Przezdzieblo

Shadow NX, thanks for important notice, but next time please comment in more simple way, not so ambiguous. Any other proposals for model polishing (I am not saying that OFPL would develop it more, but new ideas could be helpful for ppl who would like to change this addon - with all credits for makers, of course ). Come on guys, download it now

You were able to localise "invulnerability" zone? Great Is it possible to make new zone, against top-attack missiles? It could be read at Vasily Fofanov page that Arena can engage that kind of treat, but there is very possible that APS efectiveness against ATGM like Javelin or Spike is less than vs TOW, Milan or Konkurs (less probablity that round will come through "cloud" of splinters).

There seems to be few ways to deal with it: - increasing armorGun value (AFAIR one of CAVS proposals) - changing Hit-Points LOD with "hidding" hitGun into turret`s model interior (see how does it work in TTANK demonstator) - changing Memory LOD with dislocation of "zamerny" named selection; this is a target for AI, in the most OFP models it is in the middle of turret model in Memory LOD; IRL gunners usually aim between turret and hull passthrough - still enigma for me. It seems to... not working. But all those changes (but the last) must change balance, because of new values in config and model vulnerability "shape". It seems to be a lot of work to do and if RHS (and King Homer) choose own way, it is better to just wait for new releases.

Looks pretty well. But is the model (I mean shape) in the final stage?

One of the best OFP mods and update came almost unseen... Download it, guys! It is really worth it!

Well, AFAIR in GW2 due to friendly fire one Challenger 2 was hit by the other, one crew member was killed and one seriously injured. .COMmunist, I believe you that you have never seen an ACTUAL evidence of Abrahms having MUCH better armor then T-80UM. Nor did I. But this is a job for inteligences, people, who`s work is to estimate opponents armour quality, this is a job of armour and rounds constructor, finally, this is a hobby for many tank lovers, to try to find out what is a level of protection of various vehicles. There is lots of talk (speculation), but not evidence. What would happen to M1 if you shoot it with depleted uranium(DU) shells? Will it also hold? US dont release this kind of info (which is understandable). So we can only speculate here. Yes, we can. In mid 90`s S. Zaloga claimed that M1 front turret armour is about 350 mm RHAe against KE rounds. Russian tanklovers (or just from East) agree, their Western opponents see this value today about 400 mm RHAe, near level of T-72A/M1. There are many DU rounds (even few Russian). Some, older, less powerfull, might have problems with M1 armour. Another, newer, probably could be dangerous even for the most armoured modern MBTs, like Chally 2, Leo 2 A5/6 (or Strv 122), the newest Merkavas, M1A2 or T-90 (with welded turret, new ceramic inserts and K-5). M1 has superior fire control system (most of the western electronics are superior). But the Russian have autoloaders. This increase the ability to maitaine the rapid fire during prolong fights. Yes, it does. But why all FCS were developed? To increase the probability of "first shot kill" (in move). Prolonged firefights in era of firepower and fast manoeuvres? Even if so, quanity of ready for use ammunition does count here too, not only rate of fire. When T-90 or T-80 use all ammo from autoloader (22 and 28 rounds), rearming in battle situation is imposible. Western crew got a little better situation. DU shells most likely be removed from service. After the first Gulf War many American tank crew members complaint about radiation poisoning. The dust from DU shells contains high levels of dangerous radiation. This is a thread for many speculations. But, I suppose, the most researchers say about DU that it`s dust is heavy poisionous, and level of radiation is very low. Please don't compare Iraqis tanks to Russian tanks. Those are export varians and much inferior. Monkey model myth again? Export T-72M were at level of standard T-72, export T-72M1 - same protection level and fire control as Russian T-72A. Maybe Iraq build Asad Babyls were inferior in protection aspect when compared to T-72M1... The problem of Iraq tankers was that they used obsolete (when compared with M1A1 or Challenger 1) stuff, both vehicles and ammo. But not because their export "monkey models" were worse than Russian vehicles, on which those were based. There were 16 Abrahms destroyed in the last war in Iraq, mostly by an old AT guns from 1970's. The killer fact was 128 - 152mm caliber. Not only Russian tanks in Chechnya can suffer from RPG's if they are shot from behind or above, ANY tank will be destroyed by such tactics. Source, please. Could be WWW. I just want to read a little Also, more attention where using word "destroyed". Note, that if RPG hit could litterally destroy T-72 (turret pop-up, hull in pieces, crew killed; of course I mean with "lucky" shot), to do the same with Abrams powerful IED is needed. As far as I know there were never any skirmishes between M1A2 and T-80UM, so to say that one is better then the other is just a speculation, no more. But you compare crew losses when tank was hit by various rounds. And photos of lost vehicles. Abramses usually presents... better, in one piece. On the subject. I think the new coming tanks should be oriented on the best latest models, not old BIS ones. Most ppl dont use the old models any more. I liked the King Homer's M1, but unfortunately it is WAY overpowered. King Homer made M1A2, as far - ultimate American MBT. Using M829A3 ammo, compared with BIS East tanks (T-72, looks like Czech T-72M1D wich Dyna ERA; T-80BV) it MUST appear as overpowered. Also, if there is no WORKING armour values standard, it is hard to find a base for balance for new addons. Hope CAVS would change it before Game 2. I had to dig into config and make it less powerfull, with less armor and shorter IRscanner. Now I use it with Timmamas T-80UM and T-90. They can kill each other with 2 shots from the same distance. M1 crew can bail out, but not the T-80UM, so this is the advantage I give to M1, but no more. Note, that Russian rounds as far are inferior than Western. The most powerfull Russian KE ammunition, about which there is any data, is at level of M829A1 - the (in)famous "Silver Bullet" from Desert Storm! - and still it is probably not regular. BM42 and BM32 (with toxic and full of "dangerous radiation" DU ) today are more and more obsolete. Even if level of frontal protection of M1A2 and latest T-90s or T-80s are similar, American have more lethal rounds. I tried Timmamas tanks (with that fabulous scripts of reactive armour... odd mix of K-5 ERA, APS Arena and EOCMDAS Shtora), I hope RHS ones appear soon. So, my games are now more fun and more challenging for both sides. I think that's the way it should be. Nobody said that searching for realism in games is fun and challenging

Hello Friend of mine asks about one specific OFP clip: So, help would be very much appreciated Moderators, please move topic if I posted it in wrong place.

Thanks for answer, if you find anything, please share

And where would you add those MGs in Mi-8/17? Mi-24s and Sokols got two additional PKMs served by soldiers from inside. But still it is only to force bad guys to have their head low - not the main power of chopper.

I am affraid I have to report a bug. Let me better show it: This is how M60A3 looks to me from exterior. I have 1-3fps and way how does M60A3 looks change from those strange shaped... something  to very big strange... something that "eats" all screen. So, looks like ruined model; I had got similar problem when running on old Geforce 2 MX with bad confguration of video card and it`s overheated. But now I hot Geforce 4 TI4200 (and some mid-mid detail level in OFP)  and I have not seen something like this for a very long time. Oh, interior is fine. But this is thanks to BIS, isn`t it? It looks like this M60A3 is killing my PC. I run game with it two times and I am affraid that I will not run OFP with this addon again  XSparky, please, make it more... playable  Use much less polys. And if you find that you have some spare polys, change interior to class similar for OFrP or SFP4 class.

Antichrist, thank you

Almost there. The configuration of gunner sight do not look very well. Both day and night sight are now almost in line - and should not. Here blueprints of T-72 previous version. http://img201.exs.cx/img201/1337/172m1front6vn.jpg http://img201.exs.cx/img201/4883/172m19np.jpg Although sight type were changed in T-72A (and M/M1), configuration is the same. Day sight shield should be narrower than at your screens, and little higher. http://tanxheaven.com/krzo/t72mkrzo/t-72mkrzo-101.JPG http://tanxheaven.com/krzo/t72mkrzo/t-72mkrzo-117.JPG It should be noted that on the most of T-72A there were additional 16 mm plate on front hull armour, visually reducing number of anti-ricochet "steps" in front of driver hatch from 3 to 2. Your T-72A front hull looks like those from older and "monkey" (T-72M) versions. http://ffox.neostrada.pl/t-72/t72-1.jpg - T-72M http://data.primeportal.net/tanks...._11.JPG - T-72M1 (with applique plate just like in T-72A)

I have tried to make up values based on both the capabilities of the used rounds (not only RHA penetration, but area effects of the DM12A1/DM22 rounds as well), the used gun (L/44, L/55) as well as the protection levels (RHA vs. KE, RHA vs. CE) of BIS reference targets. The main problems with those results are the extremely limited weapon/damage system that OFP uses and the absence of standardized values for vehicles and aircraft like JAM does for infantry weapons. Especially the latter leads to mod specific values ranging from "uber-tanks" like RHS or Sigma to vehicles that are way too weak due to game balancing like the BIS units. If there was such a realistic JAM standard for armored vehicles based on real-life data and effects, we'd be among the first to adopt it - provided it serves its purpose. Try Common Armour Values System And Termipete`s siteTermipete`s site About MK 20 - what are your values for both AP and HE ammo? Some examples of medium calibre weapons values using CAVS method: 20 mm x 102 MP LD M70 ammo (new ammo for f.e. F16 fighters): hit=25; indirectHit=14; indirectHitRange=0.25; Ammo is multipurpose, but with limited splash effect. Old Russian 23 mm OFZT (HE-T) would be: hit=10; indirectHit=10; indirectHitRange=3; and old Russian 23 mm BZT (API-T): hit=25; indirectHit=2.5; indirectHitRange=0.03;

DM53/DM63 APFSDS rounds used by Leos 2 are probably one of the best AT round in the world. There are not many other regular rounds with similar performance (M829A3 - former E3 - could be slightly better - but it is newer round, not fully fielded), especially when DM53/DM63 are fired from long (L/55) Rheinmetall gun. Armour of T80B (which are the most probably the BIS ones) would not stand it. And newer T80U and T90 would be in troubles, too. It looks like (in config file) that BW used popular round penetration estimates as a base of their weapons damage values. Maybe a little overpowered (DM53/DM63 fired from L/44 gun would penetrate rather 650 mm RHAe than 700 as in BW Leos; both round fired from L/55 gun would do rather 750-800 mm RHAe than 850), but no crime For me it was rather strange that Leopard 2A5 has the same HitPoints (Armor) that Leopard 2A4. It should have same protection level as Leo 2A6. Odd. For sure MK 20 (armament of Wiesel and Marders) IS overpowered. Due to high fire rate and probably high damage values this is almost ultimate weapon. In multiplayer Sigma`s T90/T80, if miss first shot, would be easy pray for Wiesel! Especially HE rounds are very "effective", would kill armoured target (nevermind if it is BIS standard, WGL standard, CAVS standard) faster than f.e. VIT`s 30 mm gun from BMP-3/BMD-3 or "normal" BIS 30 mm gun. No Gepard is needed, vehicles with MK 20 would kill any target... So, this is IMHO a thing should be changed. But... I must say that BW mod makes fantastic work. Their Leos are beautiful (probably only Strv 122 from SFP4 is nicer ) and this mod is one of my favourite. High class addons, gents.

No one knows?

Oh yes, do you need one?

New version of test tank: http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/CAVStesttankabrams.rar /West/Armor/TTANK - as mentioned before main CAVS values (armor, armorstructural) were doubled (x2); so the most of armorABC (tracks, gun, hull etc.) have rather low (>0.50 value) - in .rar file I also included TTANK unpboed, so with easier acces to config and o2 files How does it work against JAM3 ammo and vehicles (modified by TermiPete)? - TTANK could survive multiple hits; however crew will bail out before enough tank is kaputt - TTANK has significantly stronger front; HP LOD screening seems to work - TTANK has significantly weaker sides and rear f.e. even one PG-7VR could force crew to bail out (destroyed "engine" - simulated by pasP), OTOH 4 would not be enough when hitting front - crew bails out when "engine" (rear hull) is hit badly or when turret is more than dammaged (pasL selection in the middle of turret) Problem (?) is that weak AT weapons (f.e. PG-7) make unproportionaly less dammage than stronger projectiles (f.e. PG-7VR), so 3 x 300 DMG hits means less than 1 x 750 DMG hit. There is a big difference if tank was hit by slow AT weapon or fast tank round. F.e. when PG-7VR hits turret, dammages goes mostly to exterior "turet" selection - just how it was planned. But if high velocity 3BM32 (TermiPete`s new JAM3 Vehicles; still I see the sense in using unmodified/unmultiplied values for such weapons, high speed gives them some kind of "bonus") hit turret, there are many chances that it "penetrate" to inside and the most of dammages goes to pasL selection, which has result in instant crew bail out. One more thing - due to high speed round there could be found some element of randomisation. F.e. if ussually TTANK would be hit with 2-3 3BM32 round without m-kill or f-kill, sometimes even one round from front could make more dammages (f.e. to hull), which make situation very bad for American tank. So, please test this baby and say what you think In my oppinion it could be some CAVS compatible option, lets say "deep" model modification.

Well, it might be a little problem to make AI crew smart enough to bail out only if needed - without scripts which CAVS as far avoid to use. So there are many situations to simulate and limited way to do it; armor, `AS`, localized parts. The clue is to use those possibilities and reach the target - more realism, with (if needed and if close to realism) tanks rather abandoned than smashed into a pulp with all crewmembers. It seems that OFP crew leaves vehicle when: - hull/engine/global armor (?) reaches zero; tankers bail out few seconds before vehicle explosion - or not - there was m-kill (armorTracks reaches zero) And that might be only reasons (plus leader order by menu or editor trigger) for OFP tankers to bail out. You say that crew of modern tank probably would not bail out unless turret (or just armor) is penetrated. So, how to force OFP crew to abandon their tank in that way? Simple, add some Tracks to otocvez in Hit-Points LOD. But then you`ll find that hitting turret would have another, secondary effect - m-kill. Odd, isn`t it? (not enough - as I said before I think about those additional selection inside turret ) If you have any idea how to improve tank realism in OFP without heavy scripting and add something to CAVS, be welcome. It is very good topic for that. If anyone want to make own experiments with HP LOD, remember - faces in that LOD does not matter. Only vertrices (named as f.e. hull, gun, turet etc.) matters. So make sure that in medium of f.e. hitturet zone there is turet vertex - or dammage will go to another, nearer (in line of sight?) vertex (f.e. hull or tracks). But how does it really work remains enigmatic for me... and (according to SPQR) very fast OFP projectiles sometimes could ignore FG (or HP?) LOD and make all system not working good enough.

It is combination of differing localized parts armor and changing model`s Hit-Points LOD by resizing some components, deleting others (engine) and finally adding new ones. (I would reccomend to see how does it look like in o2 and try to modify it ) Free Image Hosting The problem is that f.e. part armorTracks=0.25 is NOT 4 times weaker than armorHull=1.00. So it is very hard to find balance for Abrams to be almost immune against light AT intantry weapons from front and vulnerabile to RPG from behind/side. (It is much more easier to find good balance against tank weapons - I still do not know why). The latest ideas: - to make hull armor differ for tanks with different "survivability", something like `AS` once more - high value in case of tanks with all ammo isolated (Abrams), a little lower for vehicles with some ammo in hull/turret, where critical explosion is possible (Chally 2, Leopard 2) and moch more lower for tanks with ammo that would blow easier; - to double armor and armor structural (calculated by CAVS) values; then tanks would be disabled before global armor reaches zero, with crew bailed out before tank explodes - tank would blow then only if very, very heavy pounding or if it`s armorHull (varying with tank "survivability") reaches zero. Because mostly aiming point for AI (zamerny) in most models is in the middle of turret, it would be needed to add some Tracks (the only part which destruction leads to crew bail out) localized parts into turret (sounds odd but it works). I also think about using only one Track selection (f.e. pasL with armor=20-40) for tank MOBILITY (placed in tank rear, vulnerabile to hits from behind and into rear sides) and another (f.e. pasP) into turret, vulnerabile to hits from sides and above... any questions? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif' alt='biggrin_o.gif'>

Nice to see GROM patch on Jen`s shoulder  pozdrawiam

Just like all estimates... Probably the best source for such data is Paul Lakowski`s ArmorBasics.pdf file. It is not the newest, but still cannot see better one - and it is also base for tank lovers. Also Vasili Fofanov`s page seem to be nice source of estimates. The problem is that CAVS HAVE TO use some estimates and values... or it would be Common Armour System With No Values - and with no value... One more thing - localised parts. OFP dammage system seems to be far from perfect and it is hard way to go to deal with it. But let me link here two small links... http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/ALDI_TestAStruct.zip This is small Abrams pack (BIS models) reconfigured by alderous, using few different armor structural value (very, very low and very, very high). It could be seen there how those values make tank hard to kill (hard-kill, with explosion) without making it invincible (m-kill/f-kill still possible). I must confess that I see today much more right in using high `AS` by LoBo team... (but still think it needs some `codified` system). And one more file (many thanks to alderous and Panda_PL): http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/TTank.rar This is one more standard BIS tank, but with heavy modified Hit-Points LOD. It is still at stage of testing, but could show some direction in dealing with armor models. Firstly - there are some parts with low armour (f.e. armorTracks=0.2), which are sligtly more vulnerable to enemy fire - so it would be easier to make m-kill than hard-kill. Secondly - new armor parts (fronthull, fronthullP, fronthullL, frontturret), screens that protect "normal" elements. Thirdly - engine was removed. In standard BIS tanks there are three ways for vehicle to blow: - when Armor ("global") reaches zero - when ArmorEngine reaches zero - when ArmorHull reaches zero I decided that two ways are enough. Tank was tested against CAVS compatible JAM3 weapons. New "screens" also works against Sigma`s APFSDS rounds, making enough frontal protection (with more vulnerable sides and rear). It do NOT work good against weapons with high indirect dammages (Sucheys and ORCS AT weapons) - but it was CAVS idea to make it lower. Simplified scheme of new HP LOD proposition for Abrams: Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

Awesome pack.

Models look very accurate. Good job But Leopard 2A5 seems to have to the same armor value as Leopard 2A4.

Gordy`s M4 also had it. If you want to see Eotech in action with other than M16 clone weapon, see Operation Carrot release http://img184.imageshack.us/img184....RL=http

I think that CAVS is already released Just see Termipete`s work: http://203.96.151.15/ofpnz/ofsi_frames.htm And also JAM3 release - CAVS detected. It could be said that CAVS for a moment turned into CAAVS (Common Anti-Armour Values System), concentrated on ammunition values. There are many materials and nice proposals for incomming CAVS compatible tanks - but it could be seen there are still no such (fully compatible) tanks. But I suppose it is a matter of time. We got nice base (JAM3 + all that staff from Termipete`s site) for developing that tanks. And few more ideas...