SPQR

Another breakthrough A friend of mine, Xela89 who tested my BMP-1 which has an ARMOR of 150 told me that BIS M2 AIs didn't fired upon it while OFrP's M2 (not released yet) did... One major difference is that while BIS M2 does 13 direct damage points, OFrP M2 does 16. Would there be a link between the Armor, the damage value of weapons and AIs' behaviour ? After testing against BIS weapons, and using Armor values ranging from 50 to 10,000, here is the rule : AIs don't engage an enemy unit having an armor value more than tenfold the direct damage value they can fire. For exemple, against a 90 point of Armor vehicle, AIs can't use M16 (dirdamage 9) but can use G36 (dmg 10) There are a few exceptions, like M60 & PK (dmg 8) which don't fire on a 70 armor vehicle. LAW soldiers (500/150) don't fire on a 5000 armor vehicle M1A1 (700) don't fire on big guys (only tested 5000 and 10,000 ) having 10,000. The AI's behaviour only depends on the global value and not corrected ones. Armor structural hasn't also influence. For exemple, a BMP-1 with armor 80, structural 12, armorhull 3 and armor turret 1.8 is attacked in the same manner than a BMP-1 with armor 80, structural 2, armorhull 1 and armorturret 0.8 (BIS standard). That's something very useful in creating light AFV, using an armor depending on the real protection value (7.62mm, 12.7mm,...etc), while localized parts can be strengthened against more powerful attacks (20-30mm) and landmines.

Sure, for Bushfires' SADF mine-protected AFV, that'll be great. They truly need this protection  But, they'll need some mass (created in the p3D ? ) to make the mines explode

Still testing some figures (and at least my modified BMP-1 with a real cool low-flying flat trajectory AT3, and putting passthrough=false for some armor parts of tanks), I've discovered really different results : When the hull was out of commission (on armor diagram, when the hull part is red), and if the engine wasn't also getting red, the vehicle didn't explode. When the engine got red, the tank exploded. For wheeled vehicles, there's no engine (for the OFrP VAB for example) but the armorfuel seems to act like the tank's engine (for explosion). For example, the french OFrP VAB : Currently, it has and ARMOR of 180, an armorstructural of 4, an armorBody=3.0 and armorFuel=1.4. When passing on a BIS AT mine (right on it), the VAB is put out of commission, the crew wounded, but it explodes after 1-2 seconds (not enough to crawl away for the resulting explosion). I modified some figures : armorBody=1.0 and armorFuel=4.4 The results are : - when passing right above the AT mine, the VAB is put out of commision, nearly half of crew and passengers are hardly wounded (must crawl) but the VAB don't explode - You need 2 AC58 rifle grenades (directdamage=350) to make the VAB explode. One BIS RPG (500 dir/150 indir), or Kegetys' RPG7 (450 dir/280 indir) is enough. Clearly, it means that we can create wheeled AFVs of jeep class able a sustain a mine explosion (what the most modern ones are supposed to do) or a light/old RPG hit (correctly configurated RPG please) without having to give an outragous ARMOR value to the wheeled AFV). Armorstructural can also be of great help against indirect damages. Przezdzieblo, you can thus with more ease a stronger Rosomak, without giving it too much armor, and give more vulnerability to older APCs

Really cool planes, giving me a lot of pleasure when flying nap of earth with full thrust and post combustion Odd things sawn : - the F-16 lights are illuminating too low. By night, they can't help seeing the landing strip - when the Su-22's canopy is open, objects surrounding the plane can't sometime be seen (may reappear later) - no automatic close-up of the F-16's opened canopy when taking-off and flying (no problem with the Mig-29 and su-22) - at very low speed, 10-15 km/h, when ejecting from the F-16, the ejection seat falls on the plane, which then explodes - for night flight, there's no light in the cockpit (very odd when having electronics and screens). This darkness is scary - the Wist-94 has a very low recoil. Maybe Igot used too much of the hard recoil of the MAC 50

Don't overreact Truly, the M1A2 SEP from King Homer, T_D and Inquisitor, their M60, Sigma-6's overall work, RHS' T-55s & T-64s, DKM's challenger II, VME's Armor, VIT's, Seademon,... are also truly awesome and give OFP a real cool touch. The Leclerc is just another piece for our prefered cake

Still at alpha stage, so don't panic An Armored patrol, made of a VBL and an AMX-10RC, ready for the Firing range at the Leusderheide training area. Time for lunch

Sorry for answering so late, much work and learning about armoured warfare in Leclerc MBT simultors (gave us many ideas ). About WGL’s AFV vulnerability and VBL history (just far from my memory) : Before I worked on the VBL beta, it used to have such a low Armor value that even Ais fired upon it with their assault rifles. However, as the real VBL gives protection from average 7.62mm fired at 100 meters, our VBL protection level was far from real one’s. It was rather ridiculous to be fired upon by AIs at 300 metres far away. Moreover, we discovered that when slightly increasing the Armor value, AIs stopped using ther rifles. Now only 12.7mm MG, RPG, grenades and sometimes LMG are used against the VBL. But WGL’s AFV Armor values are so low (45 for BMP-1/2 in WGL 4.0) that AIs use every weapons in hand against them (don’t try with pistols ) CE Warheads : It’s obvious that the ammo caliber doesn’t entirely define damages amount. The ammo kind and the weight of its warhead count a lot. I defined low indirect damage in order to have more antipersonnal effect that the BIS overall destruction effect done to medium to heavy armored vehicles. There is surely a better medium way. From several documents, I use to add 100mm to the piercing effect of a tandem HEAT warhead. I have doubts in a widely used first warhead’s 150-250mm piercing effect, as it’s main role is to ignite the ERA and not really give a helping hand in the piercieng effect. However, as I lack exhaustive information about this problem, I’m sure there’s some exceptions... like the 3BK31 (?) with its triple HEAT charge (still its first charge is still small). HEAT and light AFV : OFP’s Attacks and Armor use the Hit Point system, which is far from what can happen in reality. Giving a light AFV the capacity to survive to a RPG hit means it’s Armor could reach the level of the less-protected MBT’s Armor  No link given in order to protect soft-hearted personns As Whisper described the functionning of AS : Currently, the direct damage values are so high that AS wouldn’t have, in my opinion much influence in hardening the light AFV. Just one hit in the Hull, and the AFV will be immediatly wrecked. One question to wonder about : How could AS versus Indirect damages be defined ? One possible answer is the vehicle resistance versus shock effect (shockwaves) i.e. the AFV’s ability to sustain the blow of explosive impacts. As HEAT and HESH rounds have an explosive component KE rounds don’t have, maybe could we consider that a part of the damage effect of the HEAT/HESH will be indirect damage, thus able to be fairly countered by high AS values. So CE rounds damage calculation could be done with a chosen Dir/Indir damage ratio. For exemple, with a 70%/30% ratio, and 300mm armor piercing effect, A hit would give DirDamage=210, and IndirDamage=90. Good bye the limited explosive effect againt unarmored units, but AS could become an important figure defining the use of special armor and equipements. We’ll also have to think about the indirect damage range : low for HEAT (would damage 2-3 armor zones), increased fo HESH (5-6). I’ll add that passThrough=true/false could be used to isolate zones with damages can’t logically spread elsewhere : protected engine, turret with ammunition protection, main cannon (it’s the tube that is damaged, not the gun’s mantlet),... On the other side, maybe KE round damages wouldn’t have anymore to be increased by such a high factor as 1.35. Lost Brothers mod has done a great job, and maybe their high AS values aren’t overrated so much. The localized armor values, in my opinion, on the other side need more debating. After all, a Merkava 4 with a 1300 Armor and thus 1950 Turret armor and a 1625-1950 Front hull armor can sustain heavy damage from KE rounds, without AS having any clear effect in the MBT’s toughness.

That's cool to you to ask to be so.. More close friendship

So bad      Having less memory for all the addons along Fux ones ! I hope it won't cost you a lot  Â

120mm Heavy Mortar 12.7mm M2HB Heavy machingun 1 12.7mm M2HB Heavy machingun 2 VAB APC A sharpshooters group overwatching... EVASAN... Night EVASAN... Caporal Manfred Jürgens Two last screens from Clement Coeffe

Leclerc on Malden Island 1 Leclerc on Malden island 2 Leclerc on Malden Island 3 Leclerc on Malden Island 4 Leclerc 1 Leclerc 2 Leclerc 3 Leclerc 4 Leclerc 5 Leclerc 6 Leclerc 7 Leclerc 8 Leclerc 9 Leclerc 10 Leclerc by night 1 Leclercs... Screens from Bip-Bip & [FC] Powell

Some news, no death no surrender Â

The sight of course

90°, 60° that would be great but you know what.. OFP limits. Occitania's LRAC 73 & 89 are developped from the rifle, so they use the primary weapon animation It was developped as a rifle as from the french TTA150, the AT soldier only has a LRAC and a pistol. The first weapon of this kind I remember is the M-65 from Installazia. Occitania worked hard on the LRAC 89's aiming device to make it truly fonctionnal (unlike RPG-75, LAW, Gustav, AT4,...). ran, Occitania has a nearly-full copy of the document you gave an extract

For example, I made no comment about the BMP ammunitions (its low pressure gun only fires HEAT and eventually HE) as I knew, as thunderbird84 explained it well, that some BIS configuration features can't be changed without destroying the gameplay or else. So I currently only put the stress on 4 obvious points that could be easily corrected by thunderbird84. And it's still a huge work done by him. No one, even me, can say that he didn't work hard on it.

I'm still waiting. As you participated once here, I wonder you didnt't find the links about shells and armour...

Hi Marokino bladinet  - M829A1 : 1991  - M900 : 1991  - 3BM3 : it's 3VBM-3. Its projectile is 3BM-9. Around 1962-1964. A bit... very old  - 3BM42M : 1997-1998  Nevertheless, another success Thunderbird Â

Next patch in 6 hours... Stay tuned M2A2 Bradleys in 1985... I gonna die...

1985 : neither VAL nor VSS. Ok for AKSU and other weapons with silencers

Maybe you can play on IArateofFire in config.cpp to simulate high or low engagement response time in armored combat ?

really ? do you wanna to buy one for me ? I was just informing you as you look for addons within 1985 era, as you proudly used to say. For you as you must rely on others to get valuable informations (10 minutres research on internet) : While the VSS "Vintorez" silenced sniper rifle was first issued in 1987, the AS 'Val' silenced assault rifle, more adapted for commandos, was also put later into production, some sources wrote in 1993 (NASOG.net, Jane's Guns Recognition Guide 2000). Spetnaz Mod I don't really changed my mind... Â Â Â Â

Vintorez In production 1993 Â Â Â Â

That would be true in reality but OFP damage management doesn't work this way. While having a rather thin armor, its mass should allow it to sustain more damage points than a M113 or a BMP. Armor (BIS standards) : - M113 : 150 - M60 Patton : 300 - BMP : 200 - Shilka : 250 ( Its hull protection level is slightly superior to M113's and its turret protection level is miserable ) - T-72 : 400 - T-55G : 300 Something around 250 points may be acceptable ?

Don't know if you found this : M88 Recovery Vehicle, from Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide Protection level : M88 / M88A1 : Hull and cab armor protect against small-arms fire and shell fragments M88A2 : Hull and cab armor protect against 30mm projectiles