Bazul14

Realistic suspension would help. I remember seeing that Moskvich picture: That should complement the current sliding and drifting on most vehicles that do not have a tank's suspension.

The armor fights in Arma2 are usually fine, except when an APC meets a tank. Here is what usually happens. An APC meets a tank, spams with 20/25/30/40mm rounds and destroys the tank in a matter of seconds even though it is just hitting the frontal armor or the front of the turret. Also, if the APC manages to fire first, then the tank will not even be able to respond. Realistically, any tank except the T34 should be able to withstand AP/HEAT rounds of that caliber. I find it relatively hilarious that a 30mm AP round can apparently penetrate over 500mm of armor(~basic T72). It is absolutely impossible for such a round to penetrate so much armor. If it would be just the T34's 60mm of armor, then it would be fine, cause it is realistic. Oh, and for the argument that will surely come up: "You know, if you fire a 50cal/AP shell in the same spot it will actually penetrate the armor, even 1000mm(~Abrams)." That is actually BS for two reasons: 1- you would theoretically need to fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds to penetrate even 200mm of armor. 2- Your rounds will very likely not hit the exact spot again. The low caliber gun is not a laser gun. The rounds will not hit in the same spot again and again. They will hit the target usually in an oval shaped area, depending on the speed/weight/movement. They will not hit the same spot again and again. Second thing. Apparently HE rounds of the same calibers are able to do the same thing. The APC can just spam HE rounds into the tank's armor and the tank will just blow up. That is not even half realistic. vBF2 is more realistic because of the firing rates. Right now, it takes like 15 sec for a BMP2 to fire its HE rounds and kill an M1 Abrams. These rounds should be able to damage the sights/weaponry/engine of the tank at best, but most of the times they will just be useless, because of their low caliber and therefore low quantity of explosive. They should NOT destroy the tank hull and turret of the tank. LOL, in the best/most lucky case, they should be able to make the turret get stuck. Also, if fired at the engine of the tank, they should theoretically be able to damage it, but that depends on the tank. For example the engine of the Abrams is slightly more exposed than that of a T72s. What should be done is to neutralize the damage of the small caliber AP and HE rounds on the hulls and turrets of the modern/post WW2 tanks in ARMA 2 and OA. Another improvement should be the ability of these rounds to disable/damage the sights of vehicles. Also the tracks are apparently very easy to disable, just fire a couple of shots and tadaaa, they are gone. This is however debatable, because it depends on the thickness of the tracks/ road wheels, so I won't ask to change that.

I think that we are making a slight mistake here. Look, the T90 is an upgraded T72. Abramses, in the Gulf Wars did not get any frontal penetration from 125mm or ATGM fire. Early T72s did, by the hundreds. So yeah... Think about that. Also, older does not mean worse. The T72 and T90 do not contain DU in their armor.

Its called a script hack..., probably Darky's Hack 2. Its the easiest and simplest to use. Anyways, it might not be them, I mean, their server gets hacked too, and I doubt they would actually do shit like that. They are fairly nice. The person actually displaying the message might be someone that is actually trying to hurt Triple A and their servers. Plus, they get plenty of players, nights are usually above 35-40 on a 45 slot server. IDK, I guess the easiest and best thing to do is to ignore these hacks until they are solved, and to do not take any quick ideas without thinking again.:j:

The current AKs are very hard to aim because of their weird sights. The sights are almost useless at ranges over 100m. I strictly refer to the iron sights, not any scopes/ holograms. I'm referring to the distance and size of the iron sights when aiming. Maybe the next patch can solve that, it would not be too hard.

Was ist das? I used six upgrader a while ago, and i had to reinstal arma... So is there another way?

I seriously don't get what you are talking about. Please, stick to the subject of this topic.

PvP is the way to go on the long run, but not with the MW2 style PvP.:bounce3: ---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ---------- As for equality, no tanks are equal, and if you are trying to do that, then stop and don't bother. Its a waste of time and its also stupid...

You mean a T-80? They are supposedly better than the T90s and T72s since they are from a totally different predecessor.... If so, then there is a mod for it, but I guess it would be nice to have that in vanilla too.:bounce3:

almost the same thing... so it can be easily fixed...

That is way too fast. Can I see your source? 700m/s for a relatively heavy and small rocket seems really unlikely.

THIS!!! That is the best suggestion since the stone age. That is something that seriously needs implementation. The engines of the Hind and Mi8 are actually two.

I think that the AK sights are actually fine. The problem is the distance of the head from the sights. ACE2 fixes this only for AK74s. The problem in ARMA2 CO is that the head is way too far from the sights, like it is not even aiming. If aiming, the head should be a lot more forward, and I guess that can be adjusted really easily, just a position algorithm, no need to modify the sights in 3dmax or anything.

And if there could be some crew damage,but that might be too much to ask for.

Well, I guess that the ballistics here could see some overhaul. In all unguided rockets, the ballistics are horrible. RPGs and SPG-9s don't go straight, or anything near straight. Actually, their shells will drop A LOT after 100m. I guess some changes could be done there.... Oh, and the SPG shell is a lot slower than in game. IRL it is fairly hard to hit a moving target with it.

Well, here is the deal: The cockpit is fine, its front windshields are bullet proof, it just depends where u receive fire from. As for the Falanga, well, IRL the engage distance is minimum 300m. Also it has really poor penetrating capabilities. To top it all, the missile was fairly slow and hard to maneuver IRL, and it had serious difficulties hitting a moving target. And when considering it is shot from 200kmph at a target that moves 20kmph in another direction, it is really impossible to hit it. Unless you were aiming it from the launch point straight at the target, you have no chance. If you think this is lame, well, that's the same thing that Iraq said in the late 1980's when trying to stop the Iranian armored units.

Well, even if it is so, it still remains important, and I hope the devs will do something about it.

So wait, will I need to make a ticket there or this thread is just fine?

Wait, devheaven is community made or ARMA2 made? I mean, does BIS rule it or the modders?

Well, yeah, but I don't think anyone here will die if the first release of tanks that are actually used IRL will have 5 sets instead of 6. And some(the earliest versions) only have 5 sets, like the Soviet ones.

Exactly, it is the popular demand, not a bunch of guys that release mods. Mods are fine too, but the actual release by ARMA2 would be infinitely better.

Actually the OFB for Romania contains about 550 T55s in different stages. However, most of them are down to the basic T55 composition. Only a third is equipped with the 800hp engine, and a lot fewer have extra armor or gunnery upgrade packages. As for the T72's, they are kept in storage most of the time, and to be sincere, the one that I saw on this thread really surprised me. I thought that they could not work by now. Anyways, the point is that very few T72s are even in the Romanian Army, and those would probably be deployed in a case of national emergency(something similar to the pre-23 August 1944 situation). As for the T55s, you can just re-skin the one from ARMA2(preferably the one made by the community, it is a LOT better) since most of the Romanian TR-580s are basic T55s with no or very few changes from the original T55.

Well, in that case, mobility kills would be welcome too, but they might require more coding. However, the increase in the front armor's resistance to low caliber and HE rounds will require some coding too. I think that we should try to settle for a minimum in order for the DEVs to implement them into ARMA2. Otherwise, this will end up like the other 9000 suggestion threads....

Yes, but the rear sight is still too small. And IRL it does not look like that. There are some good mm's of space.

Neah, that is getting too much in depth. Engine damage and its impact on the driving and vehicle should not be something that is a main concern. And to think of, if the engine is hit, then fuel lines are hit too, and then...boom. Anyways, I was more concerned on the small caliber and HE rounds destroying tank hulls and so on.