Przezdzieblo

Modern APFSDS ("Sabots"; Russian or not-Russian) do not "like" to ricochet, even at low hit angles. F.e. the most probably slope of front hull plate of T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 (68 degrees from vertical) would not be enough for ricochet (but more than 80 degrees from vertical would be enough). In case of older APFSDS and APDS rounds chance of richochet is higher. In case of various AP, APC, APCBC, ACR etc. - much more higher. HEAT warheads - fuzes of the newest works even at low hit angles (f.e. Panzerfaust 3 warhead will detonate after hit at plate ~75 degrees from vertical). In case of PG-7 (from RPG; and in case of another older rounds with piezoelectric fuze) chance of ricochet is higher (AFAIR there were rumours about TOW missiles bouncing of T-72 hulls - 68 degrees from vertical - in ODS). But remember that the most of PG-7 and even it`s Chineese copies are said to have self-destruction fuze, which in most cases works even if main fuze does not (f.e. against slat armour). Do not know any data about deflection probability - but it could be assumed that modern APFSDS ricochet only when hitting high oblique (80+ degrees?) plates, and for modern HEAT warheads - 75+ degrees.

IMHO one of the best modelled of armour in OFP (together with Manfred`s T-72/T-72A and Sea Demon`s T-72B). I wish to see it with better textures. Great job, Kenji, great idea with those Osprey-like .pdf  Â

AgentFox2 I'm glad to see that someone is taking the reigns for JAM and CAVS. These are one of the two most promising projects, especially with Armed Assault near release. One of the things I've wondered about CAVS in particular is would there be some attention paid to some of the more obscure aspects of balance? Things like radar and/or detection range, fuel capacity, speed, weapon accuracy, and turret-traverse speed. Items present in real-world armor such as nightvision, thermal imaging equipment, and fire control systems should effect these values. Obviously for some things it won't be possible to get exact values, but some sort of standard would be great, since many times these values dictate the victor of an engagement. AFAIR you mentioned about the need of such standarization once some time ago. But still, there is no system. It needs researches and resources. Here simple data of some 1985-era OFP CWC tanks: M1 (IPM1, M1A1) Gunner - optic x3 - x10 1st generation Thermal Imager Tank Commander - x3 sight Fire Control System - yes (automatic) Hunter-Killer - no Stabilisation - electrohydraulical, gun - 2 axis, gunner sight - 1 axis T-72A Gunner - x8 day sight - x5,5 night sight, active NV TC - x5 day - x4,2 night, active NV FCS - yes (semi-automatic) H-K - no Stabilisation - electrohydraulical, turret - 1 axis (horizontal), gunner sight - 1 axis T-80BV Gunner - x8 day sight - x5,5 passive NV TC - x5 day - x4,2 night, active NV FCS - yes (automatic) H-K - no Stabilisation - electrohydraulical, gunner sight – 2 axis Note in OFP all magnification values should be doubled, f.e. PSO-1 x4  (SVD scope) should have zoom x8 in config. Abrams` gunner sight x3 - x10 then would be x6 - x20  Stabilisation - different quality on different vehicles. T-BV and M1A1 got much more better than T-72A or Challenger, can accurately fire on move at moving targets. FCS - also quality matters, semiauto, auto, is it digital or not. H-K - it is how TC and gunner cooperate in search&destroy, can TC fire main gun etc. Optics - no NV, active NV, passive NV (Image Intensifiers), Thermal Imagers (FLIR of various generations). Tank with TI will have great advantage in night, but also better chance to detect and ID target than tank without Thermals. KaRRiLLioN What is status of your researches? It looks like you found a good method with OFP dammage system, any more ideas?

I love high level of interiors detail but watch for poly count, here LoD might be too high. SPQR, great pics

You are making Leo 1 of Hellenic army, am I right? Then - what version? Greece use various models of that tank (Leo 1A4 GR; Leo 1A5, Leo 1V). http://users.forthnet.gr/ath...._GR.htm Leopard 1A4 GR http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe...._01.jpg Leopard 1A5 http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe...._02.jpg http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe....ama.htm http://www.haaland.info/leopard1/world/leopard1greece.jpg http://i20.photobucket.com/albums....1A5.jpg Leopard 1V (ex-Dutch, upgraded Leo 1A1) http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe...._01.jpg http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/leo1vljs/leo1vljs.htm http://tanxheaven.com/leo1V/leo1kwspic.htm Some interior pics http://www.kotsch88.de/f_leopard1.htm http://www.kotsch88.de/f_leopard1a4.htm http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/leo2a5ljs/19-Leopard2A5,Oirschot.JPG Now your model is similar to Leo 1A3/4 (so 1A4 GR) model, but there are still some parts missing - f.e. gunner sight.

Ponies are overpowered. Could you do low-res version? good work

Additional HP-Lod and Firegeometry selections with armour=enough to stop RPG (~300) and passthrough=0 would work? Would slow missile be "catched" by selection and fast bullets/tank rounds pass through it? Just thinking aloud - no testing yet.

Gedis, don`t you see the difference between rounds like Reflex and STAFF? And possible effectiveness? But I guess every addonmaker can set for his weapon whatever he want to. setdammage=1 this, setdammage=1 that, for maingun rounds and MG bullets. I do not know if this setting is needed for proper script working, however maybe some high dirdmg value would be better. M1A2 SEP addon is a model of high-end configuration and could be imagined that some addonmaker would make even newer tank. F.e. I could imagine that DKM`s "Black Eagle" with new compatible to RHS and SEP config might survive STAFF hit.

sakura, read the readme! When pass window appear, hit ok (even if you do not know pass) and unpack readme.txt Then find pass in it. King Homer, it looks like we should request parallax correction in AA Well, it is not very disturbing when you know about it, but AFAIR I saw some addons with less parallax error (even if sight was far from barrel). Nevermind. M256 finally smoothbore  P.S. Interesting, STAFF working only against "unfriendly" vehicles. Scripting limitations?

Good release. I guess there would not be much problems with firepower balance But, all gunners, remember that sight and armament are not in the same line. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif' alt='smile_o.gif'> Aiming point and hitting point are not the same point in this tank.

Maybe I am a little unmodest, but try this one (veeeery beta, but you can catch an idea) http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/CAVStesttankabrams.rar search for it in /West/Armor/TTANK Frontal hits would not be very effective but one good hit into engine compartment or turret side could make Abrams knocked out.

There seems to be a little problem here. Most probably Russian used mid 80`s rounds (BM42 as regular, BM32 as "emergency") in 90`s. And more - is is possible that were unable to produce enough BM42. In the same time, in 90`s, US used for sure 2 generations of M829 (both M829, M829A1 saw action in 1991), probably also M829A2... and now, started XXI century with M829A3. So if want to have realistic loadout for Abramses and Russian T-s for 90`s, US got advantage. However when a little more futuristic loadout is considered (f.e. with STAFF, just like by King Homer), Russian would have better rounds, with penetration more than 650 mm RHAe/2000 meters... which is about M829A1-A2 level There are also some projects of 125 ammo, also for Obj. 640 "Black Eagle" (but those rounds most probably will not fit into T-72/T-80/T-90 autoloaders). Very, very Far from the line, I guess. Of course, for some balance is the essence. All T-80s and M1s could be equal in armour and firepower values. But it would be a step back - even orginal BIS Abrams and T-80 were not fully equal. Custom ammo loadouts might be the good choice. Also, just like ORCS (sorry I mentioned, please do not close this thread! did, BIS values version. 2-3 values standard... interesting idea. BIS, Sigma/RHS, CAVS

Nice release. Good to see SEP program still alive. No more bugs reported, but I noticed that smoothbore 120 mm gun looks a little... rifled one :P Old discussion about balance comes again... I do not want to participate in changing this topic into another East-West battle But few things should be noted. M1A2 SEP is the newest tank of US tank fleet. King Homer and co. give to it the loadout that probably have not seen action yet. M829A3 is high-end round, the newest from M829 family. Not even sure this ammo is fielded... STAFF is another good example. It is sound of the future. M1A2 SEP has the latest armour, better than DU from M1A1HA that proved well in `91. And opponents... T-80U appeared in mid 80`s. In case of protection all it`s modifications seems to not changed - T-80UM-1 with Arena got better chances vs CE rounds, but suffer from lower heavy ERA K-5 protection vs KE. Also, amunition problem. BM32 (used by some RHS T-80s) is mid 80`s round. BM42M (also used by some RHS tanks) appeared in time M829A1 saw action in ODS. M829A3 is a decade newer than BM42M! In two main aspects of OFP tank simulation, armour and firepower, M1A2 SEP cannot be considered at the same level than tanks over 10 years older... if want to see any realism in OFP. Furia, OFP is not the ideal tank vs tank simulator If you are interested in ideas to make it better, search for CAVS and JAM3 programs. In this case, M1A2 SEP vs T-80UM face-to-face duel, I think you have not right trying to see need for more balance.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/7153 http://www.ittrans.com/XK2-1.wmv Indeed, turret looks similar to GIAT T-21 universal turret project :]

Also each and every hit did identical damage regardless of where on the tank it hit. Â The only hitpoint that caused a premature death was the engine one. Â If you set it to say .85 and deal that amount of damage to the tank there then it dies before global armor hits 0. My impressions are that tank will blow up in three cases: - global armour reaches zero - engine armour reaches zero - hull armour reaches zero So try hull one more time This is the mystery to me because it doesn't seem to affect the vehicle in any other way that I can tell. Â I then took a large set of tanks varying in sizes and used the same ammo round to find how much armor would return a 10% damage ratio per hit. Â The armor values varied wildly. Â I had to set smaller tanks to much higher armor values to achieve the same amount of damage. The reason might be the way OFP "see" dammages. If you got round DIR DMG only (no INDIR DMG) then dammages goes to the nearest vertrices (of HP-LOD selection). So if you hit turret with sabot, it is possible, that all dammages would go to `turet` - and global armour. F.e. TTANK with `AS` (armour structural)=2, armor=500 vs round DIR DMG=300, INDIRDMG=0. Hit in turret, 300 dmg goes to `turet` selection, then 150 (300/`AS`) to global armour. But if you got round with some "splash" (INDIR DMG), that it is possible that dammage "pattern" would touch more than one HP-LOD selection. When vehicle is small, probability of this rise (selections are closer, pattern with high INDIR DMG RaNGe could touch all!. F.e. TTANK with `AS` (armour structural)=2, armor=500 vs round DIR DMG=0, INDIRDMG=100, INDIRDMG RNG=2. Hit in turret, 100 dmg goes to `turet` selection, then 50 (100/`AS`) to global armour. But due to 2 meters range dammages goes also to `gun`, `hull` and `engine` selections. This means 3 x 50 = 150 additional dammages to global armour. This is why in OFP IMHO HE rounds often are more devastating than AP rounds (unless AP round have veeery high DIR DMG or additional INDIR DMG) When target is smaller all selections could get under INDIR DMG pattern - and then global armour could be heavier affected. We also experimented by making a 1x1 cube and giving it armor, shooting it with a bullet with 1 direct dmg and then made a 10x10 cube with same armor. Â The bullet did much less damage to the 10x10 cube. Mass differs? If you got cube there are 8 vertrices, right? OFP dammage system see only vertrices, so if no are near to limited effect of direct dammage round, I guess the only dammages to object goes because of velocity and mass. Â So my primary questions is, does armorstructural actually change anything aside from increasing the global armor? IMHO it really decreassing dammages that goes to global armour. Well, it might have some other, long-term influence. I test "my" TTANK with various values to make some HP-LOD selections more vulnerable (tracks, turret side) than others. And found out that low percentage of global protection matters. F.e. Tank ONE armor=1000, armorturet=0.2 TANK TWO armor=500 armorturet=0.4 In both cases armorturet=200. But it would be easier to KO TANK ONE, where armorturet % value (20% of global armour) is lower. So, you can see that theoriticaly stronger vehicle would be KOed faster (with destroyed `turet` it would be useless) than weaker one. But in same time remember that if `AS` is the same in both cases, then TANK TWO will lost it`s armor-hit points faster and blow up. With high `AS` value we have a chance to control "survivability". And to make OFP tanks KOed, with crew abandoning than melted vehicles and burned crew.