Sigma-6

Pretty well accepted that the Leopard 2A6 is the best armoured tank in NATO hands down. The T90 Vladimir is probably the best protected in the world, though there's no way to tell, and saying that even when you understand the principles to a tee can get your head bitten off. You can't get accurate values for any of the top tanks, but you can get *approximate values*. and they do differ greatly depending on specific location, slope, and the type of weapon that's attacking, as well as about twelve million other factors. Somebody once said that measuring tank armour using equivalencies of RHA is like weighing a pig in Ohio: You lay a board across a fence and put the pig on one end of the board. Then, you pile up bricks on the other end until both sides are balanced, and then you guess how much the bricks weigh. I'm putting together an exhaustive list of both definite values for older tanks and approximated values for current gear. I'll post it here when I'm done, but so far, it's going well.

Are you saying that I might be able to create a brand new custom class if I was willing to code its inheritance in all aspects directly up from the 'all' class? If so, you are my saviour, and I will kiss you. What I'm hoping for here is an explanation from a BIS staff member telling me it can't be done so that I don't have to kiss this guy. . .

I just tried out Jim's sounds for my T55 series, and I have to say, you people are going to love these. . . hehe

You know, that's a good idea, Vixer. . . Problem I see is that you'd need atleast 4 of them, because you'd want to have different hitpoints for the different applique or reactive armour locations, otherwise, when you hit the left track-side plate, you'd also destroy the right one, the glacis and the turret front. . .

As far as I know, we will be implementing scripts with these tanks, including the dust script, and we're discussing possible alternate muzzle flashes. As for Vixer's question, Suma has made it clear that there is no way to implement additional hitpoints.

The T55 pack has as follows: T54 T55A T55AM2 Type 59 (Chinese, green, with track skirts) T54 (desert) T55 (desert) T55 Enigma (Iraqi, with concrete addon armour) T54 (winter) T55 (winter) T55AM2 (winter) All are East, but those that are appropriate to it will also be available as Resistance. . . (Like in the T72/T90 pack. . . which is also going to get a major RSS update, (new markings, model improvements, etc. . .)) Also expect to see a complete retexture and update to the T80 pack. (eventually)

Ah well. . .. I suspected that, which is why I hadn't tried it yet.

Well, armor = 400 that's what the T72 has for its armour value. if you put, </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">class HitERA {armor=??;material=50;name=era;passThrough=1;}; <span id='postcolor'> 1.0 in the armor section there, then that means 400. There are a few things here. One is that if the round hits that location and exceeds the base value (400) even just on that location, then it will destroy the tank. If however, you put, say .5 and the missile did 220 points, it would destroy that location and not the rest of the tank. . . as I understand it, if it says passthrough=1, and the round destroys the ERA, then it will 'passthrough' to apply damage to the turret. Personally, I take armor=400 to mean 400mm RHA (the standard military notation for armour thickness) thich is exactly what the T72M1 has in real life. So, since the values for this (weapons and armour) are available for pretty much every vehicle in the world, this is a good baseline to use to know what to put.

(in response to the question about RSS, I'm already there. It's a great team.)

Who ever said anything about limiting addons released? Whoever said anything about eliminating the little guy, much less 'dictating' what gets made? Besides, who would be naive enough to think that even if there were a committee, that it would deter anyone from making things? It wouldn't deter me for one, and it wouldn't deter the news pages from posting cool new things (like UFOs, and such.) I was under the impression that what was being discussed here was (in part) coming up with a database of standard *number values* (not addons), so that if people used the standard number values then they could put a tag on their addon (of their own accord) saying they used those. Obviously (far from 'forcing' people to comply) if people didn't want to use them, they simply wouldn't do it, and no problem. . . Why would addons be submitted and 'approved' or 'rejected'? Not only would that be draconian, but who would pay the 'commitee'? the task would be gargantuan, and it would suck the life out of the community. Personally, all I'm talking about is a few people concerned with real numbers getting together to post a *standard set of numbers* (mainly for vehicles). I don't see what's wrong with that, or why it would be 'dictatorial'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OFP was never designed to be a SIM game, and I don't think it would work well if taken to that extreme.<span id='postcolor'> I disagree. I believe that you set the realism standard, and people who want to put gameplay ahead of it can go ahead, perhaps there's simply a different tag, or even a different regulated standard. . . Personally, I think gameplay is 'enhanced' by realism. . . IE, the Iraqi trying to figure out a way to kill the Challenger is more fun to me than making the Iraqi's equipment more powerful than it is. It's men and ingenuity that win wars, not gear. . . and "even a child can be taught to find the chinks in any suit of armour". . . I've found a hundred ways to overwhelm modern US gear, for example, with grossly inferior forces, and in my opinion, it's a lot more fun and more challenging.

The United States Of America. . . Oh hell. . . I just looked, and somebody took that one. . .

They are out of scale. They're also out of proportion. I'm currently working on more accurate versions. I'm sure others are too.

Okay. I was just pointed here by Blink Dog, and I'm really pleased with the progress (and I can't see it as anything but progress, because by definition and principle, mature dialogue can only be that, regardless of its outcome). My thoughts: 1. Reduce and eliminate redundancy. Absolutely, reduce . . . but not eliminate. That may be an unachievable goal, especially if you take into account the fact that there are, today, amny independents with addons that outpace the big names who will never publicize them because of initiatives like this, or because they're just doing it for themselves. I'm not interested in seeing that redundancy eliminated. . . Variety is the spice of life. 2. Standardised config values as much as possible. This, I believe, is the key. Anyone who has spoken to me will tell you that this is where my bread is buttered. The reason is this: We don't have to *enforce* standards. My work, for example, is based on Defence industry figures. I found that if I took the T72 that BIS shipped as the baseline, the armour values corresponded *directly* to the Defense industry's International standards for ballistic testing. (equivalencies of RHA) Hats off to BIS for this. I used these numbers, (round offs of published figures from the US, Germany, Russia, and various other sources, as well as mathematical data from various sources and firsthand descriptions of battles involving the units. When people objected, I pointed them to the figures published by the groups they thought they were defending. Using this standard does several things for the community: a: External, real-world, physical data that happens to correspond to the game engine is indisputable. All we do at this point is decide which are the most reliable figures. . . (there will be disputes here, but fewer than if it doesn't get dialogued) b: Potential addonmakers don't have to devise systems, because they can see that the defense industry already has one that relates directly to the engine they're using. c: a T34 doesn't stand up to an M1A2, whoever makes it, and if it does, it doesn't have a compliance tag in its readme. 3. Open source on configs (put it in the read-me). Sure. But I am not going to have people recirculating SIG tanks with fantasy numbers in them. I'll do that once there's an established standard, and I'll co-operate to establish one. I'm sure others will agree to this, having gotten long-winded, poorly researched, often childish emails concerning the inaccuracy of their exhaustive research, announcing the writer's desire to alter and 'correct' it. . . (and sometimes then asking for permission). Call me a snob, but that's how I see it. Nothing has stopped me from donating material, publishing *figures* pointing to *sources*, and allowing people to continue accurate work, but I won't have people rewriting the book that the Defense industry uses, in order to assuage the honour of their pet tank. again, to re-iterate: I'll do that once there's an established standard, and I'll co-operate to establish one. Wholeheartedly. 4. Co-operation on technique/skills. Bingo. If we have to elect the willing to co-ordinate, that's democracy for you. I'm behind that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They seem to have very strange buttstocks... on the AKS-74 and AKS-74U <span id='postcolor'> Those are the folding type. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, there seems to be a bayonet on the AKS-74... why?<span id='postcolor'> because it has fittings for a bayonet? Personally, I have some of my own sitting on my hard-drive, but mostly because of the limitations of the engine, or because they are in progress. . . For example: TUA (canadian M113 modification, TOW Under Armour) M1/A1/A2 tank series (yeah, eventually, the whole thing, as accurate as can be, including the export versions) And a couple more. . .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you know that. You know too much.<span id='postcolor'> How could anyone ever know 'too much'?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm must curious, but where did you hear about tests that RPG's could penetrate the frontal armor of T90's?<span id='postcolor'> It's a test run by the Russian army on a T90 and a T80U, in which RPG29 [sorry, believe it or not, this was a typo. . . meant to have an *and* here] Kornets were able to penetrate the T80U with Kontakt 5 in several cases, and one was able to penetrate a T90 with its Kontakt 5 removed. These were all frontal shots.

Operation Northstar has the McMillan TAC50 sniper's Rifle

Better yet, the Bradley (The US Army's 'miracle solution' to the 'we don't want to buy wheeled LAVs' argument) has the same air transportability problems as the LAVIII. . . The Coyote, LAVIII and LAV25 are air transportable in a C-130, (not combat deployable from a C-130, however) where the Bradley simply won't fit without being dismantled, they are 'broken down' (tires deflated, etc.). If you like, the CF has a video of a Coyote being driven onto a C-130 completely intact. The silliest thing about the whole argument is, in fact, that both TLAVs and WLAVs (Tracked and Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, here in Canada) suffer from most of the same problems in equal measure. . . (survivability, uparmourability. . . fuel consumption, wheel/track replacement. . .) and where they actually differ, they diverge equally. For example: 1: the LAV bottoms out and gets stuck in deep mud, and the long, flat bottom causes a suction effect that requires retrieval vehicles to pull it out laterally. 1: The M113 bottoms out and gets mired in comparatively shallow mud, digging itself deeper in with its treads. 2: The LAV3 has mobility problems in offroad conditions (Though I have yet to see them demonstrated in any way other than barricades, which often stop tracked vehicles as well. . . ), but is excellent on roads and flat ground, nearly doubling the speeds of TLAVs (In actual fact, LAV III can climb almost every obstacle an M113 can, with the major disadvantage that it is top-heavy, and tends to tip over. 2: The M113 blows fuel out the window on roads, is not particularly fast in either scenario, and is a money-wasting beast in peacekeeping, 3: LAVs can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed 3: TLAVS can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed 4: LAVs are vulnerable to RPGs! 4: TLAVs are vulnerable to RPGs! (I might remind you also that Russian ballistics tests had T90s penetrated several times out of ten rounds by RPGs fired at the frontal aspect. . . to say nothing of T80BVs in Chechnya, often killed by one round from an RPG7 in the rear (often the front as well)) 5: LAVs tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. (Yes. . .) 5: TLAVs (M113, Bradley) tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. . . one story (on operations overseas) involves an M113 on a road on an embankment losing grip and rolling down the hill, killing one, and severely injuring another. 6: TLAV can take addon protection 6: surprise, surprise, so can the LAV series. . . fat lot of good it does either, when manportable antiarmour weapons and mines can kill/disable MBTs. . . The real issue then? Well, for one thing, the pundits, [one in particular whose name I won't mention. . . (runs a blazingly loud website on the topic)] seem strangely paranoid toward Canada. . . (the loudest one thinks we're conspiring communists, out to get the US any way we can. . . his words paraphrased) The LAV series is designed by MOWAG, a Swiss company, which was purchased by GM Defense Canada. It's marketed to the US, and the advanced testing of the new models is done here, not to mention that we're its most prolific user. Not only is it cheaper to maintain and operate, its also "made in Canada" (not the US, like the M113 and the Bradley). This, more than any reason, is why the pudits are pissed, as far as I can tell.

here's some in-progress shots of the T72 pack's final textures. The pack's going to have more in it too, a T72 wreck and a T72S1 more pics at Operation Northstar Yes, in the new version, each individual ERA brick is textured.

New question: can I define new components with this: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">class HitEngine{armor=0.8;material=60;name=engine;passThrough=1;} armorEngine=0.8; <span id='postcolor'> like, say: class HitERA {armor=1.0;material=64;name=ERA;passThrough=1;} ArmourERA=1.0; ? Will the game recognise new locations like this If they have their equivalents in the P3d?

I'm making a to-scale BMP right now.

I'd like to get involved in that. . .

Try to convince the Polish mod to ask BWmod to allow them the use of their Leopard 2. I've donated them my T72 model for use in Polish colours, they will be editing it and retexturing it.

When you do stuff for free you have the advantage of being able to say that. . . Â hehe. I just have to say: Thanks to the community on these forums for all your fantastic help with these addons. The constructive comments, as well as the knowledge displayed here has made the beta phase much shorter thn it might have been. Now, having fixed the geometry problems, like the missiles, and the random point-blank misses by other tanks. . .(as well as a large number of other niggling errors) Â I can concentrate on the final textures for these sets. . . They're going to be a long time in the making, but they're looking good so far. . . EDIT--- Oh yeah, if you're concerned about the crew issue in the Leos (since our stance is that there's not a lot of sense in making another superfluous version if the purpose of it is to be used in the ON* campaign) my suggestion is as follows: download a copy of unpbo, crack the pbo file, extract the CPP (if you can't get it out. . . there may only be a bin. . . email me and I'll send you one) and using a text editor, change each line that says crew=CAF_Sold to the default American crew.