ntstlkr

Cheers All, I think it has been mentioned before, but yeah an ability to replicate a Tank Thermal Sight (TTS) would be outstanding !!! While it didn't equip the '48s and early model '60s during the Vietnam War (that would have had an effect!!) the M-60A3 and late model M-48A5 did get it I believe. Anyways, I figured they didn't do this for balancing play between East and West armor. Heh heh, an AN/PVS-2? That goes back aways! Had one in storage in our unit arms room that I dicked around with a little. Noone could ever find the batteries for it though (BA-3s? or 6s?). But the active IR is pretty important for the era though since we progressed so far beyound it since. Active IR will also be of interest to the WWII folks out there (the Vampire sight system, etc). NSDQ!!

Cheers All, Yeah, the scripting for wounds to individual body parts. Probably a limit to that since most games go with the general one wound is as good as another, although IGI2 makes a differentiation for head shots. Here's one for you I haven't seen before but came to me playing AA the other night. Climbable trees. Not all of them but some might be made climbable. Tons of possibilities for the sniper crowd <EG>. Also, probably more along the lines of scripting than in-game physics, is being able to adjust threat priorities against specific threat types as opposed to just general catagories (i.e. air, ground, etc.). A F4G Wild Weasal would target AAA and SAM, leaving the rest alone unless he was carrying other ordnance (like some snakes). Even true direct fire modeling, since the indirect fire has been addressed ad naseum, would be nice. A 105mm main gun on a M60A3 had a workable range (depending on target type) of 1500-2500 m. Since the game is era specific, lets say the 106mm recoiless (jeep and Ontos mounted) could range out to 1500 m+ target dependent. O'course that'll be more of a function of setting the viewdistance incorporated into the game graphics abilities and CPU ability. Speaking of trees, curious to see the implementation of triple canopy jungle. NSDQ!!

Cheers Gents, 101st? I was assigned to the 2-17th Cav, 101st ABN (AASLT) from early '93 to the end of '94. We had a bunch of the old "chicken plate" ceramic armor in storage for the pilots. Was in a kinda back/front with a wrap around velcroized strap that went around the torso. Man that crap was heavy!!! Your Dad musta had a helluva time humpin that shit around. Give me my Kevlar anyday!!!

Cheers All, </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.<span id='postcolor'> Having had to wear/carry one for 12 years, you can say I am quite aware of a flak jacket/kevlar vest's limitations. That said, note that I didn't specifically say that they should make you impervious or invulnerable to small arms fire. That wasn't even their purpose. Protection against shell splinters and fragments/shrapnel. Even then, they never specify making the wearer impervious to those effects, only that they increase the level of protection. Countless studies concerning (in those previous circumstances) causes of battlefield casualties made creating the "armored vest" a prudent investment. Battle in close quarter & urban environments such as Hue, exemplify the utility of the FJ. Notice in historical documentation, the more US Marines wore it than otherwise when given a chance (and the operational circumstance dictated. Obviously it would be ill-suited for troops conducting a recon patrol). That said, again, the ballistic protection afforded by a vest/jacket is determined by more than just the material it is made from. Weave of the cloth and layering is configured for what the vest/jacket is intended for. The old FJ/KV were configured for low velocity framentation as opposed to high velocity pentrators (bullets). (Then) A good bullet proof vest made a poor flak jacket, and the same the other way around. However, as stated on the V/J, and in the accompanying manual, while not designed primarily for protection against small arms ammunition, the FJ/KV does increase the overall level of protection to the soldier and may afford enough of a ballistic barrier to mitigate SOME small arms fire. A man with a FJ/KV is better off than one without. It hasn't been until very recently that the level of protection has been increased to include small arms fire. Obviously improvements in manufacturing and in some of the material used can be attributed this. Improvements in material configuration also played an important part. The vests today are still made of kevlar (spectra in limited numbers), but woven and layering has been improved. I noticed also that there has been some disparagement of the helmet to provide protection. In reality, much like the FJ/KV, the helmet wasn't designed so much to stop small arms fire but to provide protection against shell fragmentation. The old "steel pot" couldn't stop much of anything beyond a .22 cal peashooter. However, the "K Pot" has been proven to provide protection against small arms ammunition up to 7.62 mm at medium range (at least). This was demonstrated not only by the countless trials it was subjected to but an example given in the US "Urgent Fury" operation in Grenada. A trooper from the 82nd Airborne Div was shot in the head (200-250 m distance I think?) with an AK-47. The round didn't penetrate, but was stuck in the kevlar. The shot was made dead on too, almost no angle of deflection. The troop got off with nothing worse then a ringing headache and sore melon from the blow of the impact of the round. When I was with 1st bde, 3rd Ar Div, our S-3 went out to the qual range to test the helmet for himself. We all watched as he 6 rounds from an M16A1 into it from 100 m, then a clip from a .45 cal at 20 m. No penetration (though it was worthless by then). The "K Pot" (also used to be known as the "Fritz") is probably the first military issue helmet to be proof against small arms. Of course, some improvements in material have been made over the years, but suprisingly few. Spectra can't be used (as of yet) for it's unfortunate property of delaminating over time and use. Of course, nothing yet protects against a face shot. So where does that bring us? Besides the end of an atrociously long rant? Just that if you've been one, then you wear it like everyone else if given a choice. A soldier in OFP, wearing body armor should have increased protection (armor level) than one who doesn't. Doesn't make him impervious, just lessons the effects of a grenade going off nearby say. The guys not wearing vest gets killed, but the guys wearing survive (wounded maybe, but alive and pulling triggers). NSDQ!!

...and another thing.. Of the games I'ved played I would rate America's Army the best for modeling realistic body movement (ability, stance, effects on movement from exsertion). Being able to "carry" objects in a rucksack (extra ammunition, etc). The water thing would be nice (since so many games out there now include that; e.g. DFBHD, IGI2, VN:LOS, etc). Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN). Language translators with military background to edit/review dialogue (if you're gonna play an American soldier, talk like one). Differing quality of night vision equipment (i.e. a AN/PVS-4 is not the same as a later model PVS-7, and generally speaking, compared to Western equivalents, Eastbloc NV equipment stank). Thermal observation equipment mode. The biggest difference between West and Eastbloc armor (in reality) lay not just in armor value but targeting aquisition and fire control. The West had moved to thermal viewers more than a decade before the East even began experimenting with it. They are still woefully behind today. The East didn't lack for using passive NV for target aquisition, but it runs a very distant 2nd place when compared to what thermal viewers can do. I realise, though for reasons of balanced play, they may have purposely left this off. Oh, and how about true "indirect" fire ability. A 155mm HE/DPICM, when fired at a target 25 K's away should be hit by that 155mm. Speaking of DP/ICM, assigning the "ammunition", like the DP/ICM round, CBU's, ALCM, etc, the ability to "carry" submunitions. More to come I'm sure... NSDQ!!

Cheers All, Speaking of physics and inertia, how about the ability to move within a moving vehicle? No more cargo positions. Being able to carry a vehicle in a C-130, and not have the thing sit there when the aircraft moves (same for all the ships like the aircraft carriers being worked on.) This would also allow you to drop ramp and walk off the back end for a true HALO jump. Thinking of that, how about increasing the allowable heighth/altitude limit. We have tons of high quality aircraft (ironic for a ground action based game) restricted to flying in the same altitude level. NSDQ!!

Cheers All, Just wondering if there was a way for mission makers to create their own flash intro. I know you can all up the BIS (and I think CM) flash files as a cam resource so the thought occurred that there might be a way to make a personalized one. Do they use the macromedia flash format, and how do you package it as an addon (prob the same as any other). Looked for this in the forums but no go. So if anyone has any info or thoughts on this I'd appreciate it.

Cheers again, Does anyone know how the NVG effect was created and ids there a way to modify it? I've put a few rounds downrange on an M1 during nightfire and have run a Tank nightfire qual table and have sorely missed the lack of a TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) on the US vehicles (which gave us such a marked advantage over the Iraqi's during DS/DS). Putting on your NVGs then operating your vehicle doesn't cut it compared to the real thing. Thermals tend to be black and white view projection, not green hued like image intensifiers. Is there anyway to re-create this effect? Or (and I know this is asking alot) how about multi-hued color thermal imagery? Oh well, just a thought. Thanks.