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

    1. M203 sights are static..blech.. this is a half fix. Also they don't fold down. Still nice.
    Quote[/b] ]3. Glad the reload-from-zero ammo bug is addressed but only half fixed. Shoot off a mag and a half of Stryker Mk19 ammo and try to rearm... only fills the current mag and not even all the way 47/48. So if you have 0 rounds reloading can only get you 47 rounds, nevermind the 48x4 rounds it started with or the 430 rounds that the real stryker carries!

    And how would you suggest this is done? For one, vehicles have unlimited magazine slots, so you can't just 'fill them up' like you would with infantry weapons. When you deplete one and reload another the empty ones vanish, just the same as infantry weapons, and the game won't have a memory of every single magazine you had at one point. I suppose it could reference the vehicle's config and use the default loadout to know what number of magazines to add, but that might piss off quite a few scripters and mission makers who like to change the vehicles' weapons in game and in the editor.

    Quote[/b] ]You (all people who requested these sights) were warned about the engine limitations, you should have known any GL sights would be static, but you still asked for them. You can't change your mind now, so you're stuck with the crappy in-the-way GL sights.

    Warned by who, where? The developers or people like yourself?

    Engine limitations you are talking absolute twaddle! You have no more expertise on the subject matter.

  2. Posted

    well, ive had the game for 5-6 days, US version, and... i still think the gun is under powerd, when i do a 2 sec burst my speed should be shreding away because of the force of this gun, and the ground should be shaking because of the impact of those 30mm

    Having served at Red Fag and spoken with a number of A10 pilots over the years the GAU causing a speed decrease is a fallacy!

    The weapon is fired in short bursts to prevent the barrels melting and o decrease the possibility of jamming due to heat expansion in the feed tray.

  4. Posted

    No kidding thats another problem... the M203 sight is really messed up and when someone disables that crosshair, there goes your ability to use the tubes.

    I had posted about this a while back!

    My point exactly! Why the M203 sites weren't intergrated I do not know?

  5. Posted

    Oh God here we go... I get tired of all you newbs that hear what you say from the public persona. The decision of the US led action in Iraq was brought on by not just the US. Several government agencies deemed it necessary to take sadam out of power not just because there were suspected weapons of mass dest., but also because he was a mass murder that killed 2 million people just because they didn't support him. Once we got into Iraq and everyone discovered the weapons weren't where they suspected (probably because they hid them) everyone hightailed it out the door and pointed fingers at the US and said "ooohhh bad!" Now the US moved in and removed sadam from power and is thus responsible for reparations in Iraq.

    Now just for a second, take a look at Afghanistan and what the US has accomplished there...

    The women are now being educated, without being killed or blinded.

    The Taliban is no longer in power.

    A form of government has been implaced.

    In Bosnia, the US intervened and put an end to a massive conflict. Now people walk the streets freely instead of lying dead on the ground bleeding to death.

    Even in Iraq a form of government has been instilled and the US is doing its best to keep the country civil. Even Iraq's own government says they don't want the US to leave.

    As a Brit I do appreciate you using US as a basis for an over-all view but please ensure you use 'Coalition' when you refer to Afghanistan / Iraq as there are plenty of other armed forces around the world committing soldiers and resources to the regions.

    Bosnia was never a US only mandate it was led by NATO. I was part of that madate so please be respectful to other nations that have committed manpower to the worlds troublespots.

  13. Posted

    Anyone know if there are any limits on the in-game artillery for indirect fire. I am aware that Hellfires etc have much less of a range than in r/l so would be interested to know if any similar limits are on the arty?

    Danke.

  15. Posted

    VBS2 Looks a lot more interesting than ArmA, Is the reason why  ArmA is so limited with its features because of limited memory due the huge scale of the map? I guess if it were to have in depth features and such a large scale then the requirements would be way beyond the modern setup.  whistle.gif

    I would suggest that you don't get too wound up in trying to hypothesize why VBS2 is different in certain respects from ArmA. It's not a very fruitful thing to do. Your current hypothesis is quite flawed, but I don't think I need to fuel the speculation by being any more specific than that. Let it rest - the two are different products, priced and targeted at wildly different markets.

    As to realism and such in ArmA, I think people will find some extremely high-quality mods in the future that will really redefine how the gameplay in terms of realistic combat. I'm sure many of you have played Wargames League for OFP. Well, the team that did that is coming back for ArmA - the mod they'll be doing is going to be just what a lot of you are looking for, I think. It's going to be mentioned extensively in the massive ArmA tactics guide I'll be publishing this weekend, so... stay tuned. Biggest project I've done on my site by far.  smile_o.gif

    Whilst I agree with the majority of what you are saying. ArmA still uses the same basic engine as VBS2. With that in mind the basic core elements of VBS2 could have been ported over to ArmA without corssing over into the military production side.

    I am talking vehicles and some of the basic core elements that make a military game simulator.

    Having served in the military I am well aware of some games that have provided more accurate representations of military simulation were developed for the gamers and never intended to be used by the MOD etc.

    There is some large differences between VBS2 and ArmA and that is toally understandable. However there are minor simple elements such as the third tank crew member firing the loaders .50 and tracers that obviously have been incorporated and IMHO should have been a feature in ArmA. These real basic elements are not necessarily militaristic in value but have been incorporated into many older games prior to ArmA.

    The community is great the game is good fun but the more I play it I feel ArmA is a by-product of VBS2 and been half baked in it's vanilla form. I would never expect it to be as detailed as VBS2 in it's execution but as I said previously simple gameplay elements are lacking.

    Javelin, No TOW guidance and as you yourself have pointed out certain actions.

    This really isn't a rant or a flame. Just an observation on a good game that the community makes better, but as a vanilla product so much more should have been incorporated and expected

  16. Posted

    Definately the community that keeps this game from turning stale. I do tip my hat off to the developers though as they at least give feedback which is more than most game creators do. Now they have finished VBS2 can they chuck some more of that goodness our way please biggrin_o.gif

    I have been on MP most Fridays with some friends on a private server. I am enjoying tinkering with the editor and making my own missions and hosting them for my mates.

    It's a good game getting better.

  19. Posted

    yes they should have t-90's, instead of the weak-ass  tank they have now, wich, infact is not that weak in Arma: 1 SLA MBT can take out abrams with 1 shot, when IRL 1 abrams could takeout 5, t-72's in no time.

    just look what happened in operation desert storm.

    Where the majority of the tank force encountered was T-54/55. All Iraqi tanks were poorly maintained and not indicative of the actuial vehicles capability.

    You pulled your facts out of thin air.

  20. Posted

    http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-to-kill-abrams-tank.html

    And a possible solution we are working on for the future:

    Quote[/b] ]Electric Armour

    The threat – RPGs

    Believe it or not the most prolific mobile threat to the UK’s armoured vehicles does not come from enemy tanks, fighter jet squadrons or ‘tank buster’ helicopters, but the humble shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.

    A Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) can cause as much damage to an armoured vehicle as a heavy-duty landmine and may even destroy a £3m main battle tank outright if it penetrates the right areas.

    Yet RPGs cost from $10 per unit for the most basic model to about $50 for a top-of-the-range example and have been devastatingly effective in hot spots such as Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone.

    RPGs use a ‘shaped charge’ warhead, which explodes on contact with its intended target, shooting a rapier-like jet of hot copper into the target at several miles per second.

    This jet can penetrate anything up to a foot (30cm) of solid armour steel - no mean feat for something no bigger than a pineapple.

    But the real damage occurs as the jet emerges into the cabin, accompanied by shrapnel from the vehicle hull walls travelling at several times the speed of sound. Engines can be destroyed, fuel and ammunition can explode and, worse of all, lives can be lost.

    “Personnel carriers and many tanks are simply unable to carry armour thick enough to prevent penetration from RPGs,†says Professor John Brown, leader of the Dstl’s armour specialists at Fort Halstead.

    “No fighting vehicle is able to carry such impracticably thick plating. So, for many years scientists have sought to add extra protection to basic vehicles in the form of add-on material packs such as Chobham Armour, originally developed in the 1970s at Dstl Chertsey.â€

    But purely ‘passive’ unpowered armours like Chobham are only effective to a certain point and the emphasis in modern warfare is shifting towards lighter, more manoeuvrable vehicles.

    “The MOD has said it wants armoured vehicles that are 70% lighter and 50% smaller,†adds the group leader in the armour department.

    “They need to be easily transportable by air and swift into battle on the ground. This is just not possible with the bulky armour we have today, so a new solution must be found – which is where our electric armour comes in.â€

    The answer: Dstl electric armour

    Researchers have long pondered the best way to protect fighting vehicles and the advent of Chobham armour was a milestone - the world's first workable measure restricting projectile damage.

    Other add-on armour types include explosive armour, detonating on the outside of the tank when impacted and cancelling out the energy of the warhead. Its unfortunate side effect is to send debris in all directions, often towards troops and the impacted vehicle itself.

    Composite armour is another example, using ultra-strong polymers and ceramics to protect vehicles. These composites are lighter than conventional armour, but are relatively costly and difficult to engineer at present.

    Conventional advanced armour usually employs a two-layer system, where an incoming projectile explodes on the first layer and penetrates, emerges into an air space beyond and disperses before hitting the next layer. This greatly reduces damage compared with single stage armour, but Dstl has come up with a novel variation on this ‘spaced-plate’.

    “With our electric armour, the outer skin of metal plates can be rapidly electrified to several thousand volts when danger threatens,†explains Prof. Brown. “When hit by an RPG or other shaped charge warhead, the incoming copper jet has to pass through the electrified layers. Once there it has to endure the passage of many thousands of amperes of current.

    “As we all know, a current of just 13 amps is sufficient to 'blow' and disintegrate the fuse of a household electrical appliance. Similarly, the high-speed copper jet from the warhead is almost instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields generated by the so-called 'Pulsed Power System' carried by the vehicle. Any residual debris is absorbed by the vehicle's ordinary armoured hull.â€

    Despite the simplicity of the Dstl team’s theory, first mooted in the 1970s, perfecting the technology has set exacting scientific and engineering problems. Only now have sufficiently compact and powerful capacitors and other factors made electric armour workable.

    The entire system, consisting of bulletproof metal plating, insulation, power distribution lines, and storage capacitors, weighs just a couple of tonnes, but delivers an equivalent of 10-20 tonnes’ extra armour plating.

    And it is powered by the normal electrical supply of the vehicle - the electrical load imposed by stopping an RPG attack is only as much as starting the engine from cold!

    Proving the concept

    The MOD’s need for a more lightweight armour option led to collaboration with US defence colleagues and a demonstration to high level representatives from both sides of the Atlantic.

    A target vehicle was subjected to heavy RPG attack, but sustained no internal damage and then drove away under its own power, despite force sufficient to destroy other vehicles many times over

  21. Posted

    SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 22 2007,18:43)]
    Quote[/b] ]

    Yeah talking about the M1A1 ... surely they and any other modern MBT (Lecrec, Leo II, Challenger II, T80, T90) can be pierced from the side and back from an RPG. A PG7VL warhead has just the same penetration power as the Swedish Bill2 you've seen and more than the MBT LAW.

    You will be surprised at just how resistant Chobham and Dorchester is on the side armour of a tank.

    As for the rear, this is naturally a tanks weak point.

  23. Posted

    Since it's being made for Multiplatform so PS3 and 360 users can play OFP2 do you really think it will have the level of detail as in ArmA or even OFP?

    I think not! Forget the heavy modding we can do now. It will be a very simple shooter as the code has to be written across three seperate platforms.

  25. Posted

    Seems no-one is concerned it will also be available for console? The detail of PC games never ports to console particulary well or vice versa hence they have to dumb down many elements.

    I foresee it being more like one of those nasty Tom Clancy games.

×