Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

541 Excellent

About Strike_NOR

  • Rank
    Staff Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • XBOX Live
  1. RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Thanks for clarifying. I mean, it's not too obvious :) I guess you could say: It's not bad, it's just arma :p
  2. Dino Crisis Prototype

    Dear god look at mr mcruppert and miller back at it again already. You absolutely nailed the feeling of these games! Fantastic job man! What's next? A remake of Time Commando? :D
  3. RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    This weapon looks fantastic! Glad to see more anti-tank stuff coming into play :) If I may bring some constructive criticism, I think the right hand looks a little awkward the way it's angled. Look at the wrist joint, the angle seems too sharp. Could this perhaps be mitigated by cupping the hand a little more, then lowering the elbow so the angle doesn't become so sharp at the wrist? Other than that, absolutely perfect :)
  4. Sounds about right. I hope we get to see some cfgarmorsimulation snacks soon :D Edit: Regarding today's devbranch update. What could possibly be the difference between " " and ' ' :) Maybe an indication of how serious these logistical issues are? I have yet to witness a case of '''logistical issues''' . I've been told those are a nightmare.
  5. @x3kj @.kju Would make sense to make this into an AI skill slider parameter. "Reaction time". Could be the same parameter that influences aim time etc. Make that a base value, the eject time could be a coefficient of that base value. So for instance, reacting to enemies in CQB is generally fast, but as crew reacting to tank damage it gets an increased reaction time based on the initial level.
  6. Thanks for verifying. I had this suspicion for ages.
  7. @Beagle I have rigged 2.75'' rocket shaped charge warheads for demonstrational purposes IRL. If that TITAN-AT missile from my screenshot had ANY form of similar warhead, both guys would be dead from the pressure. It's like a HE grenade goes off 1 m from your head. Even without fragmentation, you are dead. Besides, my point is even if you dropped a 500lbs bomb 5 meters from the tank, the turned-out crew will not die in ArmA. Which is inaccurate. I think turned out crew are handled the same way as turned in crew when it comes to explosives. Only projectile hits will "directly" kill them. @dragon01 The molten metal jet has been debunked here as a myth already. Also my local EOD specialist confirmed. The liner (usually copper) is deformed by the explosive, but not molten. It does not melt any armor. However, the focused blast will force the steel armor to "give way". This deforms the steel so rapidly that the steel armor heats up and sends some steel sparks flying. The impact of HEAT looks like it makes the armor melt, but it's just being forced away by a focused jet of extremely high pressure. Yes, this creates high pressure and very hot steel spalling/fragments, which are likely to kill crew, destroy equipment and ignite ammunition. As for the HE potential, it's still enough to kill you at close range, but in no way a "general purpose" weapon. In my screenshot, the two tankers should be dead.
  8. Some positive feedback on the Titan top-attack missile "homing" :) The missile now finds it's way to the nearest 'homies' much faster. Homing works as expected. image uploader On the flipside. About 0.1 ms after this screenshot was taken, neither of the homies were killed. The tank was damaged, but no crew killed. This is another gripe. Explosive weapons do not seem to damage turned-out crew. Neither do they really damage internal crew, even in cars, where a 40mm grenade to the drivers window "should" kill the guy(s) inside. Will this be tweaked for tanks DLC? :)
  9. Monday will be a good day. I'm getting bi-weekly good vibes. And have a great weekend Bohemia Studios.
  10. You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works. I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are: Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with). and More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc). @oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)
  11. From a game standpoint this makes sense. Just like good old arcade bossfights. 3 hits to win over the boss. It's predictable and easy. However, from a simulation perspective this approach is faulty. Vehicles do not posess health. Therefore, saying a hit deals 33% damage to an APC health is a cheap way of designing damage. At best you could create a parameter called "structural integrity" that simulates hull deformation or collapse at a certain threshold (falling from great heights/getting slammed by something huge or very 'explodey'). But that will be the exception as to how vehicles get destroyed. Simply put: A tank does not explode because the shells damage it gradually. It generally only tends to explode if something explosive detonates inside it, such as an explosive chain reaction by hitting ammunition stowage or fuel/air mixtures. At this point the tank has switched roles from being an armored vehicle, into an expensive steel bomb. The pressure buildup inside will now either: - Escape through an opening extremely fast (like a rocket engine -woooosh). -Not escape and keep building until something gives away, such as the hatches, turret etc) -rarely, the tank can actually explode into bits and pieces. But more likely than any of the above, it will stop functioning due to dead crew, dead engine, knocked out weapons, tracked or other. I hope they alter the mechanics so that the likelyhood of effectively "killing" an unprotected tank with a direct hit from 1 advanced ATGM is about 50%, but a well aimed shot always kills it (critical part hit). For large aerial missiles such as macer, most likely 90% chance of kill. I would like to see more tanks get knocked out without exploding, maybe catching fire and brewing up to ammo cookoff. After all, it's often how these things go in real life. Set the tanks health to only take damage from extreme events, such as falling off a tall bridge or standing next to a 1000kg bomb. Make internal modules that can break. If ammo module takes full damage, have this cause total health loss of vehicle. Look to RHS armor and IFA3 for realistic approaches to vehicular damage. Etcetc :)
  12. @bis_iceman Thanks for the insight and transparent attitude :) These things are nice to know, makes you appreciate that there are more cogs in the machinery that all come together before something is uploaded to the devbranch! Looking forward to monday. Have a great weekend!
  13. Sooeh. You got any of them devbranch updates? Working overtime maybe? Or huge upload file :) Was getting hopeful about seeing tweaks to them missile profiles and such :) Either way, have a great well-earned weekend!
  14. Magnificent work man! Amazing what you are able to get out of this game :D
  15. Hence new armor mechanics, new warheads and sensor types. To put it differently. Try using the AT-3 Malyutka in RHS (MCLOS) and hit something with that. It's much more challenging, not overpowered and very rewarding to master. That said, MCLOS is basically outdated, but SACLOS and other types of predicted lead missile systems (NLAW) are still "harder" to use than Fire and forget Javelins. As for warheads. The RPG-7 system that Syndikat uses has a wide range of warheads IRL. I wouldn't say that the RHS RPG-7 is easy to master, which makes it more fun to use imho.