instagoat

The panther is way too lightly armored. It's basically a normal Merkava without the turret, and the weight of the turret isn't removed but instead added as extra layers of armor all around. It's a battleship. The only really vulnerable part to fire should be the RCWS, but I don't know if that part's actually damageable. I've rarely seen damaged ones on both MRAPs and the Armored Vehicles that have them (Marid, Panther, for example.). For the tracks, I've had a ticket up for a while, here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12806 Edit: Is there a scripted way to figure out wether or not a projectile penetrated a target, and how much actual damage it did? Edit 2: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Waaaghie/screenshots/ Newest bunch are penetration tests against opfor and greenfor MBTs using the M2A1's 120 mm cannon. Missiles behave completely different. What's interesting is that the side armor of especially the Kuma is flimsy as hell. The shot goes clean through two tanks parked next to each other and into a third with enough punch to damage a track or weapon. Right now I am testing different weapons against different vehicles to see what vic gets penetrated by what. Turns out the 12.7 APDS sometimes even overpenetrates Ifrit's side armor, and the general all around armor of the Hunter seems to be the highest of all the MRAPs.

Just copypasting armor values doesn't work, you also need to set up the armor in the vehicle itself to work. The Slammer is more heavily armored than the M1, especially from the rear.

Neat Idea, very similar to the CV-90 with the 120mm turret, though. Very post-space-age look, too.

Nope. No effects mods at all, only additional gear. I use Community base addons, AV US Army, RH and Massi's guns, Sabres US Army, Cunicos masks, Arma 2 maps, Alive mod and ASDG joint rails. If this is on my end entirely, I'm gonna turn off everything and check over what causes the error.

No, this is what I mean. The missile effect fires on top of the turret, where the Sagger sits, every time you fire the gun. I am not talking about the projectile. The rocket trail -is- visible for me, though, didn't spot it at first since it was so faint.

The most beautiful part of art is the process I think, so that's a lovely insight right there.

Will you make use of Toadie2Ks brilliant open source reloads for the kalashnikovs?

Uh, no. What I mean it plays the missile launcher effect on TOP of the turret, where the Sagger is sitting. The rounds themselves do not appear to show any hint of rocket propulsion.

Only thing the saiga needs is a more closed pattern. After checking some videos, at 25 yards the pattern was about 8 - 14 inches wide, the guns used all had longer barrels though. But the pattern for the saiga at the moment is about 3 meters wide at that distance, at least on my screen... Do I have a mod conflicting somewhere, or is this intended?

Will the fire geometry be updated with realistic armor in the correct places, on the heavy HMMWV? I think the armor plate on the doors even stop 14 mm rounds from favorable angles on the real thing, and giving it heavy armor like that would make it more interesting to use and fight against.

Gunsight issue screenshots: http://imgur.com/c781SYG,1qW1EHV#0 Both ranges are identical, in the zoomed out picture you can see how the chevron is lower than in the zoomed in sight (Bottom of the shaded area rather than inside it). The higher range you dial in, the larger the error becomes. When at range 0, the sights align perfectly. As for the sound, it'd be brilliant to see new ones. The gun sound for the Shilka for example does not lower volume or fade across range. Another thing I noticed, on the BMP-1, when firing the gun, it plays both cannon and missile sound, and fires both missile and gun blast effects.

So far I have only observed the T-72 gunner sight bugging out. Next time it happens, I'll take a screenshot. However, I am beginning to suspect that it's nothing to do with your addon, but with Arma itself and my PCs performance. It usually happens when performance is low generally, and many things are going on at once. When I get below 20 fps, the bug seems to occur more often, and below 10 fps it occurs about once every ten switches from sight mode to sight mode. Unless other people with better rigs get this bug too, I think it's more that my Rig and Arma are conspiring to foul up the scripts. As for the T-55, the gunsights crosshairs in NFOV and WFOV sight mode do not align to the same point. I can provide a screenshot if necessary? One question regarding the physX, though: The tanks, especially the BMPs are feeling very heavy to drive. Stiff, glue-y suspension, not a lot of bounce and rebound. Includes a powerslide. Also observe at 0:57 how the BMP bounces as the driver accelerates. The clutch on these things apparently goes hard, usually you see them bounce like that in videos every time they move from a standstill or accelerate. Syria really provides lots of study material for how tanks move and are affected by movement and firing. Is it actually possible to give vehicles this kind of bounce? The BI tanks do not rebound either, does that suggest that this more advanced suspension behaviour doesn't work? Edit: Big post, completely forgot what I actually wanted to inquire. BMP2 APDS, is it possible to give them a larger hit signature? Even at medium distances it is very difficult to tell whether or not you've hit the target. Cheers Insta

What's more important for armored vehicles than physX is properly set up armor, though, isn't it? That, and the weapons damage needs to be balanced correctly. For example, I doubt that the T-55 has access to any type of ammunition that can penetrate any of the current gen MBTs except from the rear.

There are Units without vests in the sample models, from the CZ addon if I recall correctly. Wouldn't it make sense to use those, rather than yet another reskin of the AAF Uniform?

The scripted gunsights sometimes bug out for me, when switching to gunners view, the indicators don'T appear. Once the sights stopped working completely (freezing, and not reacting to keypresses anymore) requiring a restart of the game. What always seems to happen is the sights loading laggily and sometimes not loading at all... can that be fixed, or is that inherent?

That'll be fascinating to see, especially since virtually nothing of the vehicle apart from the hull is left. Good luck to them, though.

Can we get the AI to go prone again? I still don't know why it was removed, it was really good midway during the beta. Cover exploitation is sub-par generally, has this been adressed at all recently? I've not been on dev for a while, and there are still so many tickets open that seem to not have been paid attention to, such as Vehicle AI refusing to reverse when told to (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18087) or this ancient bug that has persisted since Armed Assault times (Possibly even earlier) (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13137). Or this problem which prevents tank commanders from turning out without rendering their vehicle defenseless, and forces them to use whatever the AI selects as a weapon rather than the other way around: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13397 These bugs, especially the gun selection and the reversing problem have gotten me killed playing vehicles too often for me to ignore it, and having to turn your tank around just to be able to leave a position quickly is defeating the purpose.

Is somebody ddosing it or something? This seems to happen once in a while too often. I've seen it being down a couple of times in the past months...

Fucken hell that thing looks great. That's triple A game asset material right there.

(EDIT: Wrong title, should read Tempest. Typhoon is the irl name of that vehicle though, so I think I'll leave it nontheless.) After observing the feedback tracker a little bit and doing some testing of my own, the Tempest has turned out to be a complete dog of a truck when compared to its real life counterpart. It is tactically and mechanically nearly completely identical to the Zamak, as such (the biggie first): Protection: Zamak has no protection against heavy calibers, Tempest currently is precariously armored around the drivers compartement and completely unarmored for the transport versions. The driver's compartement can protect two people against small arms fire (at best.). So, as a battlefield tactical transport, using multiple ifrits makes more sense than using one Tempest, since the Ifrit can carry five or six people last I checked. The Tempest carries two protected and gives a much bigger and better target than two Ifrits. Transport space: Same as the Zamak, and designed in the same fashion. Completely unprotected transport compartement renders this vehicle as unusable as the Zamak in a contested battlespace since the transported soldiers are prone to injury even by stray pistol bullets, and the truck can also not carry more Soldiers or Equipment than the Zamak. Mobility: Moves heavier and slower than either Zamak or HEMTT, on road and off roads, decreasing strategic mobility as well as responsiveness to threats on the battlefield. Combined with the much larger profile and unprotected transport compartement, I would rather not ride in this vehicle if I had the choice. Again, two unarmed Ifrits are much better suited to transporting a single squad than one of these trucks, since they offer much better mobility AND protection, while they should only provide better mobility. Armament: Nonexistent. The HEMTT and Zamak are completely different in tactical role than the Tempest, which is designed to work in frontline environments while the other two trucks are not. But since the ingame variant actually does not conform to the original design specs despite providing remnants of it for the driver and codriver, the lack of armament makes it even more doubtful that anybody would use this vehicle ingame. If I oppose it, I would prefer it over any other Transport such as the Ifrit or even the Zamak, since it is a much better Target because of its size and low speed, and because the cargo compartement is so high above the ground that no natural or man-made obstacle aside from two-story buildings are suitable for covering it. Get to the side of the truck and rake it, you are bound to kill someone. So, I am wondering if this vehicle was just introduced for the sake of "CSAT needs a truck of their own with a unique look but that is functionally identical to all other transport trucks", in which case it kind of devalues the choice for this vehicle. The Taifun is a pretty badass truck, and this thing arriving on the battlefield should be a signal different from "Just ambush this and you're bound to get the occupants done over before they can get back at you." How about "Oh dang its the heavy truck that rifles and Machineguns do nothing against and it carries twelve people, better get AT on it before it gets into cover and unloads its cargo."? The ticket I mentioned is here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17826 I want to add that I am in no way angry or disappointed or "omg quitting arma forever" or anything, I am just a little bewildered over the choice to castrate this vehicle and wondering what the motivation was. I suspect the answer could well be "balancing", but by now that feels like too obvious an answer to assume. If it is, though, I'd hope that it could be corrected, or, the zamak removed completely for CSAT.

Ruddy nice. Really looking forward to seeing things come together, this is already terribly delicious to look at.

Custom reload animations really should be a standard now, at least as far as using one appropriate for the platform used. Toadie made his rigs and animations publicly available I think, so possibly consider looking into those? For M4 platforms there are some animations in the default game that are okay, but for most guns the reload animations do not cut it. (For example, I don't use any G3 platform weapons or MGs from any mod right now apart from the Toadie2k M60E3 because they don't have reload animations.) It's a major factor for gun immersion and gunplay now that we have these anims. Natively slow or quick to reload weapons can now be properly timed with an appropriate reload, so they are making a difference now. BI wasn't thorough on this part, not a good example for the community...

Government bureaucracy. Someone ordered a stop sign, we place a stop sign. It's like real life. In front of our house they tore up the perfectly new, shiny sidewalk (paid for by the owners of the house) and put down yet another one (paid for by the guvnment) in the same place, not because it made sense but "because we were told, so we do it." I can completely imagine some guy with a truck driving out there, looking around, shrugging and then placing the sign. Send the invoice to the mayor, and back to the shop for a pint and fried ham.

PMCs securing an ambush site, post battle. PMC securing an ambush site, post battle. Slammer covering advance of armored infantry, site 754 near the Takistan-Karzhegistan border. Slammer covering advance of friendly Units, near site 754. Own Uniforms + Headgear, Vests from AlexVestin's US Army pack, Masks by Cunico, Weapons and attachments by Toadie2k, RobertHammer, AardvarkDB and Alwarren.

Wouldn't it be easiest to make the stuff available somewhere and place the items under a creative commons type license? (http://creativecommons.org/choose/) CC has become somewhat of a standard, and using a platform where users have to register in some fashion would restrict abuse. For example, a creative commons NCND license would work (No Commercial use, No Distribution). People would be able to download and alter the content for porting, but not be allowed to share it. Then they could get back to you, and you could then make it available here for the community with all credits openly shared. That way people could access the material and it would still be reasonably ensured that nobody would just rip the stuff and plonk it into their own mod without credit and attribution, and that properly ported content is made available to the community in the way you as the original creator desire. Not to cause offense, I hope, but because I think some such solution would speed up the process and make "paperwork" easier to handle, so to speak. Cheers Insta