TermiPete
Member-
Content Count
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by TermiPete
-
We chat once in a while on MSN He was pleased to see someone putting in some nice Gryphon shots in the photography thread TP
-
I think they'll come back with AA (maybe) Once the new EECP is released that supports JAM and CAVS, I will prob do new configs for the existing ONS stuff that will fit in with this - but I'd need the all-clear from Powerslide first. I've always had a soft spot for Maple Leaf Military - ONS sure did some great work!!! TP
-
Fascinating stuff Prez! I've updated the files on the CAVS page. VEHICLE CHANGES: * CAVSed the T55 into a T55A with D10T2S firing 3BM8, 3BK17 and 3OF32 ARMOR CHANGES: * Lights = 0.2 (these need to be more vulnerable) * Tracks  = a bit more complex if armored trackskirts = yes then = 1 x (0.4 if side armor unknown) or 1 x (mm side armor /mm hull armor) if armored trackskirts = no then = 0.67 x (0.4 if side armor unknown) or 1 x (mm side armor /mm hull armor) I decided that tracks should more or less vulnerbale depending on the strength of side armor if there are armored skirts in place. The next step here would be to define absolute values for how much damage a set of tracks can take, and the same for different types of wheels. It seems daft that the more structural strength the tank body has, the less vulnerable the tracks, wheels and rollers are in direct proportion. I seem to get some CTDs when running this under ECP - any ideas? At this point I also kind of need to stop doing this as I have many other competing priorities - can someone else take over? King Homer is going to tweak the ammo names next i believe. TP
-
Great stuff - thanks for the quick fix TP
-
Sorry -haven't posted up yet as I decided to add T55 related stuff and I've been working real late Yurg :| TP
-
I'm with ya on that scrub! Kuriyami - at the request of King Homer I've tweaked a few ammo values to reflect the Kenny's Hole in CyberSpace (!?) values. I'll post the updated file(s) tonight. TP
-
Cheers- thanks for the feedback fox. I see EECP as key too. I have PMed Kuriyami and popped a post in his thread too. We haven't considered soft-skin vehicles as they don't really have a 'penetration' issue. (I'm also an armour fan too :P) Wheeled APC/ICVs are already covered in the system in the same way as tracked equivalents, so there is no prob with BTR/LAV etc (except for the inherent OFP engine limitations). TP
-
Hey Kuriyami Now that we have a working version of CAVS out there, are you still planning on working the system in? If not, I'll likely throw a tantrum and want to make a 2nd config version myself :P To me, EECP is the best platform for giving JAM and CAVS real teeth and impact. TP
-
Hi there I guess at this point there needs to be some interest expressed by the broader community and some of the leading mod/add-on makers. Like Cornhelium, I can ill afford the time involved in battling away with this kind of text editing madness What do you all want to see happen next? * EECP using CAVS? * RHS using CAVS? * PUKF using CAVS? * Operation Northstar (Canadian units) re-done to use CAVS? * Operation Frenchpoint using CAVS? I think we've got a good system, it just needs to get (tested and) used now! TP
-
Hey ho 1 Step closer to meaningful standardisation - I've released a CAVS+JAM testing config. CAVS thread Give it a whirl and drop in some feedback! TP
-
Looks awesome! Would you be able to make a CAVS-compliant config too? (or I can cook one up). CAVS thread TP
-
Hi STGN - the recoil issues appears to be in the JAM base class for the M240C. TP
-
I've edited the post - my Frontpage site wouldn't serve a .pbo file so now it is zipped. Refresh the page. CAVS JAM Vehicles test file. TP
-
Here we go: JAM_VEHICLES.ZIP (zipped) and CAVS readme. Keen to get some feedback. heh - just noticed that unit skill significantly affects reload times - even on the Russian MBTs with autoloaders :P TP PS - here is copy of readme:
-
Hi all I'll post the jam_vehicles.pbo, a readme and the spreadsheet up later today. While this file is great for testing CAVs out, I'm hoping that it can become a reference file for addons - they can inherit from the relevant classes and add their own sounds, models etc. Kinda like JAM I've done the vehicles to be consistent with late 85-early 86. * M1A1 * M60A3 * M113A2 * M2A0 * T80BV * T72A * BMP-1P * BMP-2 For these vehicles i have defined all the weapons and (almost) all compatible rounds. I have endeavoured to provide realism for: * damage (according to CAVS system) * velocity * number of rounds * magazine sizes * reload times * ROF This has meant defining a 2A46 (and all rounds) for the T-72 series and another for the T-64/80 series with faster reload times. If someone knows how define magazine types that defer to the weapon that would be great! Compiling all the info has been very time consuming, and there are still a fair few gaps. I haven't done a lot of testing, but some early thoughts are: * maybe the indirect damage ranges on HE Fragss are too big (is indirect damage range radius or diameter?) * the slow reload times on the Russian MBTs are a real disadvantage * autocannons are BAD news for anybody * I'm getting a JAM recoil error from the M240c Ironsight - thanks for the info - i haven't tweaked this yet. Hope you guys have fun with it. TP
-
Does anyone know the belt size used with the M240Cs in the M60A3 and M1A1? TP
-
Lookin forward to it!!
-
Getting there! The JAM/CAVS config file is coming along slowly but nicely. Have done BMP-1P, BMP-2, M60A3 and M113A2 and set up numerous weapons and rounds. I'll post it up when I've done the rest of the basic vehicles. TP
-
Sorry for lack of progress peeples. Sick kiddies and work overload! TP
-
Love these debates! I'm working with SPQR on the the CAVS thing and I *know* I'm making slow progress -there's simply way too much RL in the way of standardisation goodness :P It has been great to get cooperation with JAM happening, and to see Kuriyami (of EECP) and King Homer (INQ m1) keen to support CAVS as a way forward. SPQR has brought a lot of knowledge fom OFrP and there have been numerous contributions and insights from people and team like the Lost Brothers. The big thing is that these polls show overwhelming support for the ideas of both realism and consistency. So I'll keep beavering away. Check out the CAVS thread if yer interested. TP
-
I've discussed HMG rounds with Cornhelium from JAM3 and he has OKed the values. I have added thes to the CAVS page. I've also added JAM3 Core fixed and JAM3 fix patch files to the JAM page on OFSI. (I've already let Cornhelium know about the xtra mirror). SPQR: * Mobility kills do seem to happen with the heavy IFVs, but we do need to test this further. * I agree - light IFVs do need to be vulnerable * side armor for tracked IFVs makes sense, but I'm not sure how much info IS available * constant values for wheels also makes sense, and shoudl be easier to do Re the 'JAM vehicles' idea - this is a good approach to getting closer to JAM and making for easier testing! I will start making this TP
-
Hey SPQR The tracks don't provide the massive hull protection as they have passthrough=1. Damage IS going to the hull. With the current stats Mobility kills are *fairly* common. I'm not sure about using hull side armour values for tracks/wheels as it is harder to find this info for AFVs I've PMed Cornhekium from JAM3 about the HMGs. I'll rework the AS numbers and info in the spreadsheet. Great info about camouflage! TP
-
I reckon that deanosbeano's computer got jammed.
-
Hey thanks Twisted - it is certainly nice to see the overall level of support for the principles of standardisation and compatibility! If only I had more hours in the day. 24 seems . . . . . . such a small number. TP
-
Hi there Panda - I'm not a developer so while it is a good idea it is outside my expertise. In terms of digging through mods, most of the discussion on principles has already taken place. Konstantin- I've only played Liberation very briefly, but now that you mention it i do recall that they did some (well - a lot! of clever stuff. Do you know how they implemented it? Interested to hear . . . CAVS has to be easy to work with and implement so extensive scripting and re-editing of models will not help make CAVS succeed. TP