Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

HamishUK

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    328

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by HamishUK

  1. Posted

    Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight.  Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted.  It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals".  Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap." biggrin_o.gif

    But anyways...

    I said the 'terminology was correct for this purpose' not 'correct for the US field manual.' Slightly different. tounge2.gif

    Pedantic git.

    wink_o.gif

    No personal attacks mate, I know British slang.  But the point is, if you're going to describe something, use the proper terminology, not what you think is because of national origin.  Or get off your butt and really read the manuals so you understand.  So A) You're wrong, and B) the issue is closed, have some tea and bugger off.

    And then again, who is a Brit telling an American what's the correct terminology in the first place.  I mean, you do realize I am in the US Army right?

    Aye and used to be in the RAF Regiment and finally the RAF many years ago. Ground vehicles are not by forte but then I only used British terminology to answer the questions so thank you for correcting me. But I never said I was right now did I? I just used UK nomenclature to answer and you rightly corrected me.

    But it did answer the point did it not?

    As for the pedantic git I think you took that the wrong way hence the smiley. No offence just harmless banter old chap. wink_o.gif

  2. Posted

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a1.htm

    He has a x3 mag sight.

    Quote[/b] ]The Commander's station is equipped with six periscopes which provide all round 360 degree view. The Independent Thermal Viewer (ITV) from Texas Instruments provides him with independent, stabilized day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the Gunner's sight with no need for verbal communication, and a complete back-up fire control system - the Commander is capable of firing the main gun independent of the Gunner.
    Quote[/b] ]As with virtually every tank every fielded by the US, the familiar .50 caliber Browning M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun - the "Ma Duce" - is located in a powered mount at the Commander's station and is equipped with a x3 magnification sight. The Loader is provided with a 7.62mm M240 machine gun, and another M240 is mounted in-line with the main gun of the tank ("coaxially"). It is in a fixed mount and is aimed with the main gun to suppress enemy ground troops.

  3. Posted

    The M203 sight is correct.

    I agree in part you could use a round for a marker however at least you knew it would be on target and have a better idea of range and hit probability.

    Let's look at it this way it's better to have them than not yes?

    To be "correct" the short range markers on the leaf would be

    at the bottom and the longer ranges nearer the top. To aim

    you would move the foresight. I don't think they work like

    that, do they? They are actually inverted and you aim using

    the ramps on the leaf alone, don't you?  

    But, like I said, it's still a vast improvement over nothing

    (although to be sure, just a little practise is generally enough

    to get the hang of how the projected grenades fly. I don't

    profess to be  "elite" but I can reliably drop them where I

    want them now, even without sights.)

    It's a very simple sight.

    See the image below:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DF-ST-90-04660.JPEG

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M203_171.jpg

    http://www.usna.edu/USMCInfo/Documents/Pubs/b2109.pdf

  4. Posted

    Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight.  Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted.  It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals".  Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap." biggrin_o.gif

    But anyways...

    I said the 'terminology was correct for this purpose' not 'correct for the US field manual.' Slightly different. tounge2.gif

    Pedantic git.

    wink_o.gif

  5. Posted

    I'm sure BI is gonna release some kinda hotfix soon - since it's a problem with the auto-aim feature.

    I confirm the problem.

    For your information: it is not related to auto-aim at all. It is caused by a bug in collision detector.

    Great feedback!

    Cheers notworthy.gif

  6. Posted

    Those are definite improvements but neither are very

    accurate simulations of how the real sight works though

    (or are they)?

    The M203 sight is correct.

    I agree in part you could use a round for a marker however at least you knew it would be on target and have a better idea of range and hit probability.

    Let's look at it this way it's better to have them than not yes?

  7. Posted

    My advice is: While you wait for the M203 sight's patch, avoid the M203 or make a patient effort to get to know it better.

    One does play with it still as lobbing a grenade into a second story window and watching the enemy sniper drop does have it's merits.

  8. Posted

    If they come up with a flip visor though it would be appreciated although I have my doubts as the weapon´s angle for nade shots requires a totally different weapon holding and handling, but we´ll see.

    Same goes for rifle nades btw. They are not shot from the shoulder as you would lack a shoulder afterwards but mods put them in just for the sake of it and people were happy.

    Underslung and rifle grenades are fired from the shoulder.

    I fired the SA80 rifle grenade (prior to it being withdrawn from service) from my shoulder. It uses a bullet trap method (as do most rifle grenades) so there is not much more recoil than normal and is aimed using the SUSAT sight.

    One hopes some more code will be added?

  9. Posted

    SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Mar. 04 2007,16:16)]To get back to the very original question ...

    in OFP I often used NVGoogles to spot enemy armour units. They reflected a certain amount of light, I dont know if this works in ArmA aswell.

    But I think I get your point... it would be nice of tanks would have an InfraRed vision, so you can spot infantry and enemy tank as in real life.

    Honestly, I'd like to see a thermal scope in ArmA.  I was kind of hoping for one after wanting one in OFP for a long while.  Like you said, the NVG worked well to help spot enemy armour in OFP, but in ArmA you can barely see out of the NVG during daylight (which is realistic).

    A thermal scope would give the Abrams the advantage that it actually has IRL.  I'm pretty sure that the operational orders for the M1A1 and M1A2 have the gunner and commander using the thermal scopes at all times to spot enemy vehicles from a distance.

    I noticed that the driver's location for the Stryker ICV M2 is jacked up too.  It should have a thermal sight as well.  Matter of fact NVGs shouldn't be required as it shows in the screen (sorry, UK 1.05) some of the NVG and some of the screen without the NVG overlay.  And is there a scripting way to raise/lower the seat?

    Oh and to be anal HamisUK, the proper term is CITV, or Commanders Independant Thermal Viewer.  That's only on the A2, not the M1 or M1A1.  TOGS is Challenger/Chally 2.

    I agree TOGS is the UK terminology for a gunners sight. It is however the correct term for this purpose.

    CITV as you pointed out is a moot point as it's the periscope sight on a the M1A2.

    tounge2.gif

  10. Posted

    I wonder how you played OFP over all those years in vet-mode.

    No nade indicator, no sights for nade launchers...

    It´s simply a matter of practise, as it was with OFP.

    I didn't.

    Your missing the point. The launcher HAS a sight. Just as you fire your rifle with a sight. Why not fire your rifle and adjust for effect? Answer: It's fitted with a sight.

    It has nothing to do with practice. You would need to drop one for effect for current gaming. Whereas judging distance using the iron sights is very much more effective.

    Having fired an M16 with a 203 launcher I can tell you no soldier just tosses a grenade 'hoping for the best'

  14. Posted

    It may be me but if I set the game on Veteran there is no GL sighting system? On rookie mode you have that nasty white sight appear.

    Now I know for a fact the underslung launcher has a flick up iron sight so am I missing something?

    I am referring to the Rifle GL.

  15. Posted

    The M1 tanks use a TOGS box (Thermal Observation Gunnery Sight).

    So the fact they are using a starlight scope for night is incorrect. I am sure it would be fairly simple to code heat sources coming from vehicles. I realise that the Thermal sight would also detect buildings as well but maybe for simplicity sake vehicles show as white hot and buildings black hot.

    Also the M1's front and side Chobham Armour is resistant to AT-5 missiles. Okay maybe it makes the tank too tough for a game but then lets look at it realistically that the M1 when hit from the front will not be taken out so quickly.

    Is there anyway to change the armour values in the game?

  16. Posted

    Harrier should have watertank for nozzle coolant, real one can only do about 90 seconds of vertical stuff, without water, the nozzles would melt.

    The 50 gallon HFR water in a Harrier plays no part in coolant.

    The water is used to augment maximum thrust when hovering. The maximum a Harrier can achieve is 107% of thrust without water. With water injection this increases further.

    The nozzles wont melt as engine output temp is a constant regardless of hovering.

  17. Posted

    Short Take off and Vertical Landings. Looks tricky but fun with a bit of practice. Any idea when the vertical takeoff mode will be implemented? It must've been hard to code.

    From the praise camp:

    1. Really nifty ST/O and VL capabilities

    2. Really cool HUD with flight path marker. Finally we can gauge AoA!

    3. Good to see that you added in the 2D GPS equipment similar to the "watch."

    From the never-satisfied want-too-much camp:

    1. Aww, no vertical takeoff? You promised!

    2. Couldn't render the GPS as a 3D glass gauge like the artificial horizon and HSD? Now THAT would be cool.

    Verticle take-off is not possible with a Harrier at full up combat weight.

    Certainly not laden with the current loadouts showing in-game.

    I am also wondering why they chose GBU's instead of the more conventional CBU's or SNEB rockets?

  21. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]

    HamishUK wrote :

    This has probably been asked before.

    I guess so, anyway try to put the following lines into the init file of your unit :

    To remove a pipebomb : this removeMagazine "Pipebomb"

    To add a grenade : this addMagazine “HandGrenadeâ€

    For further info see the OFP/ArmA scripting commands here :

    http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Scripting_Commands

    and the list of weapons here :

    http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons

    Ahh fantastic! Thanks! notworthy.gif

    My Coop with 5 teamates (3 Satchels apiece) for one target seems a slight overkill. so wanted one guy to carry the charges whilst the others provide all-round defence.

  22. Posted

    This has probably been asked before. If I want to remove certain pieces of kit from a soldiers inventory and add others how does one do this?

    For example removing a couple of satchel charges from a SF Saboteur and adding some normal grenades or whatnot.

    Cheers guys.

    PS: Thanks for the feedback on scripts now starting to get the hang of the real basics!

  25. Posted

    Hmm well the unit is static (no WP set). I just want it to sit down next to a campfire I had placed on the map.

    I have tried entering this as below typed into the INI field.

    this AmovPercMstpSnonWnonDnon_AmovPsitMstpSnonWnonDnon_ground

    I am obviously missing something? I thought the script would tell the soldier to sit down straight away but it seems this is not happening.

    My grasp on scripting is weak at best but if I can get one to work then it's a start.

    Despite looking at BIS Wiki there is no clear cut tutorial as to simple scripting and behaviour. This is something I would like to get into but with this basic script not working I find it frustrating at best.

    Thanks again for any help.

    banghead.gif

×