TermiPete

Great news on the JAM approval from BAS! Well done Cornhelium and Avon! TP

Nothing useful in the book. TP

Hi Arne In case you wanted another pic of a M88 - here's a profile I scanned in from a book: M88 Scan Hope it is of some use TP

Sure thing - it is a massive re-write. And very good too! TP PS - v5 is in the works.

DragoFire - another Kiwi OFP die-hard eh ? Have you had a look at the ACES project? Maybe you should work in with Hardrock and crew? TP

Some interesting news today from Phaeden [uSMC] re WGL v.5! "I will release BETA by tomorrow (unless something drastic happens). " Lots of good new stuff - plus at least one important tweak of interest to us: "vehicles are stronger against small arms". I suspect this will be done through Armourstructural. TP

Some good news - Hardrock from the ACES project (AirCraft Equipment Standard) has got in touch and is keen to cooperate with the CAVS initiative. Their project looks great - adding a third dimension to the 'OFP Standards initiative' - now there is excellent work underway on: * MAAM - infantry weapons * CAVS - land vehicle munitions and armour values * ACES - aircraft munitions and technologies Very promising! @Evil Weasel: A good idea - but my view currently is CAVS is about values and probably keeping clear of scripting and EH. (Plus I don't know how to do any of that stuff properly! :P ). @Miles Teg: I had another go with your armour on Friday and it does feel good. And the Israeli AT troops could cause huge problems for Egyptian M1s when in close. Can you explain to me your system for assigning Armourstructural values? @Arne Keep at it - sounds great! I hope you are intending to go MAAM/CAVS/ACES all the way!! @TermiPete Oops - that's me! @SPQR Good to see you back in again. Thanks for the run-down on ammo radius/damage - looks fine to me! Re Armorstructural - I would really appreciate if you and some others taking part in this discussion could load up the Lost Brothers equipment and testout their system, then let us know what you think. I'm conscious that introducing many variable into the calculation of armorstructural values might put add-on makers off. Regarding reloading speed - i think we should just stick with the best ROF a wepaon can manage. Re steel MBTs and IFVs and their armour levels etc - try the Lost Brothers and see what you think. @Przezdzieblo I see you have been trying Lobo and some config tweaks! Great So it is definitely looking like we should use higher ArmourS values. We will have to ponder on AP damage multipliers! TP

Thanks Arne - some good information there! It is so nice to find another sad-sack armour spreadsheeter out there! Interesting mod project - how are things coming along? Have you or your team got any views on managing armour and damage values in OFP? Cheers TP

SM_Azazel - Thanks for that useful (but disappointing) piece of info. I take it you are a member of LoBo - how did you guys arrive at the armorstructural values that you have used? TP

SPQR - if you are still watching this topic (and I hope you are) - where have you drawn your CE/HEAT indirect damage/range formulas from? One concern I have is whether the AI has the ability to recognise that a HE-FRAG round it has available is a better choice to use against infantry or soft targets rather than a HEAT round with a very focused shaped charge? If the AI can't figure this out, and believes that HEAT = HE then the way we are designing HEAT rounds will unrealistically reduce tank effectiveness against soft targets. Does anybody have any clues? Przezdzieblo - Wow you have lot of ideas! I think we need to do some more testing around SPQRs initial ideas and see what issues we hit up against. I'll stick with these values for armorstructural at the moment: 1 = soft skinned (car) 1.5 = light armor (BMP) 2 = MBT armor (T72m1) 2.75 = modern composite/ERA armor (M1A2) But I expect these will end up changing. Here is the key parts of the Merkava Mk4 config:

To all (or any? :P )- sorry I am taking so long - but real life is real busy! PROGRESS: * I have modified (almost) all the necessary stats in the EECP 0.44 source to reflect out joint thoughts on CAVS. * I have commented wherever I have implemented CAVS values. * For Light AFVs I have created armor values using the same methodology as SPQR has proposed for MBTs - this actually seems to work OK and fits with design decisions made by the WGL crew. With EECP reflecting modern equipment and featuring the M1A2 with its massive vs CE armour - it is a tough nut for sure! But put 2-3 T-72s or T-80s against one and things ain't looking so good for mister M1. Same thing goes with RPGs - several RPG launchers together will do some damage! Overall the feel seems quite good. Who wants to test/check the config? I think the areas that need some thought are: 1. armorstructural values to get bail-out simulation about right. Maybe Lobo values need to come into play here. 2. the calibre-based calculations for small HE shells like the 25mm HEI-T currently give direct impact damage of 10 and indirect damage of 5 with a range of 2.5 (is this figure radius or diameter?) . . . try it and see what you think. TP

Hiya there I've got the whole lot for the final 0.96 beta . . . . UCE_JAM_addons_FINAL.rar [14.8MB] UCE_JAM_cpp_2.0_FINAL_BETA_0.96.rar [.9MB] UCE_JAM_pack_FINAL.rar [18.4MB] UCE_JAM_weapons_FINAL.rar [1.81MB] Surely ofp.info has these . . . !? Gazmen did good work on these. I can make these available temporarily on my server. Avon - any thought to MAAMing these? [[uPDATE - I'VE LET HOOAHMAN KNOW I'VE GOT THESE]] TP

Without renting a domain name (call me cheap!) here is a link to a page with some basic info and a link to my messy spreadsheet Operation Flashpoint Standards Initiative TP

In case anybody is wondering . . . I'm already well underway with adding preliminary CAVS numbers into a modified EECP 0.44 config. I've also got the key info from WGL in the spreadsheet - so I'll have something ready for testing soon. I'm thinking about starting the ammo definition PBO as part of this, as I have been modifying armour values and AT weapons values principally so far. TP

WGL has always impressed me with its focus on realism. I've just had a look in the WGL mod and found that all the vehicle and weapon configs are stored in the add-on PBOs and are perfectly accessible. I've added this information to my spreadsheet and will publish it (and the crap site) tonight. These are my findings re: WGL: * MBT HEAT rounds are based on real penetration * MBT Sabot rounds are based on real penetration * MBT armour is based on vs KE protecton (RHA) * Infantry AT weapons use real penetration values (eg LAW=300, RPG22=390) * ATGMs all seem to be wound down somewhat from real penetration - the amount varies * Light AFVs mainly seem to have armor of 2 x KE protection (eg M113 armor 80 - real A1/A2 armor is 44mm, BMP1 has armour 45 - real armor is 23mm) * ArmorStructural is used this way: 1 for soft-skin, 1.5 for lightly armoured vehicles, 2 for MBT-style armor and 2.75 for advanced composite And it plays well . . . but . . . * I still noticed that an M1 crew bailed out after one set of tracks was destroyed. Seems too early to me. * as advanced "vs CE" armour protection is in no way accounted for, HEAT rounds, ATGMs and AT weapons are more potent against modern MBTs (and some APCs such as ERA-equipped warrior/Bradley) than in reality. Certainly provides some food for thought. It is interesting that both WGL and Sigma (who have both spent a lot of time looking at OFP armoured combat) both arrived at the conclusion of using vs. KE armour protection values. Calm_Terror - how did you arrive at the armorstructural=16 value on your MBTs? Kurayami, SM_Azazel, Przezdzieblo - re AT Weapons To answer the question of AT weapons - this is difficult to address within CAVS but DOES need to be. With our proposed use of vs CE base armour values there is every reason to want realistic vs. CE penetration values on AT weapons. This is easy to do within CAVS/EECP config but in terms of general add-ons I'm not too sure how to approach this - with BIS AT weapons having CE pen X 1.66!!! Maybe MAAM can address this. Przezdzieblo - re PT91 Twardy Pretty straightforward - * T72M1 has base armor 490 * PT91 has base armor 800 So your PT91 has a much better chance of handling RPG attacks - just like it should!. TP

Great to hear Re Infantry AT weapons, i am not so concerned here (doesn't mean i'm not wrong, just not concerned :P ). Sigma's values are KE-based and thus for modern MBT low compared to their CE protection. All the infantry AT weapons are CE and as a result are MORE proportionately effective against Sigma-style armour figures than they should be. Look to the Lost Brothers system with CE-based figures, high armourstructural figures and JAM RPGs for some idea of how a realism-focused system can work. AFAIK, BIS AT weapon damage is based around inflated real CE damage (about 1.66 X real penetration ) - a BIS LAW for example has a damage value of 500 but in RL has penetration of circa 300mm. I admit i do need to look into this further - including JAM RPG / AT4 damage! TP

Hi there EECP rocks Top marks on another stirling update Kuriyami! thunderbird84 and Kuriyami - perhaps have a look at this thread where there is ongoing discussion about this very topic Common Armour Values System : ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION There are some of us who feel that Sigma's system is great - but that there is potential for improvement, and for creating a framework (CAVS) for helping addon-makers create compatible vehicles. That improvements can be made is evident with the work done by the Lost Brothers with their excellent middle-east IDF v Egypt armoured combat work. Re WGL and FDF - these are both excellent but WGL had an ecrypted config.bin AFAIK and FDF are not keen on people capturing and using their values (recoils for example). One issue that crops up is - "well - if you make a new standard, how is it going to work with BIS stuff?" My answer to that is (and this is something I intend to raise with Kuriyami) is why not work with a 'CAVS modified EECP' as the base . . . after all, EECP is used by most realism keenbeans and is so much better than the vanila game. Anyway, we are rolling on with some testing of a system proposed by SPQR - an advisor to Operation Frenchpoint. There has been input from members of: * Carrot Studios * DKM * Operation Frenchpoint * Lost Brothers * UK Forces * Swedish Forces Pack * Pappy of Y2K3 So it has been a lively discussion! Feel free to join in! TP

Jaguar - is the DKM site down? Can't seem to get to it currently . . .

Hi again everybody! Przezdzieblo * i know this stuff is a bit of rocket science and will principally be of use to add-on makers, but that is just fine. They are the principal *direct* audience for the project, but everyone can learn something useful by increasing their understanding of how the game works. * I'm sure we can endeavour to include some information on what the various config parameters mean CT * some excellent information about range limitations shinRaiden * a useful tip re include files - perhaps we can separate the cfgvehicle section of the 'CAVS EECP' out to ease editing DKM Jaguar * great to see you come onboard and voice your support - I did have DKM classed as 'BIS diehards' but I am very happy to be wrong about this! * RHS / Sigma-6 system is good and my preferred existing system, but we can't help thinking that CE weapons are disproportionately effective against their KE armour values, and modern MBTs are still too prone to fireballing * Your post is not useless - voiced support (especially from a representative of a highly respected add-on team) for a CAVS project is all-important!!! CT & Whis * Anti-aircraft values can be discussed as we WILL need to address this so it is not off-topic -but intially we need to focus on armoured combat and AT weapons. MOVING FORWARD . . . * does anyone have any further ideas about tweaking SPQR's proposed system? I'd like to get on with testing! * I'm going to post up a (really crap) site featuring information on MAAM and CAVS - my (messy) spreadsheet will be available off it too. What sort of form do you want a CAVS site to take? Does anyone want to provide any input/contribution? Should we look to get a space on OFPEC? Open to ideas on this. On a detail note, I'm just making a test Bradley config and I've always noticed that OFP vehicles with 25mm/30mm chainguns and auto-cannons tend to have very low fire rates - the std setting for a M25 Bushmaster is 200RPM which gives it a lot of potency. When I was working on an NZ army LAV III configuration I used 200RPM and wow- it turned into an utterly lethal BMP killer or suppresive weapon. TP

Aha! Doh  I'll get these into the spreadsheet.

Hi CT - the config.cpp for each RHS pbo is a paltry 490b like this: class CfgPatches { class RHS_T55Models { units[]={}; weapons[]={}; requiredVersion=1.91; }; }; ! Otherwise file has been v. useful :0 TP

Hi everybody SPQR - * I like the look of your system! It certainly seems to deal with the core issues and factor in mass into base armour/HP for light AFVs and early MBTs. From my quick testing with LoBo using high structural figures will round out the equation. What we need to do is produce a couple of units configed in this way to do some testing. First - a couple of units for basic testing (conversions of BIS units perhaps, such as Whis posted before) Second - I suggest that one of us edits Kuriyami's EECP config to be consistent with our emerging picture and a bunch of us give it a try!! Przezdzieblo - * I have compared the M1A2 SEP with the T90 as this is the sort of thing people are doing / testing in OFP - putting up a T64 against a M1A2 SEP seems a little David and Goliath. The BM42 doesn't really rate against the BM42M or BM32. * The issue of overpowered infantry AT will be minimised as much as *possible* hopefully by going with CE base values and using a high structure value. * Add-on / value information - I have been compiling an Excel spreadsheet with this information in it. This is a work in progress but has a lot of info that you may find interesting. Let me know if you want a copy as it stands now and i can post it to a download location. * armoured combat summary I completely agree with:

Gotta say - after doing some more testing of the LoBo tank combat - the result is very good. * tank combat not dominated by bent gun barrels! :P * modern MBTs take a real beating * armour protection is correctly in proportion to CE damage levels from Infantry AT weapons. THIS IS IMPORTANT. * more frequent bail-outs from MBTs when 'it doesn't work anymore' rather than 2 hits and 'fireball of death!' * there is a real survival/protection difference if you are crewing a modern MBT. APC and old tank crews need to be afraid!! Does anyone else have opinions on this vs the KE-based 'Sigma system'? Perhaps the question is - if LoBo is a good base to work from, what implications are there for KE round effectiveness - there is probably some real need to have a multiplier applied to KE rounds given that the tanks' KE protection is much lower compared to CE. Thoughts? TP

Another example of mismatched armour levels is trying the very polished recently released M1A2 SEP by INQ and King Homer against Sigma-6's T-series tanks. The M1A2 has a global armour value of 1600 - the max vs. CE protection level of the M1A2. The max KE value is 960, and Sigma-6's tanks mainly reflect vs. KE values - for example Sigma's T90S has a armour value of 850 (T90M KE protection according to the Collins page) while it's CE protection is a massive 1600! AFAIK INQ and KH are releasing a revised M1A2 SEP with adjusted armour levels - with the intention of achieving consistency with Sigma/RHS i expect. Once again - having some widely accepted and VISIBLE guidelines will save everyone a lot of frustration and confusion. TP

ShadowY - to answer your question re LoBo Merkava and Sig M1A2: The Merk Mk4 IS massively armoured and a safe place to be . . . but here's the numbers from your experiment: Sig M1A2 2003: Base Armour: 1000 Turret Armour: 0.96 x 1000 = 960 Hull Armour: 0.59 x 1000 = 590 Structure: 2 Lobo Merkava Mk4 Base armour: 1300 Turret Armour: 1.5 x 1300 = 1850 Hull Front Armour: 1.5 x 1300 = 1850 Structure: 16 Sigma-6 120mm M829E3 round hits Merk Mk4 in turret doing 960 damage and reduces turret HP to 890. 960/16 points damage are then done to structure, reducing it from 1300 to 1240. LoBo 120mm Mk4 Sabot round hits M1A2 in turret doing 725 points and reduces turret to 235 HP. 725/2 points damage are then done to structure, reducing it from 1000 to 637.5. The way LoBo have configed their (excellent) tanks, the Merkava takes structural at 12.5% of the rate that the M1A2 by Sigma-6 does. This they have done for gameplay reasons to allow for more bail-outs and tank repair/recovery opportunities. But it certainly doesn't make for a consistent game experience if you involve non-LoBo units!! Which is why we are talking about CAVS of course! In addition the base armour level and some of the multipliers used represent massive armour levels that look OK in the context of CE armour effectiveness but don't really appear consistent with Sigma-6's KE armour effectiveness-based system. Calm Terror - am I right in thinking that you have opted to use vs. CE armour statistics? TP