king homer

FYI: ACE2 / ACE1 armor is based on the CAVS. Search the forums for Common Armor Value System and you'll find a thread along with some data sheets explaing how it actually works. But ACE2 won't remain for long with CAVS because of the steadily growing complexity of Arma2's hitpoint system. If you need any info on that, contact me via PM. I have no idea if the original authors of CAVS are still active in here or answer any related questions.

That's true Banderas. The problem is affected by the hitpoint LOD in the model itself along with the firegeometry LOD. The Abrams hitpoint LOD is quite detailed on that so it might be better balanced to the turret front. So far we couldn't have a look into the T-90 model nor the T-72 model without proper MLODs to change anything. As pointed out: We're working on a better solution for that. Stay tuned. ;)

Nope... Problem: Arma2 engine can't differentiate top or front armor - it's all the same. But we're working on it.

The tanks are supposed to be more vulnerable but it's hard to simulate that with the current hitpoint system. The problem of the T-90 is the less effective APFSDS ammo also the model hasn't got proper Hit-Point LOD and we can't change that yet. Configwise the T-90 has got better armor than the M1A1 HC.

Why do you presume that? Like a normal TC you use your eyes to spot any target. BI's ballisticComputer is still working along with canLock.

Yes it does. When ground is hit but not the tank itself only the indirect damage value depending on indirect damage range will be applied.

In one of the last betapatches BI added a new value for the cpp's called "minimalHit". Now I fiddled around with that config-entry for a while now but it doesn't seem to work the way I want it to. Maybe I'm just using it wrong. Situation I'm trying to improve some armor values for tanks and I set it up like this: I have tank A with and I have gun B with The hit values has three times as much power as the minimalHit value and iirc the gun should be able to damage the "Hull" selection of the tank. But when shooting at the tank now the "Hull" selection stays without damage for four or more hits but turns to red all out of sudden after a specific number of hits. The damage is not increasing steadily, even if the direct hit value is three times as large as the minimum required damage. Increasing or decreasing the minimalHit value does not have any effect. What am I doing wrong or how is this supposed to work and is it even working correctly?

Correct. Without minimalHit the damage is increasing steadily with every hit (at least shown in the damage display of a tank). When adding the minimalHit to just one selection (f.e. HitHull) the specific part will not show any damage until a certain number of hits.

Yes I understand that but the effect is that there is no damage visible even if the damage is greater than the minimalHit.

Well ACE2 uses so far still improved CAVS values for the tanks / AT-weapons until we have a better armor system. So you might have checked the values of T-72/T-90 from ACE2 to fit your tank pack.

I second that for sure, you can go a step further and say it wasn't even created for the casual PC gamer, no it feels more to be created as console game only.

I'd really appreciate this. Myself played DR for about 45 minutes in SP and about 90 minutes in MP and at this point I stopped because it couldn't convince me in any way like Cold War Crisis, Modern Warfare, Stalker or even Arma2 did. The essential point of a game, the point the wheat is seperated from the chaff, the point you're so compelled of the gameplay and storyline, you like to carry on at all cost even if you have to stop because your life depends on it. It doesn't exist in Dragon Rising at all.

Overall this sounds really good. Just disappointed about the fact that the hitpoint system for the tanks is unlikely to be changed.

Hey guys, I just installed 1.02 and now I can't change my texture detail and video memory settings ingame. It's fixed on "normal" and nothing else is to choose. Currently I'm using Win7 x64 with latest 186.18 driver for my GTX260. Normally I'm running texture detail on "high" and video memory on "very high". All other settings can be changed ingame. I can change it via arma2 profile file but then again I just can choose either "very high / very high" or "high / high". Arma2 is always overwriting the changes ingame but not the profile I set to read only. Any clue on this? Regards Homer

My system: Phenom X4 9950 @ 2,8 GHz 8 GB DDR2 1066 GTX260 XP x64 Resolution 1280x1024 Fill Rate : 100% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Normal Aniso : Normal Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : Normal PostProcessing effects : Low Fill Rate : 125% Textures Details : High Video Memory : Very High Aniso : Very High Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : High Shadow Details : High PostProcessing effects : Low

I really like the game much more then I did when Arma was released. It runs absolute fluent on my system on highest settings.

Hey if I'm not mistaken it carries 12,400 rounds, so maybe 4x3100 or so. The one thing I really miss is NWD FCS. I wish it didn't make changes to the model so it would work on tanks other the BIS ones. Maybe one day NWD will come back and make a version that is compatible with all tanks. Â But if that never happens it's all good with me. I can live with these great tanks with no FCS. Damn those TUSK's are fantastic. Well in the Config I've written, the M1 Series was supposed to carry the 11.400 rounds ammunition. Also the M60 was supposed to have 6.000 for his coax. Afair the NWD FCS was to complex to implent in our nearly finished config a while ago.

Shouldn't be. Either they have changed the ammo values for the T-72 in the release version or there is some other addon conflict, since I've worked a long time on the CAVS system for ACE. EDIT: Just checked it out, seems allright to me. EDIT2: The thing I ask myself again: Why does all the American armor just carry a load of 1.200 rounds for the coax? Ain't that a bit unrealistic in comparison to the correct Russian loadout or did anyone "fear" machinegun-spam in MP?

It's basically the same what you did: BI T-72 with random placed ERA blocks. Your T-72AV is even more accurate than that. And yes, Gedis is right, Arma is missing a real M1A1 opponent like the T-72B obj. 90.

Check page 15, there you can find the OD version.

What about a Skoda Octavia?

Looking good so far. Maybe you could help us to improve our M1A2 textures a bit

Sure AI is not the best but all in all Warfare (I think that's what you mean) is working pretty good for many players out there, including me. So you're one with a personal problem out of 100.000 without - you're negligible.

It's even more likely that the M919 was first used in the M2A3 since the M919 was introduced first in 1996/97.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a Woodland version in the VIBI addon pack released by Vilas?