Sigma-6

That 'Well', CT. 'It wouldn't have even come out that *well*'.

There's a lot more to an addon than looking like it's nearly done. There are actually quite a few things for it that still need doing, but rest assured, it's on its way. Well, we mounted them on the Kiowas back in the day rather routinely. . . in fact, Powerslide and I were just down at 408 sqn, and not only did they have the M134 there, but we were shown how it could be mounted and wired into a Griffon quite easily. The hardware and the firing controls are there to mount it.

Hmm. . . maybe I'll ask them then. . . Canada's 'Cougar' 6-wheeled LAV series which is mainly phased out right now uses the same turret as teh Scorpion. . . I'm just wondering if they have good shots of the turret interior.

Might be a bit off topic, but since the UKF guys are posting here. . . are you guys making a Scorpion?

It's a great deal more than that which needs to be done. Rest assured.

Only if he's going to apply his textures to the new models. . . there are, after all, about ten of them.

I certainly hope that whoever is working on this now (UKF) had the version with the full set of LODs  (minus the fact that it only has one Resolution LOD) and the working driver's hatch. . . if not, I have it. . . it's up to the last point where I was working on it.

That's the old BIS model. . . wouldn't it make more sense to retexture the new ones? I just applied Marfy's to it. . . I didn't do any texturing of my own except the treads. . .

addiction? nah. . . outlet? YES. I've always spent a *lot* of time on my hobbies (to the point where they're less like hobbies and more like the central focuses of my life. . . (playing music, radio, art, writing, and of course, my *obsession* with military history [that's the obsession there, if anything] . . . ever since I was a child. . . I recall the OFP demo release. . . my brother was an infanteer at the time, and I'd just left my regiment a little while earlier. . . and we were both glued to the screen. . . there was no going back after that. . . O2 was the realization of so many dreams. finally, I thought, a way to create a working model of something, rather than a static one. . . so much more satisfying than illustration or building model kits! If it's an addiction, it's a worthy one, but for me, where doing what Munger described has never really been out of character. . . I consider it healthy (what's odd is that my girlfriend does too. . .)

I'm making this thread because people have been complaining that all the tank and armour addon threads are discussions about 'which tank is better and which one can do what'. With any luck, any such discussions of tanks and AFVs (referring, obviously, directly to addons of them, to maintain the relevance to the addon discussion forum) can be confined to this thread. . . and I'd like to enlist the help of the moderators (if they'd be so kind) to direct those discussions to this thread. . .

Problem is, the main addon sites keep archives of all the addons released, so people are likely to download a copy without that config fix. Happens more than you'd think. A config fix doesn't end up being hosted with the addon on a site like Cz, more often than not. @miles. I'm always keeping the Stryker in the corner of my mind. . . when I come across a reasonably implementable idea, I'll definitely do it.

That road at the beginning of the first video is exactly what I was talking about. The road is a very bumpy, poorly graded, loose surface. The tank is doing that for the same reason any other tank (including an M1) would on that road. (though, by virtue of its lightness (an asset, BTW), the T80U does get a bit more air.

I suspect you're seeing a disadvantage that isn't there. Look at the videos, notice that the T-80 is exclusively driving on bad, bumpy roads and broken ground, while the M1 is driving almost exclusively on well-tended smooth dirt roads. The M1 would encounter the same problems in those conditions. When I said 'slow down to take a good shot', I meant that the M1 on similar terrain would have to do this also. The T-80 is not known to have any more trouble with gun stabilization than the M1, and indeed it doesn't. The problems it has with its gun are that it is elevated for the autoloader after it fires (taking it off the target line about 3 degrees, briefly, for the autoloader to load the ammo . . Â you can see this in the videos; after a shot the gun seems to bounce about a lot, particularly on uneven ground, because it's off the stabilization system) and that it will not significantly de-elevate on a reverse slope (you can see this when the tank's front end pitches up. this is because the tank's profile is so low, the gun obviously won't traverse through the glacis plate, and the breech contacts the top of the turret) Again, I think you're imagining a disadvantage that doesn't exist.

Even if that were true (which it's not). . . and I don't like to crush a good conspiracy theory discussion, they're so much fun to watch  but. . . we're about 5-10 years from an end to drilled oil and landfills anyway. It's called thermal depolymerization. You use existing refineries, you add a few recently invented (and extremely cheap) components to them, feed in manure, municipal waste, excrement, medical waste, recyclable plastics, old tires,. . . human corpses. . . well. . . just about anything with carbon in it, and *voila* unlimited free (as free as the refinery owner wants it to be) crude oil, naphtha, kerosene, etc. . . The process is between 80% and 95% efficient, and the inefficiency is the energy required to run it (after you start it, you run it on its own products). . . its byproducts are water, fuel oils, and industrial grade chemicals (like 100% pure carbon black). Somebody ought to point that out to that guy. jeez.

Perhaps you're missing the inherent advantage of what you see of the T-80U in those videos. The key there is the T-80 series' mobility. The T-80U is about 2/3 the size of the M1, and it weighs about 2/3 as much (45 tons as opposed to 70 tons). It has a turbine engine that generates the same (1500hp) amount of horsepower. Basically, the T-80U moves like a sportscar over rough ground, accelerates like a demon, and gets airborne over just about any obstacle. . . All this adds up to a very difficult tank to hit on open ground. The M1, on the other hand, has a more sedate style to it, and tends to rely more on its armour protection than its mobility (they both rely on both, and in armour protection they're comparable, but while the M1 is very mobile, the T-80U beats it in mobility hands down. Take a look at those videos again, and imagine yourself as an RPG grenadier or a tank gunner trying to draw a bead on the tank. . . Â (this is one major problem the Iraqis had. They used their tanks like pillboxes and dug them in, instead of maneuvering them and fighting like an actual armoured force. Which isn't to say that a T-55 or an old T-72M is an especially mobile tank, but anything's better than sitting still.) Incidentally, as a T-80 gunner, do you think you're going to spend a lot of time engaging targets at full speed while jumping over stuff, or are you going to *slow down a bit and try and get a stable shot*?

I beg to differ. . . I think you would be surprised to see how much of even a steel penetrator stays intact after an impact.

Why would I base it on my LAV-25? It's nowhere near the same vehicle. . . (well, it's got 8 wheels, has the same general layout and is made by GDC/Mowag, but beyond that it's not. . .) Why wouldn't I make it out of my LAV-III, which actually is the same vehicle, minus the 25mm turret? Well, unless somebody can come up with a good way to do the stryker's remote MG turret properly, it's damn near impossible. Beyond that, I think in order to do the Stryker properly, you'd have to have a script that made the remote MG too inaccurate to use while the vehicle was in motion. -------I've never heard of such a system on the T-62, at least not on any of the in-service variants. There are systems like Shtora, Drozd and Arena, of course, which are sophicticated detection and countermeasures systems. . . and Arena may well have been (though I'm pretty sure it wasn't) tested on the T-62 (Drozd was tested on the T-55), but certainly not on an in-service version, AFAIK. The main arena testbed is the T-80 series of course, and it exists on several other vehicles as well (BMP-3, a certain T-72 variant) . . . It uses a millimeter wave radar to detect incoming warheads and destroys them with explosive cassettes. . . but it doesn't point the gun to do this. . . Â and it does it *before* impact, and not after. Shtora has a sophisticated laser detection system, and it does point the turret, but it does this after it's lased, and proceeds to pop thermal spoofing smoke and blast the target with its emitters. . . Neither of them do what you've described. . . I could be missing something though. . .

Man, that Harmon is a hell of an illustrator. . . the rest of his work is just as fantastic.

I'm well aware of the problems that causes. That was a workaround for that class. It has to do with the lack of turnouts in the wheeled class, and it was the only way to simulate it (it's also not done).

It's true enough for my purposes. I've had a look at OFRP's Leclerc (very low poly), and I'd have to say, for certain types of vehicles (like those which are mostly square or sharp angles), it might not be true, and it's entirely possible that it's not true even for certain types which are more bulky and have more external parts. As for ERA, while I only have 4 resolution LODs in my models, they usually go from 4000/5000 to 2000 to 500 to 300. (sometimes higher in all, so the ERA usually isn't the defining factor in the high polycount (since the M1 series is pretty much consistent with this). . . What it is is a desire to model all the parts with an overall increase in visual quality. While I certainly feel for people with low-end systems (I started modelling most of these on a 500mhz P3 with a 16 meg card, and I'm now on a 1.6g P4) , I do think they're going to have to upgrade anyway if they want to play OFP2, so overall, I'm not too concerned. Clearly there are differences in philosophy here, however.

Well, can't say that I agree with them, but I'd like to see a chart using those numbers of rates at different ranges with velocities (0 degrees). . .

I've done all I can. Tanks with as low poly count as BIS' old ones are bound to look much like them.

The 'war', or the 'peace'? By this standard, the Vietnam war ended when US troops fully occupied South Vietnam. . . Â I'm becoming increasingly confused about what is 'war' and what is 'peace' these days. . . Given that most of the 500-odd casualties have occurred during the 'peace'. . . I'd argue that the war is still on. . . That being the case, I get 15 Abrams disabled or destroyed, but there could be more.

-My mistake. . . I was confused by the question. You asked 'how many they imported', not 'how many from Russia.' 50 from Russia specifically. Having looked again, Asad Babyl figures as +/- 100 tanks out of +/- 800. 50 are T-72 (basic T-72) from Russia definitely, and the others are other inferior (to T-72M1) European imports; T-72 or T-72M. In any case, on paper, the Asad Babyl would *appear* (it's the Iraqi attempt at the T-72M1, so I say 'appear', with full understanding of Iraq's debatable competency in armour production) to be the superior version in Iraqi service. Yes. Projectile and propellant. There seems to be some confusion here. . . your numbers for these Russian penetrators seem way too low to me for 2000m. . . where are you getting them? -The barrel-launched missiles have been entirely remodelled. Not only are the more powerful, but they have their own model and textures.

Hehe. . . Funny that you should say that. I did quite a bit of optimization on the SIG and RHS tanks. . . You wouldn't believe what the polycounts *could* have been. . . You know, you can set the detail level in OFP to use the lower poly LODs at closer distances. . . that should solve your framerate probs. . . The lowest poly LOD in any of those tanks is under 300.