Sigma-6

I'm not going to make it into a tank class. 'unhappy customers' are just one of the many tradeoffs we were forced to make to finally release this addon. The only way it is going to perform more like a Tank classed vehicle is if BIS releases a patch.

heehee. . . Just thought I'd put in that Roy Brown was Canadian, not British. . .

No, I was just wondering what prompted it. . . In particular, because all of the main LODs have the interior and exterior integrated in the same LOD, in order to make the trick of the JeepMG class work as something nearing a wheeled tank class. Your remark was just puzzling, because I was confused about what you thought I might have lowered the polycount *from*. My response was just indicating my confusion, as the only polycount lowering I did was to get the lower resolution LODs to have lower counts. . . and other than that, all I've done on it this year was make the polycount higher and retexture it again. . . . unless, you were intimating that I'd pirated it from somewhere (which I didn't think you were, BTW), which would be laughable, because this was actually my first O2 project, which I started back in August of 2002 while I was first learning 3d. I think I even have shots of it somewhere when it was just 15 polys.

I've pointed that out before in this thread in any case, to somebody else who wondered why these were so weak in terms of armour. Everything in this Leopard 1 series set (Leopard 1A3, and Leopard 1A5) except the Uparmoured C2 (which is still a Leopard 1A5, it's just covered in MEXAS, Heavy) has less than 400-500mm of RHA, the strongest of which is on the turret, while the hulls have about 200mm. Absolutely NO MATCH for the T-80's 125mm 2A46 gun in RL, which, firing its 1985 equivalent round, is going to have no trouble at all defeating that in a single shot at any range. What you're seeing is *quite* realistic. [and. . . err. . . nobody ever built a Leopard 2 with a 105mm gun anyway. . . dunno where you got that from] Sorry if you're disappointed, (and I don't mean to be harsh) but you haven't given useful criticism here, you've merely shown that you haven't done any research. @Dauragon: Not yet. . . The best Leopard 2 available, AFAIK so far is Swissmod's 2A4. . . Nobody's done a 2A6 yet, though I think somebody might have done the Strv 122. . . I think I saw it somewhere. . . I'd be tempted to do it myself, but as you probably know, Canada doesn't have any Leopard 2s, and we're not likely to buy any. @Badger: I'm probably going to redo the camo, yeah. . . I just don't know when, and by today's addon standards, that Camo didn't look particularly good. . . of course, it *was* made just after O2 actually came out, so back then I guess it might have been OK, but I looked at it when I was making the new model, and it just didn't stack up. . . sorry.

Which model, my model? The polycount never went any higher than the 1.00 LOD. . . are you talking about the LOD work on the lower detail LODs?

Nope. It's always been armoured. You can choose which class in the editor things appear pretty much at your whim, you could even put a jeep in 'armoured' if you wanted. My LAVs are 'car' classed vehicles. JeepMG.

The arrogance of power.

Obviously you've taken liberties with the dialogue. . . but that's excusable if you have to dramatize something for a clearly thrilling movie. . .

Enjoy, but bear in mind, you'll find bugs galore, mostly related to the fact that the car class is still very much disabled with no patch in sight. Basically this is a glorified jeepMG like the other LAVs, still no turnouts or proper optics, or a proper commander position. Even so, I think we've done pretty well.

I feel it's important to point out though, that the pack *will* include Iraqi and Chinese variants, however (and Iraqi Chinese Variants, lol), like the Type 59 and Type 69 and Enigma.

I don't get any lag at all. . . even in the gunner optics. . . I'm on a P4 1.6, 512 RAM and a 64 meg Geforce III

I'm sure it must be in the config somewhere, but my model has 'clan' selection set the same way it should be, except now it appears ingame as the BIS logo, and I'm not sure how to make it invisible unless it's selected for use in MP or in the init line in the editor.

I feel it's my duty now to keep this thread alive. . . Last I heard from Blackdog was that he was working on it. I ported it ingame, finished setting up the LODs, built the hatch anim (bitch that was) and got the gunner's station working reasonably properly, and once that was all done, I sent it to blackdog It still needs, best as I can tell, a new set of crew proxies (totally new anims, the normal OFP ones won't fit in such a small vehicle, even jammed in) lights set up, some lighting fixes on the hull (as blackdog said) and a series of resolution LODs. Hatches where crew come up out of them won't be possible, I'm afraid, but while it's gonna be a bit, best I can tell this thing *will* be released eventually.

Well, remember that these are in a class that isn't supposed to work at all in OFP, so a lot of bugs are a result of that and can't be fixed. Unless somebody knows how to stop the driver from briefly appearing like that (sometimes he goes away, oddly) as a cargo proxy instead of the proxy he's supposed to be, there's not much I can do.

After the big ugly black square that was so ugly is gone, what you see now is called 'low-poly modelling'. . . lol Essentially. . . (as everyone knows) the more points I use, the slower your machine chugs.

First off, that's not on-topic. It's a personal toy of one of our crew, and it won't be released by RHS. A T-55 with Arena has never existed, and an ERA pattern like that has never existed either. It's not a real tank, and you won't see it in the T-55 pack.

Thing is, we are actually (and more often lately) sent into situations that are not peacekeeping missions; we're just sent into peacekeeping missions more often overall, and so I doubt that the last word has been had on tanks.

Ah, the uninformed. Â (not you, Hellfish, the writer of the article) That's not actually true. . . it's mostly speculative. The decision to go 'tankless' hasn't actually been made; though there is a lot of talk at all levels. I'd be hard pressed to believe any report anyone outside the CF considers to be 'official', because nowadays everyone in the CF is writing a 'white paper', (see the notorious 'corporals' report') and nearly every one of them has been hailed as 'the official word' by the press, where none of them are. Incidentally, it's wrong on another point as well (it's a very good article for that). Canada's tanks have often been overseas since the end of the Cold War. Most recently in Kosovo, where the LdSH served. The bit about the Stryker is kinda cute too. . . err. . . umm. . . did anyone download the LAV-III addon? Umm. . . we had that vehicle in service, and operating overseas before the US even started considering buying it. . . umm. . .

The version on www.operationnorthstar.com is now updated with the fix for the drive sprocket alpha problem. . . could mirroring news sites update their files? And yeah. . . personally, I think the Uparmoured C2 is one of the most killer looking tanks in the world. . . those MEXAS Heavy packs look cool as hell. look here: Photos of C2, Uparmoured

Yeah. . . that bug comes from the alpha texture concerned being separate from the pbo the binarized model is in. I'll fix that.

The lead core of a bullet is not radioactive. (you're comparing apples and oranges) DU is radioactive. Inhaled dust causes cancer. [thus] DU is a radiological weapon. You'll see where it's quite clear on "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or © radiation or radioactivity." Which is to say, whether you intended it to or not, it fits this classification if it meets any of these criteria. (you can't claim 'we didn't know') Incidentally, the quality of those Australian reports is precisely what concerns me. They're medically sound (in terms of the types of studies they did; we had similar ones here in Canada, and they failed to include any of the possible vectors that are being explored onsite in Iraq, the same as these, and the DoD's do), but they don't have the scientific credibility to be considered an in-depth study by anyone's reckoning as a scientist. Science is based on repeatability and peer-review. Which means that even if we don't like what we learn, if our peers can prove we're wrong, we accept their proof. Asking a military to provide doctors to study (in clinical conditions) the effects of a weapon in a totally alien environment under completely different conditions, and then preventing further (independent) study from having any effect on your data doesn't fit the bill.

Would you stop saying that? Would you read the data? Depleted Uranium is Uranium 235, which is 238 with its fissionable component removed. It's called depleted by the nuclear power industry because it can't be used as fuel, not because it's functionally any less dangerous. Saying that just demonstrates that you don't understand the physics. On top of that, I want to make it *quite* clear that in the context it has been described in this thread, saying that Uranium 235 is 'harmless' can only be done in defiance and ignorance of sixty to seventy years of physical evidence (the study of the core sciences, specifically physics, since about 1930) that many people (scientists included; some of whom I have studied in great detail (particularly Feynman) have died to collate. This is patently absurd. It flies in the face of everything we know about radioactivity, and as time goes on, it has succeeded only in eroding the credibility of the DoD. In short: You *Can't* prove (either enthusiasts, or the MDs at the DoD) that U235 doesn't have the effects described, it's already been proven by decades upon decades of repeatable experimentation and peer review. Read the handling precautions for crissake! They're there foir a reason. It amazes me (and every freaking physicist I talk to) that the DoD can simultaneously publish its handling precautions and also expain that they're pointless when it comes to being accountable when they're not used.

further info

What is: Uranium fired at targets  with 300mm to 400mm RHA armour in inhabited areas as part of penetrators that achieve >700mm RHA penetration from 120mm smoothbore guns that will fire the German DM-53, a tungsten penetrator which will penetrate >810mm RHA. What ought to be: Heaven knows, but it isn't leukemia, and I'm not the type to accept what is and ignore what ought to be because it isn't what is.

lol. . . we must have been typing those at the same time. . . hehe