Sigma-6

Well, I think you may be on to something. . . My consultant asks me this question: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"a hit anywhere will deplete this value, resulting in the ultimate destruction of the vehicle" Does that mean the armour is ablative? For example, assume a T-72 takes 40 hits from a heavy machine gun, 10 from each side, each with a penetration of 10mm. The tank has sustained a total of 40 x 10mm = 400mm of damage. Does this mean it has no more armour, and the next shot will kill it? Or is the armour absolute, where you could fire an infinite number of HMG rounds at the tank without causing any internal damage, because none of the rounds exceed the armour?<span id='postcolor'> And he raises the possibility that the "structural" component may decide whether the vehicle becomes more-or-less impervious to weapons which have a lower penetration level. . . are we on to something here? If so, what does it actually correspond to?

I'm setting the optics and engagement ranges to their real-life levels. In the current version, they are close, and in the next release they will be as per the actual stats. You're seeing a combination of two 'bugs' here, neither of which is actually a bug. In the next version these will be fixed. Incidentally, for accurate use of these tanks, your viewdistance should be set to to least 2500. Another piece of news, the next update will definitely include the Chinese Type-98 MBT, as the model is complete, and the code is about 3/4 done. . . it's ingame and kicking ass: These pics are of a model of it, but they give you a really good idea, as there are not yet many really good photos of this new Chinese monster: Chinese Type-98

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Dear Mom... I've just seen the Flash!"<span id='postcolor'> Well, it's already too late for you then. . .. Yeah, thanks a lot. . . Now all that remains to be explained is the 'structural' bit. . .

If you read my post again, you'll find that I was trying to point out that, unfortunately, the weapon is mounted that way because the cupola hatch opens 'backward', allowing the Commander to be protected as though it were a plate of armour. The weapon is mounted *static* on the back of the mounting ring on the cupola and rotates with the commander. In order to fire the weapon, he merely turns around in the cupola and takes control of it. In neither case could I have the weapon in a static position, because in both cases it's attached to the cupola, and cannot be rotated independently. This is my last post on the topic of the NSV, unless someone can present me with a video in which the NSV on either the T90 or the T72 rotates on a separate ring from the cupola itself. What I could do, and now what I think I will do, is raise the elevation on the barrel so that it clears the gunner's head when it swivels.

Why would I change the position? If I put it on the front of the turret it would be wrong, and it can't be used anyway, so what difference does it make? Also, it's forward on the T90, because that's the position it's in on the T90. . . I'm not going to arbitrarily change reality because people think it 'looks stupid'. I mean, do you people who say realistic addons 'look stupid' realise how awful you sound? It's like "Here's a fully realistic MP5SD3 finally ready for release after three months of head-inhands-want-to-shoot-myself-development!" --"Uh, can you take off that big-ass barrel thing on the front, that looks stupid." I'm not going to respond to any more realism-related suggestion posts unless they have a clear backing in *fact* from now on. As for the bugs, they will be fixed in the next version.

Yes, the NSV/T mount on the T72 has always been remotely operated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tought it LOOKED like a log, but I didn´t believe it...what´s a log doing on a modern MBT? <span id='postcolor'> It's an unditching log. Very useful. 'camo' is a little too unmilitary for me, man. you want ot change it, go ahead. I'm not removing the w/. I already posted around here somewhere as to why, but the reason is (again) that that is the tank's designation. It is not a 'T72B Kontakt ERA', it's a 'T72B *with* Kontakt ERA'. This (T72B w/ Kontakt ERA) is how it's written pretty much everywhere, because to phrase it any other way does not make sense. w/ is the standard abbreviation. . . hell, if I'd used the word 'with', people might have suggested switching to the abbreviation. . . anyway, I asked you why you'd even suggest that the names be shortened, because it seems like a pretty silly thing to do, let alone suggest.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">armor="#" // what is each value equal to? (eg. in inchs or mms)<span id='postcolor'> The T72M1 in actuality has the equivalent of roughly 400mm RHA. The T72M1 in OFP has 400 as its armour value. . . I'd wager it's in mm of RHA equivalent. I still don't know what those other numbers correspond to either though. . .

>1. Change the horrible wooden color of that tube in the back of all the tanks! It spoils the entire model. (don´t care if it´s realistic, just make it gooo! That 'tube' is a log. It's supposed to look like that, and IMHO, that's what *makes* the models, as it was sadly *not present* in the original tanks, and is on *every* T72, M84, and T90 in the real world. It's not going anywhere. >2. Make the tanks engage aircraft, like the Kyllikki Realism Pack tanks. I can do that. >3. It is possible to make the NSVT semi-active, just look at the Paladin self-propelled howitzer where the gunner controls and MG on the roof that actually shoots. I don't like that idea one bit. Personally, I wasn't too fond of that addon either, for one thing, the M2HB on it was about seven times larger than it should have been, and you should bear in mind that where MBTs have COAX MGs, SPGs do not. >4. Tank names should be simplified. Sorry, the tanks' names are what the tanks' names actually are. If they were 'simplified' as you say, there would be no sense to that, because you couldn't distinguish variants. . . why would you suggest this anyway?

>You are planning on using a formula to simulate specific hit >points and to simulate real-life armour, is that correct? It is. >Your next version of these tanks, will they include "updated" >BIS models (and new O2 models) that follow the above >formula(e), or will you downscale your tanks to fit in with >BIS tanks? They will include BIS models with updated CPP code. They will also include updated o2 models with updated CPP code. One to look forward to, though it's only half-done, is the Chinese Type-98. My Tanks fit in with the BIS tanks in the sense that their Armour is roughly along the same lines. For example: The T72M1 they modeled has an overall armour value of 400. The actual real-world T72M1 (and my version) has the equivalent of 400mm RHA. The BIS values on the T55 and the M60 also correspond roughly to their actual levels if you take that T72 400 value to mean 400mm RHA. 400 is also the default 'tank' class value. The T80 in the game corresponds roughly to its 1985 version using this data, however, as everyone is going to tell me (and they're going to be correct) the T80U and other *current* versions have significantly increased armour. The T-84, for example, has Kontakt 5 ERA, just like the T90. The only issue then, is the fact that, for the sake of gameplay, the APFSDS rounds do not have enough punch on any BIS tank rated higher than the T72M1. even the T72M1 is using a pre-1979 penetrator in terms of its power. As many people know (and the Russians insist, while testing seems to confirm their insistence) that they were able to put a 125mm Tungsten Carbide APFSDS round through about 580mm RHA in 1979. The American A1 variant of the DU APFSDS round will do about 690-710, to say nothing of the A3. . . (way more than enough to kill a T72M1 at any range.) >Are you planning on making realistic armour-penetration >weapons, such as reworked LAW's, CG's, TOW's etc.? I don't need to. They are more-or-less accurate as they are against my tanks. You'll find that a good close range CG shot *can*, if you're lucky, kill or injure the crew of a T-90 (internal spalling would account for this, depending on where you hit it.) As for the TOW, I'm sure Desert OFP will go out of their way to make theirs as accurate as possible. . . Also, ON*'s next Canadian Weapons update will include the Canadian/French 'Eryx' ATGM as well. . . (it's really cool)

>-T72M1 and Iraq version.There are two black lines behind >the commander turret when looking from the outside and >going around. could you be more explicit? perhaps a screenshot of this? >Visual Improvements. >- Could you remove the "camoflaged" from the T72B and >maybe call it BC instead. And also just call it T72B Kontakt >ERA instead of w/ kontakt ERA. Looks better that way. Maybe it looks better, but everywhere it's written, (FAS, Janes, pretty much every other reference) it says w/ Kontakt ERA, because it's not a 'T72 Kontakt ERA', it's a T72 *with* Kontakt ERA. >T72BC I *could* do that, but that's not its designation, so I won't. >- Could you make the PKT and the NSV under weapon >selection just like all other OFP tanks. They are. Hit your spacebar when you are the highest ranking crew member. This has more to do with what the *player's rank* is than whether he's the commander. - The turret HMG are in a locked position when driving turned in in real life, so it shouldnt follow the periscope but just stay backwards/forwards when driving. ? They're remotely operated by the commander, attached to the cupola. Is there something I've missed? I don't think so. . . - Even though i couldnt find that many pictures with markings on them i would also like to see some on the tanks. I may put markings on the Iraqi ones, but the others are in use by too many countries to put specific Russian markings on them, particularly not when the Russians don't. >- Maybe if its possible (think i once read that vehicles cant >fire smoke but not sure, maybe it can be scipted) make a >menu selection to fire smoke screen. Would be something >like, 6 smoke canisters being fired in the canons direction (2 >straight forward, 2 slightly to the right and 2 slightly to the >left. One from each direction going low and the last 3 going >high). And have 2 shots. I had lofty aspirations to do this, but it's not possible. Vehicles cannot fire smoke canisters. >1. The gunner can't change weapons (ie. from Sabot to MG) >while the commander can - is this to make the commander's >role larger? The commander orders ammo changes. The gunner will fire what he's told, damn him. In fact, the gunner can order ammo changes, as long as he is the highest ranking crew member. . . get in as commander, switch to gunner position and you will see this. >2. When selecting the Sabot (at least in the M1 tanks) does >he say "meat"? He says 'heat'. In the next version, he will say 'shell'. he should say 'Sabot,' but unless somebody wants to get me a good sound file of an M1 gunner with an American accent yelling 'SABOT', he's going to use the default 'shell' from BIS' sounds.

I'm currently looking at a few things for the next update, and I'll list them, but first, a disclaimer: This is version 0.1a, the 'Alpha'. The 'bug' you are seeing is the simplified 9.000 Resolution LOD. It's cut down to achieve the 300 polys required for the main LOD to cast a shadow. The next update (very soon) will resolve this, along with adding more LODs for various distances. The next version, incorporating recommended bugfixes, will be the first 'beta' release. updates in the first 'beta', which will be 0.2b 1. complete resolution LODs 2. a more detailed base visual model 3. a more detailed specific armour model 4. a hyper-realistic formulaic armour and penetration system based on the international standard 'equivalencies of RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armour)' for both tank armour and round penetration. I have a very experienced source for this data. He knows his stuff *extremely well*. 5. various paint schemes 6. a harmonization of many different tanks to this system, including: a: all the T72 variants already included, as well as the included T90 and M1A1 and M1A2* b: M60A3 c: T55 d: T80 e: Leopard 1A4 (Leo C1)* f: Leopard 1A5 (Leo C2)* g: Uparmoured Leo C2 (1A5 with massive spaced composites)* *= new oxygen created models, others are BIS' model with harmonized performance data to make keep everyone happy when they're engaging the game tanks. (though the ingame T55 is pretty close to what it will be changed to right now, actually.)

It's out. http://www.operationnorthstar.com to download

Ok, now. . . what's wrong here. . . Technically, I have an M1A1 that drives like a car. Now, after doing this, the Turn in/out option is activated, so I can choose it when I'm driving the vehicle, where this never happened before. . . . Here are the problems: 1. Without the 'manact blahblahblah' specified, as below, the turn in/out positions are roughly identical, as in, floating way above the vehicle. I'm using the proxies for the T72 crew in the model. With the crew animations specified as the T72 crew, the positions are reversed: when I turn out, my crew are accurately positioned within the model, and the viewcargo lod is obviously in use (? shouldn't it use the resolution LOD ?). . . when I turn in, the same LOD is in use, but my people are floating way up above the vehicle. 2. the hatch animations do not do anything at all, even though the selections are specified in the proper places, and the proxies never appear in the external shots of the vehicle, even though they're in the resolution LODs. 3. My gunnerview never moves up and down with the barrel, regardless of the fact that it's specified as part of the barrel in the memory LOD. It also doesn't zoom. It's apparently only coming from the proxy's eyes, but I may be wrong. 4. this combination of tank class and car simulation *only* works if I specify the initial class as an M1A1. If I try any other inheritance, it doesn't even show up in the editor. . . Is anything I'm trying to do even possible? If this were a tank, there'd be no problem . . . I have a field day with tanks. . . the thing is, this is basically a tank with wheels, and If it were that simple. . . that'd be great. . . </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">class CfgVehicles { class All {}; class AllVehicles: All {}; class Land: AllVehicles {}; class LandVehicle: Land {}; class Tank: LandVehicle {}; class M1Abrams: Tank {}; class CAF_Coyote: M1Abrams { camouflage=5; audible = 4; maxSpeed=103; displayName="Canadian LAV-Recce Coyote"; model="\CAF_Coyote\CAF_Coyote.p3d"; icon="bmp"; mapsize=12; soundEngine[]={"\CAF_Coyote\diesel.wav",db-10,1.1}; crew="CAF_Crew"; transportSoldier = 0; namesound="apc"; wheelcircumference=4.1256; type=1; hasdriver=1; hasgunner=1; hascommander=1; vehicleclass="Armored"; simulation=car; getInRadius = 3.5; fuelCapacity=1000; irScanRange=4000; irscanground=true; airlock=1; irlock=1; nightVision=1; gunnerCanSee = CanSeeOptics+CanSeeEar+CanSeeCompass+CanSeeRadar; insideSoundCoef = 0.7; unloadInCombat = 1; hideProxyInCombat = true; forceHideGunner = false; forceHideDriver = false; forceHideCommander = false; weapons[]={"CAF_25mm"}; magazines[]={"CAF_25mm"}; class TurretBase { gunAxis = "OsaHlavne"; turretAxis = "OsaVeze"; gunBeg = "usti hlavne"; gunEnd = "konec hlavne"; minElev=-4; maxElev=+20; minTurn=-360; maxTurn=+360; body = "OtocVez"; gun = "OtocHlaven"; }; sensitivityEar=0.0175; drivercansee=2 + 8 + 16; dammageHalf[]={}; dammagefull[]={}; scudLaunch = ""; scudStart = ""; damperSize = 0.50; damperForce = 8.5; armor=320; armorStructural=2.0; class HitEngine {armor=0.8;material=60;name=engine;passThrough=1;} class HitHull {armor=1;material=50;name=hull;passThrough=1;}; class HitTurret {armor=0.8;material=51;name=turet;passThrough=1;}; class HitGun {armor=0.6;material=52;name=gun;passThrough=1;}; armorHull=1; armorTurret=0.8; armorGun=0.6; armorEngine=0.8; armorLights=0.4; armorBody=0.4; armorFuel=1.4; armorWheels=0.05; armorGlass=0.5; cost=100000; formationX=25; formationZ=30; formationTime=15; turnCoef=3.5; terrainCoef=2.5; steerAheadSimul=0.3; steerAheadPlan=0.4; predictTurnSimul=1.2; predictTurnPlan=0.8; accuracy=0.12; precision= 3; brakeDistance=3; unitInfoType=UnitInfoCar; preferroads=0.3; }; }; };<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">damn, how come you work that fast and realistic?<span id='postcolor'> Truthfully? Because I'm building resume material so I can get a job in the games industry, and that's the level I work at. . . BIS, Coalescent, or anyone else, if you're reading this. . . (lol)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It means no more 4 shots to demolish a T72 with an abrams. That sort of stuff... <span id='postcolor'> When I say 'realistic armour', I mean exactly what this man said. There is a way to script the armour locations with a combination of existing cpp commands and p3d selections, but it's not yet implemented in this version. . . Bear in mind, also, that the number of shots it takes to demolish a T72 with an Abrams will depend on the version of T72 you are firing at, (the T72B's ERA is pretty good, while the T72M1 doesn't stand a chance) and the version of the APFSDS round you are firing. 90+% of the time, you'll be able to kill him in one shot. Also, the M1A2 firing the A3 version of the Silver Bullet APFSDS is occasionally able to off a T90 in one shot, and the T90 firing a BM32 APFSDS-DU can sometimes do the same to the M1A2.

I like to tease. Â Release is definitely tonight. http://www.steelchick.com/other/firing.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/M84a.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/MG.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/MG2.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/MG3.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T72Ba.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T72Bb.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T72M1Iraq.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T72M1a.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T90B.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/t90a.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/T90c.jpg http://www.steelchick.com/other/line.jpg

Yeah, it does. They also have realistic APFSDS, HEAT, and HE-Frag rounds, as well as Refleks missiles. In fact, the pack includes a set of realistic M1a1 and M1A2 tanks using BIS' model that use the current and Gulf War era American 'Silver Bullet' APFSDS rounds. I've also added an Iraqi T72M1. It's coming out tonight, this time for real. . . I swear. Bear in mind, the tanks that shipped with the game are not only set up to make gameplay 'more fun', but are also supposed to be 1985 era. The SABOT (APFSDS) rounds for the 105mm, 120mm, and 125mm guns are teriffically underpowered. Our Canadian Leopards, like their BWmod German equivalents, try to accurately model current systems, and you'll find that with this new pack installed, they're seriously put in their place by superior tanks.

No, Canadians do not use Russian tanks, but the Canadian Leopard tanks we released have realistic armour and weapons, and so they needed something to shoot at that was actually a challenge. . . (The game tanks are woefully unrealistic) Sorry about the delay, folks. . . we're trying to release about twenty new things right now. . .

Hey Brsseb. . . we'll be expecting you to write a tutorial about this if you can get it to work. . . lol

Hold on to your helmets. It releases tonight, and the NSV is on it. There will be as follows in the pack: T72M1 T72B w/ Kontakt ERA Camouflaged T72B w/ Kontakt ERA M84 M84A4 Snajper T90 I'm hoping people will do retextures of these, as perhaps winter versions and desert versions. . . a desert version of that T72M1 would go very well in an Iraq mission, and of course, Kuwait has some M84s. . . The download will be available at OpFlashpoint.org. . . we'll have it at Northstar, but we'd prefer you use mirrors, because we'll lose our site to too much traffic. . . so keep your eyes peeled, it'll be up soon.

Alright. I'll do it. But it takes me away from modeling my Chinese Type 98. . . (lol)

Ah, that would be it. . . What needs to go in the Configmodels? I have to identify the selections used, but what is the syntax?

Does this work in Resistance? For some reason when anyone using my Canadian Forces troops uses them in Resistance, this isn't working. The same goes for the problem where my vehicles have their lights on all the time, but inly in Res. Any idea why these problems occur? Â -Sigma-6 Â Â Operation Northstar