archbishop lazarus

Yes, there were problems with it, for example in the T-64, and early T-64A tanks, but it wasnt that bad at all. The T-64 and T-80 type loaders were fast, the one in T-72 was slower. It didnt affect the accuracy, the problem was the stabilization system. Its effectiveness was similar to the western stabilizators of the '70s, so precise fire was possible only up to max. 25-30 km/h. 2K11 Krug, 2K12 Kub, 9K33 Osa, 9K31 Strela-1, ZSU-23-4 Shilka... etc. Although the attack helicopters and A10s would have been surely effective, but not without huge losses. I've never heard that someone called the 105mm bad. Its new to me. :eek: The L7/M68 was the best tank weapon of the '50s and '60s. It was great against the T-54,55,62. But, it became quite ineffective with the appearance of the T-64. The T-72*, and the uparmored T-55M and T-62M tanks were also too much for this gun, this led to the development of the 120mm. (*It is a common belief in the west that the israeli 105mm M111 round was so effective against it. In fact, the Merkava NEVER met the T-72 in combat. The T-72s were destroyed by TOW missiles.) Back to the topic, in my opinion, eastern tanks should be more vulnerable (except their engines), but only if the projectile penetrates their armor. Of course this requires an armor/penetration simulating script package. Even if its so simple as the system in Blitzkrieg/The day after, this is a must have. Currently, without such armor system, it is pointless to talk about the vulnerability of eastern/western tanks. The BIS hitpoint system is terrible, the worst of any game where you can drive a tank.

Desert Storm proved nothing. Except the total lack of training on the Iraqi side. They were fanatical zealots, but terrible soldiers. I dare to say that with my 10-15 hours on T-55, Im a better tank driver than any iraqi driver in 1991. If you say that T-72, you have to be a bit more specific. Iraq used T-72, (original & Asad Babil) T-72M and T-72M1 tanks. Many of the M and M1 variants were Polish built export ones, which were significantly worse quality than Czechslovak or Soviet built tanks. Another problem was ammo. Iraq used the very primitive 3VBM3 rounds (3BM9 pojectile) with maraging steel penetrator. This was unable to penetrate the side turret of the Abrams. (but if the itiots aimed at the hull, the Abrams is gone!) It was only a training round in the Soviet Union. In contrast, the late T-72B (often incorrectly called BM), with properly trained crew, would have been a very tough opponent. With the latest ammunition (3BM46, 1991) it was capable of destroying an M1A1HA @ 2000m, while its frontal armor was virtually impenetrable. Along with the T-90, of course its a cannon fodder for an M1A2, but in 1991, the T-72B was a very very good tank, equal, or better than the M1A1HA.

You dont really hide your hatred against russians. Are you racist or what?!

No wonder. Iraq used only the 3VBM-3 round (3BM-9 projectile, with maraging steel penetrator), which was used only for training in the SU. This was the same which couldnt penetrate the side of the Abrams. A 3BM-22 (1976) could have been penetrated the Chieftain with ease.

Well, you are right if we shoot a lightly armored vehicle, like a BMP, or a BTR. But if we shoot a tank, it isnt really true. You have to take the thickness into account. For example, take a 10mm steel plate, and hit it hard with a hammer. It will be a quite loud bang. Next, take a 80mm plate. (the side of most soviet tanks) It will be much less louder, and maybe the hammer's handle will break off. I dont think that the MG shots would annoy the crew. And if you hit the glacis plate, which is usually quite sloped, the bullets will simply ricochet. I also written earlier that in a tank, not only the engine which makes loud noises. Coax MG, main gun, the servos of the stabilizer, cooling systems, etc. Another problem, that a tank isnt a good resonance chamber: Spall liners, antiradiation liners, and hundreds of various parts, all will reduce the acoustic waves.

DM! I dont want to insult you, but have you ever seen a real tank? :confused: Anyway, I read not so long ago, that the brits had problems with spare periscopes on some of their vehicles I dont remember which one though.

OK, that 2km range was exaggerated, but the AI shoots very well, you cant deny that. :) Anyway, on soviet built tanks, its extremely hard to hit the optics, so you have very-very low chance of damaging them. Of course you can hit the periscopes, but the crew will replace them in less than 30 seconds. (unlike lots of western vehicles :) ) Trust me. I have driven a few types (T-55, MTLBu, Shilka, BMP-1) and they are so loud inside, even at idle, that its IMPOSSIBLE to communicate without the helmets. I have such experience. So no way that the MG sound is annoying. Concerning splash damage: HEAT rounds doesnt have. But, larger HE shells, for example a 152mm one can easily destroy (not damage!) the optics and some external components.

It would make this game unplayable: 1, Vehicles are spotted by AI kilometres away. 2, AI is sniper The result? Two soldiers kill your tank from 2km, and you dont even have a chance to spot them. But is this tactic useful in RL? I dont have experiences concerning western tanks, but I know soviet ones very well. I dont think that the MG sound is audible in a tank, because the engine sound is extremely loud, and of course there are other sources of loud noises inside. The optics are bulletproof. You cant crack them wiht small arms. You need at least a 12.7mm MG.

Tracks shouldnt spin faster than you move, at least offroad. It would require inordinate amounts of torque to do this. Tracked vehicle turning is extremely unrealistic in this game, especially if you push the forward key (W), then you release it, and try to turn. You will spin like a Bobcat. In RL, its impossible, because: 1, the steering system doesnt permit it, even hydrostatic ones, 2, even if you could do it, it would result in a thrown track.

Dont use stupid western codenames. They are only good for confusing things. The Maljutka missile has many modifications, dont confuse the old 9M14 and the later 9M14P1 variant that has 520mm CE penetration, which shouldnt have problems defeating the side plates of even a Merkava IV. I totally agree. This is why I said earlier that russians overestimate their gun launched ATGMs.

Now THAT is an american propaganda! :) The slat armor isnt that good... It has only around 50-60% chance to defeat a PG-7V. And... The front is protected against it, but the sides are easily penetrated by even 12.7mm AP rounds. Shrapnels can also penetrate the sides easily.

One of the main problems, that you dont "feel" that the vehicle has weight. They move so unnatural. Not only wheeled vehicles. Tracked vehicles too. I've driven a real T-55 3days ago, then yesterday played a bit Arma2... holy $hit... Im sure the developers modeled tank handling after skid steer loaders (Bobcat).

The Stryker is especially vulnerable to RPG attacks. (In fact, to any attack :) )When the warhead penetrates its thin armor, the overpressure cant leave the vehicle like in a BTR-80 with a few hatches open.

Its harder to drive a car ingame than RL :D

Which ones? HEAT is larger, but their performance isnt better than 120mm, its about the same. But they are useless against the frontal armor of modern tanks. APFSDS: They are actually smaller. Russians use short rod penetrators, while NATO uses long rod, this is one of the reasons why 120mm is much more powerful. The most modern 3BM42M projectile can penetrate only 600-650mm armor, which is quite miserable compared to the 120mm M829A3 (800-820) and the DM53/63 (800-830). This is barely enough against an M1A1HA Abrams, and completely useless against even the Leo-2A4. ATGM: Russian sources extremely overestimate them. Yes, they are powerful. But the sources forget that modern tanks have 2 armor values: KE (APFSDS) and CE (HEAT). Although the most modern Invar-M missile can penetrate 800-900mm armor, which is quite remarkable, western tanks have 1500-2000mm armor vs HEAT, so missiles are useless against their frontal armor.

Yes, I completely agree that we absolutely need an armor system, (script) but it is very unlikely that BIS will do such feature, so unfortunately the HP system will remain. But anyway, dont you think that if you can kill an Abrams (or even a T-55!) with a T-34 fairly easily is really miserable and arcadish? Or that the T-90 has only 2.5x more hitpoints? Increased hitpoints would solve this at least.

In my opinion, if you must keep the hit point system, use larger numbers for hitpoints. I dont know the precise numbers so I guess: The T-90 have around 800hp, the T-34 has around 300. If I make for example a T-55, I want to give it much more hp than a T-34, because its much heavier armored. I give it 500hp. The problem is that the T-72 also have around 500hp despite that in RL it has 410mm KE turret armor, while the T-55 has only 203mm. The solution: max front KE armor*3 Then, the T-34 would have 270hp, the T-55 - 609hp, the T-72 - 1230, and the T-90 would have 2400-2500. The second problem with tanks is their handling. I have driven a few armoured vehicles, T-55, BMP-1, MTLBu, Shilka. I also driven a Bobcat, which is really similar to ingame tracked vehicles, just much slower, so I can assume that the developers modeled the handling after these little construction machines. But its very-very far from real life. A real tank is nowhere near a Bobcat, completely different. For example, T-72 Balkans on fire has quite realistic system.

Need help with animations :confused: The problem is that if I link 2S3_travel_lock and 2S3_travel_lock_B with Hatch driver (Turn out) the animation works perfectly. (I included an image to see how it works) But If I dont link them with Hatch driver, and make an user animation, only 2S3_travel_lock moves. 2S3_travel_lock_A,B,C stays in place. So it means that if "2S3_travel_lock", moves, the other parts (A,C) should move as well. But these doesnt move if I make an user action. I think the problem should be here. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the animation controller works, its black magic for me.

Thanks! Now its working perfectly! I have another problem, but it isnt related to user animations. On an another model, there is a telescopic antenna. (uses translation type animation) It is working, but, it extends out too much. How can I control it? I tried writing different values to "offset1", but no effect.

I have the same problem, BUT: I was playing a bit with my 2S4 Tyulpan (I know it has a mortar, but in config its a tank gun) and noticed that it has the big muzzle flash. Then I tried the 2S5 Giatsint, it didnt have flash, but had recoil animation. The two vehicles use the same config.cpp. Maybe something to do with main gun recoil?

I desperately need help. :( I have just finished a model, but the game cant load it. It says "Too many vertices". The model has 20111 points and 15794 faces, mainly quads. I thought that if I reduce the polycount it solves the problem. I deleted around 2000 points and 1800 faces, but the game still cant load it. To test the game engine I made a "model" of 6 giant spheres, each 5000 faces, and 4902 points. Thats 29412 points and 30000 quads. What do you think, what happened? The game loaded it! I went further: I Triangulated the spheres, then it was 29412 points and 58880(!!!) triangles. The game loaded it again! But the game cant load a model that contains 9.000 less points and 43.000 less polys! Why?:confused: I really need help, I worked on that model for months.

Norsu! Thanks for the link. Now I know what caused that section problem: How can I change the texture path without using this tool?

That sounds quite interesting, I'll try it.

Hi! I tried to copy the model that has 6 sections, but when I opened it, there were 820 (after creating the proxy) sections again. Maybe when I make rvmats, I try to reduce sections again, but now its not too important.

Yes, the major problem solved, I could get the model ingame, although the minor problem - too much sections - is unfortunately still present.