Strike_NOR
-
Content Count
505 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by Strike_NOR
-
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
Strike_NOR replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Whoa :) that would be good! -
ITC Air Systems - V1.8 - CCRP, Encore, Updated Compatibility
Strike_NOR replied to yax's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Wow. Very impressive :) And useful! How bout that? -
Added: Sub-munition support for shells could this be? Is it finally coming? Are you bringing the HEAT? *hype intensifies* Edit: Also, many nice fixes and changes this update. Things are looking good!
-
Sigh. HE simulation in vanilla ArmA 3 is also an area that could use some tweaks. It's not bad, but there is apparently 0 penetration or delay fuze possibilities here. The crew of vehicles do not suffer damage as a direct result of the HE splash damage either, they suffer a fraction of the damage dealt to the vehicle itself. This is why you can shoot a 40mm grenade in the drivers seat window, and the driver is fine. You can also fire a 40mm grenade into the back of a covered truck, hit the troops in the face, and they are fine. But your example regarding 20mm HE, while I have not tested myself in the game, I have been so lucky to stand next to 20mm HEI-T in a bunker next to the target area and witnessed it's power. It has a surprisingly decent lethal radius for unarmored targets (no vest) due to the fragmentation effect. However I believe 2 meters is the deadly distance of armored infantry targets. Needless to say, these 20mm shells behave as miniature grenades. While one may not ruin your entire squad, a burst of 100 from an aircraft performing a strafe run, or a quick burst from an autocannon should leave the squad in a pretty mangled state. The ones who are not incapacitated should definitely be injured and dazzled (they are loud). The lethal radius, damage falloff and damage value may need some tweaking if your observations are true :)
-
From todays devbranch update Tweaked: Penetration materials on all armored vehicle models Care to elaborate a little? Making a change to all armored vehicle penetration warrants testing/feedback to test the new configuration :)
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@oukej has already stated that all vehicle ammo loadouts are being looked at again, and most likely some will be changed. Most notably for AFV's the ammo count will most likely see an increase. I don't think I'm wrong if I say that the T-140 and T-100 probably will come with SACLOS missiles by default in a future devbranch update :) Interface may be tweaked accordingly, and to "fit" the missiles you either A) Remove some APFSDS/HEAT/HE ammo and add some Missiles. or B) Creators freedom - insert as many missiles as you like because you are entitled to as Dev ;) ;) -
Tanks - Armored vehicles customization
Strike_NOR replied to kllrt's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Allright guys. You all have some ideas about this, and they are good, but I'll try to shed some light on the advantages of camo nets, by most usefulness at top: They reduce contrast in the visual light spectrum. This means that not only the mk.1 eyeball has a harder time spotting it, but also any contrast-seeking device (mostly outdated tech). They can reduce contrast in the infra-red spectrum. Camo nets are subject to keeping temperatures close to ambient temperatures, making them blend with the environment, however this doesn't mean much if the vehicle beneath is generating a lot of heat. Soon enough, the camo net will also heat up, and any gap in the camo netting pattern will let through some IR-light. Essentially, it helps a little bit. They can be made of radar-absorbing materials. This will reduce the amount of radar energy reflected by the target. They can dampen sound. Depending on camo net type, they can absorb some of the sound generated by the target, making it harder to hear at distances. How could these nets work in ArmA, except make it more difficult for the player to visually see it? (Basically not only serve as an aesthetic gimmick?) With the 'new' sensors suite, camo nets could (technically speaking) reduce the "target size" (how easy it is to detect) roughly like this: Heavy reduction in visual sensor target size - (maybe exception on roads - where they actually stand out quite well) Slight reduction in Infra-Red sensor target size - (make the target stay hidden until the seeker is closer than usual.) Slight reduction in radar target size (same as for IR) Reduce volume of vehicle slightly. However, and here's a big IF, this would require a link between camo net presence (equipped or not), coverage (turret/hull and damage states) and then tie it to the vehicle sensor "cross section"/target size for all of the aforementioned sensor types. That sounds like a lot of work to me - so I don't know if it is even possible at all, but it would be nice as it would affect the way AI "sees" their enemies too, or rather.. don't see them :) :p -
Actually @kremator offered the best solution to the problem I can think of so far, which is to force the AI gunner to postpone reload until the missile is dead (despawned or destroyed). However, a rare situation may arise, where a missile is being fired at a target cresting a height in relation to the gunner. If the missile misses, it will now fly upwards towards the sky. I don't know how long the Vorona will fly before it self-destructs/despawns - but if kremators suggestion is used - then the AI won't reload for the entire lifetime of that missile (which may be awkwardly long). Maybe a if "missile = dead" then reload -> else wait (x amount of seconds) then reload. To ensure the operator will reload at a given delay, no matter what. On a completely different note... I am not sure how AI SACLOS missile guidance is handled in the game. A dev or experienced modder may be able to comment on this - but AI could very well be "cheating" with SACLOS missiles in form of a compromise "lock on" version. In other words, human players use manual SACLOS, while AI use an emulated version that actually uses Lock-On guidance (Otherwise, how would the AI be able to track a target while reloading the launcher as @heavygunner first stated?). Just a thought :)
-
@meowcat Well, technically it can. A lot depends now on how the damage mechanics will change, but if the devs reduce the overall damage dealt to vehicle global health (hithull) then you are far more likely to see modules/crew being knocked out before the actual vehicle is destroyed (hithull dmg 1). Which is more realistic. In terms of wreck models there is a very good reason to keep them and that is when a vehicle catastrophic event occurs (ammo storage detonation or fuel fire/explosion). If such an event occurs, the tank/vehicle can very well disintegrate, where only the strongest parts remain intact. In other words : look like a wrecked model ingame. @Asheara has already confirmed that they considered ammunition hitpoints, but that it was abandoned due to complexity/time constraints. However, she also stated that hithull (the vehicles global health hitpoint) could technically be modified to a size/shape comparable to ammo storage - although she did not promise that vanilla vehicles would receive this modification. If they had combined that "repurposing" of the hithull hitpoint/firegeometry (to act as ammorack) together with reducing the amount of damage hithull receives from ricochets, non-penetrations and perforations that do not directly strike the hithull firegeometry; we may see a much more realistic representation of armor destruction/damage simulation. I am waiting patiently to see how things progress, as devs are allegedly still working on damage mechanics and nothing is finalized yet. Hopes are up for increased vehicle survivability, but decreased module/crew survivability IF penetration occurs. After all, AT weapons are designed to kill by puncturing the hard shell to get inside to the soft vitals. A tank isn't of much use if the crew are dead, but it may still be 100% functional (if nothing else important was hit).
-
Oooh this is bad for at least two reasons: 1. The missile is very powerful and AI would overkill most targets. 2. The first hit may destroy the target while the second missile is en-route. This is wasting expensive ammo. Maybe force a delay between reloads so that the AI keeps tracking the target until impact has occured (after all it is a manually guided missile).
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
First of all. It seems you are using mods while testing. For the sake of simplicity you should deactivate every mod. Second of all, I think missile damage values are being tweaked (possible HEAT overhaul incoming). So this may be a temporary feature gap. Third: When you lase targets you should always paint the target from the missiles approach direction. I don't know if ArmA laser targets are masked/occluded by vehicles, but they sure are in real life. In your case, the laser is on the rear of the tank, and the missile approaches from 90 degrees in relation to that. This means that during the terminal flight phase, the missile may lose line of sight to the laser, and lose track right before impact. Your test results coincide with this behavior. :) -
If that is the case. Cool - didn't know that. Will have to see how that affects gunner and driver in vehicles.
-
There should be a "watch" (face direction) command in the quick command menu that pops up when selecting any AI. Simply point and click to make someone look there. This could also mean the driver, so he can angle/orient the hull to face known threats. Would be useful for commanding player drivers too if VOIP isn't an option. As of now, AFAIK, you have to 'struggle' through menus to find that functionality.
-
Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)
Strike_NOR replied to dezkit's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
PhysX boosted -
Yep. Newly developed anti-matter fin stabilized discarding sabot (AMFSDS) now causes tracks to simply seize existing as they are annihilated by anti-particles. Hurr hurr. ;) Still better than before though, when there was no visible damage indication!
-
Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)
Strike_NOR replied to dezkit's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Bamboozled! Will try! -
Word. I realize this too and I am contemplating creating a dedicated thread for wishlist/improvements stuff and this thread for actual feedback (response) to devbranch updates. Came to the conclusion that I'll wait until datalock - assess the situation and start adressing areas of improvement/potential thereafter. Some of the posts here remain very valid though - and the devs recognize that^^ :)
-
Hey! Yeah the 40mm seems a little bit too potent now maybe? At least from the front it should not be able to penetrate MBT's that well. Have you experimented with range? Does the 40mm still penetrate at typical engagement ranges of 500 - 1000 meters? I'd like to know what you find out :)
-
Can't you just place a Nyx Recon with an AI commander in the seat? That would leave the radar active and transmitting Datalink targets for you?
-
Probably a stupid question, but have you checked that the Nyx Recon has activated its radar? (spinning) For it to work, Nyx Recon must have datalink active, radar on and target line of sight. The Nyx AA should then automatically receive the datalinked target.
-
No worries - it's oukej (wink) ;) It's still way better than what the PCML used to be - and you should be proud of that! However, this does leave you with a gameplay-design situation where the top attack will be your no1 choice in most scenarios, because it will hit the vehicle top, avoiding ERA and hitting weaker armor. The only situation you would prefer Direct Attack is against entrenched infantry (which cannot be locked) or soft targets. According to my own tests and other users - we have reported that the PCML in direct attack (unguided) does not work well with the weapon sights (missile flies over the crosshair and does not drop), and as such it is difficult to use the PCML against infantry and soft targets in direct attack (unguided). FYI :) Good luck with the bugsmashing and fire-extinguishing. Gotta love mondays!
-
How dare you tease with something like that! :D My knees are now weak. Seriously though. This sounds promising. Considering that this may see the light as natively supported in ArmA3 - it will be even more important to look at AP mechanics (since submunition projectile follows the same laws as other ArmA projectiles). Thanks for the hype. I totally needed that on top of my monday caffeine rush!
-
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
Strike_NOR replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Aaah. The memories from good'ol Operation Flashpoint. Shooting this at M60's on Malden. Thanks for the walk down memory lane, and good job :) Looks like you got the sights setup perfectly (for distance estimation etc). Bravo! -
Yes, please :) A few things that still stand out is: Non-penetrating hits (ricochet and surface "absorb") deal great damage to global health of vehicle (I think it is related to the way a high Hit value will create an indirectHitrange damage that spreads to every Hitpoint in the area). (This isn't exactly accurate behavior unless you are being hit by a wrecking-ball sized cannon shot.) Damage to crew can still occur, even if shell is fully stopped by armor surface. (will post some more feedback/details on this soon™ from testing on current devbranch version). HEAT weapons that use IndirectHit values (all but the PCML) seem to cause 0 damage when hitting ERA, and full damage when hitting anything else, regardless of position. The vehicles global health suffers greatly, regardless of impact angle, armor thickness etc. The PCML behaves more like a real HEAT weapon, and causes different damage values dependent on impact angle/penetration depth/area etc.
-
Yes. What I meant is that in ArmA3 the PCML currently fires its HEAT shaped charge forwards through a tank in Direct Attack mode, giving it AP capability in both OTA and DA mode. Realistically it should work by impact fuse and only cause HE damage in DA mode, and be lethal against tanks in OTA mode. A 'simple way' would be to either: -Script the PCML so that when fired in DA mode, it fires the shaped charge directly downwards (into the ground). -Script the weapon so that when DA is selected, it actually swaps the missile type to a impact HE weapon. Not sure how they have programmed the two different flight paths in game, but I would not be surprised if they had two different classes "PCML_DA" and "PCML_OTA" that are chosen based on fire mode. If that is the case, they can simply reconfigure the DA version to explode on impact without submunition being generated. :)
