1 maps (CAA1).

I also have:

@Vehicles

@Units

@Weapons

etc :)

[Banderas 0]

...Its more difficult to find reports of RPG7 survivability of T72s.

I think accounts on the recent Russian-Georgian conflict could be a good source, or even experiences from the two Chechen wars.

I've read that in the first Chechen war at the battle of Grozny, Russians sent armor into the city without proper infantry support, and the Chechens were able to immobilize/heavily damage T-72s with several RPGs fired simultaneously from "high ground". On which version of PG rockets were, I don't know.

[scubaman3D 0]

@jasonnoguchi

One thing you can try is shooting the top of the tank and see if this makes a difference.

I will say that once you start talking about the bigger systems (Javelin, RPG29, etc) - nothing is really safe from them - not even the mighty T90 (which is said to be a super-upgraded T72 rated lower RHA than M1).

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

The sad truth is that --- in the ninety-year-old contest between tank and anti-tank --- armour-piercing technology is currently ahead of armour technology.

Edited January 26, 2010 by scubaman3D

[jasonnoguchi 11]

@scubaman, yes indeed, no tanks should be safe from a good top down attack from any missile systems and so far, ACE system is faithful to that. :)

I do noticed after a couple of hours of heavy armor vs AT testing that the turrets do tend to get more of the damage even when hits visually explode along the hull. I aimed a couple of HEDP at the hull of a TUSK at about 50m range, hopped onto the TUSK and saw the turret turn red. Body was ok. One thing I liked was the fact that one hit to the engine of the TUSK from behind set the engine burning! That is VERY cool indeed! I also noticed that if you leave it burning for long enough... maybe about 10 mins, the tank eventually explodes... is that a feature? cos its very cool as well!

Oh yes, how should we handle 3rd party armor? do we put their classnames in the config somewhere?

Edited January 26, 2010 by jasonnoguchi

[Banderas 0]

Returning to the Armor system...is that possible to make a replacement config for 3rd party armored vehicles, so they get ACE penetration values/armor ratings, and I don't have to change the original config?

Edit: did anyone tried the difference between the M829 SABOT and the 3BK29 HEAT-FS-T ? Seems that the latter is superior against heavy armor, at least it destroys a T-72A with less rounds

Edited January 26, 2010 by Banderas

[king homer 1]

Edit: did anyone tried the difference between the M829 SABOT and the 3BK29 HEAT-FS-T ? Seems that the latter is superior against heavy armor, at least it destroys a T-72A with less rounds

The M829A3 is as stated a very deadly shell, how deadly we just can guess and estimate from values we get on the internet. Same goes for the modernized 3BK29M HEAT shell fired from T-90.

And again, it's not about complete destruction of any armored vehicle ingame - you have to get rid of the old way of thinking. Every well placed HEAT or APFSDS shell can disable a tank and make it useless. You don't have to waist your ammo anymore.

I do noticed after a couple of hours of heavy armor vs AT testing that the turrets do tend to get more of the damage even when hits visually explode along the hull. I aimed a couple of HEDP at the hull of a TUSK at about 50m range, hopped onto the TUSK and saw the turret turn red. Body was ok. One thing I liked was the fact that one hit to the engine of the TUSK from behind set the engine burning! That is VERY cool indeed! I also noticed that if you leave it burning for long enough... maybe about 10 mins, the tank eventually explodes... is that a feature? cos its very cool as well!

The armor system is dependent on the models hit selections. For many vehicles they're not accurately placed or at least do not work as they should. This leads to the major problem you and me encounter: You definitely hit the side hull (cover of tracks) but turret is damaged. Somehow the hit selections seems to be overlapping.

But you're correct about vehicles may explode when engine is on fire. There is a lower or higher probability, depending on the vehicle, the engine fire will set off a fuel explosion and destroy the complete vehicle.

Edited January 26, 2010 by King Homer

[manzilla 1]

The M829A3 is as stated a very deadly shell, how deadly we just can guess and estimate from values we get on the internet. Same goes for the modernized 3BK29M HEAT shell fired from T-90.

And again, it's not about complete destruction of any armored vehicle ingame - you have to get rid of the old way of thinking. Every well placed HEAT or APFSDS shell can disable a tank and make it useless. You don't have to waist your ammo anymore.

The armor system is dependent on the models hit selections. For many vehicles they're not accurately placed or at least do not work as they should. This leads to the major problem you and me encounter: You definitely hit the side hull (cover of tracks) but turret is damaged. Somehow the hit selections seems to be overlapping.

But you're correct about vehicles may explode when engine is on fire. There is a lower or higher probability, depending on the vehicle, the engine fire will set off a fuel explosion and destroy the complete vehicle.

There in lies the beauty of this new system. How the hell you guys worked it out is a mystery to me. I'm just amazed you got it to work.

Beautiful!

---------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

I have an odd issue. None of the laser range finders work.

I have a battrie I look into them and "re-load" "Fire" nothing happens ideas?

Make sure the .hpps in the userconfig\ACE folder are current.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Make sure the .hpps in the userconfig\ACE folder are current.

Good thing is the latest updates actually reminds you when the userconfig isn't updated. GOOD WORK! :)

By the way, I had hellavu time playing against tanks today and it felt so much more realistic! I had to do more thinking as an infantry on how and where to hit the tank in order to complete my objective of disabling it. For the first time, tanks feel threatening to me! hahahaha

[boevik 0]

Are you saying get rid of command view and 3rd person? No way. There's still some SP players around plus those view have tremendous use for ordering around troops.

Or are you talking about being able to move the head while driving? That's free look and can be done.

Not sure what you are really asking though. My apologies.

Rid of command view and 3rd person, these options should be disabled by default in ACE, as they lack realism.

I told you about the view when you click "Num0", the left and right buttons could be done to switch between the embrasures.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Personally, I would say keep the 3rd person view and tactical view. They compensate for the lack of situation awareness and perception of a gaming environment.

Well, this discussion is as pointless as the crosshair discussion (which I am for having off).

Edited January 26, 2010 by jasonnoguchi

[boevik 0]

I do not want to argue, it will drag on for many posts. Personally, I have enough buttons "Alt" for situation awareness and perception of a gaming environment.

In any case, the proposal would not prevent me functions available and diversify the game.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Those views can be easily disabled in your game config right now.

[Banderas 0]

The M829A3 is as stated a very deadly shell, how deadly we just can guess and estimate from values we get on the internet. Same goes for the modernized 3BK29M HEAT shell fired from T-90.

And again, it's not about complete destruction of any armored vehicle ingame - you have to get rid of the old way of thinking. Every well placed HEAT or APFSDS shell can disable a tank and make it useless. You don't have to waist your ammo anymore.

Of course I'm thinking out-of the old hitpoint system, the case is that with the M829 SABOT I usually get the crew of a T72A killed with the first or second shot, and the tank itself gets damage to a certain degree (rarely it stays functionable, and another crew can take the past ones place), and with a 3BK29 HEAT (from another T-72) in most cases blows up the T-72A with the very first shot (sometimes even from the front- lucky shot) so that gave me the impression that it is more devastating than the M829.

[king homer 1]

Of course I'm thinking out-of the old hitpoint system, the case is that with the M829 SABOT I usually get the crew of a T72A killed with the first or second shot, and the tank itself gets damage to a certain degree (rarely it stays functionable, and another crew can take the past ones place), and with a 3BK29 HEAT (from another T-72) in most cases blows up the T-72A with the very first shot (sometimes even from the front- lucky shot) so that gave me the impression that it is more devastating than the M829.

Okay I get your point. I got a bit confused because you're using "M829" but meaning the M829A3.

[manzilla 1]

Personally, I would say keep the 3rd person view and tactical view. They compensate for the lack of situation awareness and perception of a gaming environment.

Well, this discussion is as pointless as the crosshair discussion (which I am for having off).

They better. That's one of the nice things about OFP/A1/A2, they aren't FPS's. Removing these views would turn this game into that. It can be turned off in the options anyways. If someone doesn't like it, then don't use it. It's that simple. I have no doubt the ACE2 devs would never take away the 3rd person and command views. That would be foolish.

[maturin 12]

I just shot a lot of javelins at M1s from long range.

Shooting a javelin head-on has a tendency to do nothing, but killing some of the crew or firepower kills are common.

Shooting the rear reliably takes out the engine and sometimes the turret, but I never harmed the crew. Thing is, I can achieve these results with a well-placed RPG, against a T-90 at least.

The side hit is more effective than the other two, usually killing crew and putting most components in the red. It seems better than a rear armor shot, actually.

We really need a top-down attack option, as that would be a guaranteed kill, I think. Right now, turning into a javelin can make it bounce off.

I also like how many GAU-8 rounds it takes to disable a tank. The BTR-90 survived two (inept AI) passes, though. Shots penetrated, disabled the turret and killed some crew, but I would have expected more damage.

[Sneaker-78- 0]

I just shot a lot of javelins at M1s from long range.

Shooting a javelin head-on has a tendency to do nothing, but killing some of the crew or firepower kills are common.

Shooting the rear reliably takes out the engine and sometimes the turret, but I never harmed the crew. Thing is, I can achieve these results with a well-placed RPG, against a T-90 at least.

The side hit is more effective than the other two, usually killing crew and putting most components in the red. It seems better than a rear armor shot, actually.

We really need a top-down attack option, as that would be a guaranteed kill, I think. Right now, turning into a javelin can make it bounce off.

I also like how many GAU-8 rounds it takes to disable a tank. The BTR-90 survived two (inept AI) passes, though. Shots penetrated, disabled the turret and killed some crew, but I would have expected more damage.

Use this mod http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=89912

And you get an top down attack with the javalin

[Q1184 0]

Javelins are always considered top-attack by the script. It's the part that gets hit that makes the difference.

[Alex72 1]

I noticed something else with tanks in the new version. Only some ammo makes the tanks wobble when shooting the main gun. Is that how its supposed to be? They dont move an inch - not even a mm. I liked the ARMA2 vehicle wobble when firing big guns. :)

On the M1A1 i think the HEAT round is the one making it wobble but not the AP round. The T90 or T72 didnt wobble no matter what ammo i think.

[manzilla 1]

I just shot a lot of javelins at M1s from long range.

Shooting a javelin head-on has a tendency to do nothing, but killing some of the crew or firepower kills are common.

Shooting the rear reliably takes out the engine and sometimes the turret, but I never harmed the crew. Thing is, I can achieve these results with a well-placed RPG, against a T-90 at least.

The side hit is more effective than the other two, usually killing crew and putting most components in the red. It seems better than a rear armor shot, actually.

We really need a top-down attack option, as that would be a guaranteed kill, I think. Right now, turning into a javelin can make it bounce off.

I also like how many GAU-8 rounds it takes to disable a tank. The BTR-90 survived two (inept AI) passes, though. Shots penetrated, disabled the turret and killed some crew, but I would have expected more damage.

You don't even need the Mando AddOn do you? I use the Javelin and it let's me select attack style with out MMA active. You can select different modes.

[Angle 10]

Is it just me who gets freezes that last several seconds or more but when they go away everything is fine until it happens again? It has been plaguing me since mondays update.

[maturin 12]

You don't even need the Mando AddOn do you? I use the Javelin and it let's me select attack style with out MMA active. You can select different modes.

Eh? What button?

[Banderas 0]

I also like how many GAU-8 rounds it takes to disable a tank. The BTR-90 survived two (inept AI) passes, though. Shots penetrated, disabled the turret and killed some crew, but I would have expected more damage.

So shall we prepare the ticket on dev-heaven for a more powerful GAU-8/A?

[maturin 12]

So shall we prepare the ticket on dev-heaven for a more powerful GAU-8/A?

It would be nice if it blew apart APCs, but the tank damage seemed fair.

Edit: On further tests, 210 GAU-8 rounds to the front to the front of a T-72 killed everyone inside but did not component damage. It probably took less hits than that because the casualty reports were delayed. It's hard to test because parking a tank in front of an A-10 and then shooting sprays shrapnel into your windshield. I couldn't damage the tank even when shooting at the rear hull, but shots at the turret consistently hit the crew.

Edited January 26, 2010 by maturin

[Daniel 0]

Just loaded up a mission after updating to find all the ammocrates and the UH-60 have gone. Any official word on this?

EDIT: Fixed the UH-60 cfg change, still clueless on the invisible ammo crates on our server.

Disregard.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Daniel