Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Damian90

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1032

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Damian90

  1. Posted

     

     

    I want present day MBTs, not this futuristic nonsense.

     

    Well ArmA3 MBT's are present day.

     

    M2A1 Slammer is a Merkava Mk4M, T-100 Varsuk is Object 640 (there is even video of that prototype), MBT-52 Kuma is a Leopard 2A4 with MBT Revolution upgrade package from Rheinmetall. :P

    The only vehicle that is a BI creation is BTR-K Kamysh.

     

    Oh and one thing I would really like to see is Namer vel IFV-6c Panther NATO heavy APC in IFV variant, and BI devs really don't need to do much, they already have base vehicle, and already have the turret.

     

    samson.jpg

    565_1428364035.jpg

     

    Another point I just reminded myself, would be great if vehicles would have functional hard and soft kill active protection systems. Like Trophy on Merkava Mk4M/M2A1 Slammer and Namer/IFV-6c Panther.

     

     

    Another thing I would also want to see, is that vehicles that in real life have 4 crew members, have them in game, for example Slammer and Kuma. It could be solved that way that loader provides faster reloads of their main guns, and maybe give him some additional functionality? Like using remote weapon station (could be an option for both commander and loader?).

    • Like 11

  2. Posted

    Ok so because Tanks DLC was announced, and Bohemia Interactive encouraged us to provide feedback, I give myself liberty to start this topic. Note to moderators, please move it if it's in wrong section.

     

    https://arma3.com/news/arma-3-roadmap-2016-17#.WAozF4-LTIU

     

     

    TANKS DLC

     
    We round off this roadmap with an ambitious goal: overhauling the experience of armoured combat in Arma 3. This package will follow our well-established model: a set of premium assets, which bring something new to the sandbox, supported by platform improvements and additions for everyone, for free. We encourage our community to share their own wishes on the topic, too!
     
    Ok so now few things for BI devs about possible, and I would even say necessary improvements. To show how exactly stuff should look like in case of vehicles, I will use probably the best currently avaiable on market tank simulator, Steel Beasts Pro PE as a reference.
     
    1. Thermal Sights.
     
    Yes, thermal sights in ArmA3 are, ok but they don't work as they should the primary problem is the contrast.
     
    Let me present how it looks like in case of the above mentioned simulator.
     
     
    As you can see contrast is good enough that gunner can actually see terain details very clearly, it's especially good in 2nd and 3rd generation FLIR systems that modern vehicles receive.
     
    For example video of a real thing.
     
     
    It would be really great if in game thermal sights would provide such contrast.
     
    2. Fire Control Systems.
     
    Again, here is where ArmA3 really lags behind. At RHS we tried to create realistic FCS but it's still not perfect. The biggest issue is turret control, how it should be solved? Again good example is Steel Beasts, where turret follow the cursor, so the player does not need to move mouse much, and the turret movement itself is more stable, soft if you get me. ;)
     
    Also FCS should be able to calculate lead for moving targets in automatic mode.
     
     
    Here is a tutorial (still WIP but I please BI Devs to keep an eye on it, should be finished soon AFAIK) for M1A2SEP FCS use, I choosen it because it would be a very close to what Merkava Mk4M or in game M2A1 Slammer have in terms of FCS capabilities.
     
    In general if I can advise something to BI devs in terms of improving vehicles fire control systems, if you guys can, purchase Steel Beasts Pro PE, and use it as a reference, will be very helpfull. http://www.steelbeasts.com/
     
    3. Modern Main Battle Tanks Armor Simulation.
     
    Here is also something that can be improved.
     
    In general armor simulation should be based on:
     
    a - Armor real thickness (or it's estimations).
    b - Armor effective thickness when it's angle is taken in to consideration.
    c - Armor protection vs Kinetic Energy threats like APFSDS ammunition.
    d - Armor protection vs Chemical Energy threats like munitions with shaped charge warheads i.e. tank HEAT rounds, RPG's or ATGM's.
     
    The general rule of thumb is that KE protection is lower then CE protection, although this is more complex subject, and can be discussed in greater detail later on.
     
    4. Large Calliber Ammunition Simulation.
     
    This includes bot simulation of kinetic energy munitions like APFSDS and chemical energy munitions like HEAT, especially the latter one is a bit more complex subject that would need longer discussion.
     
    5. Simulation for amphibious tracked vehicles.
     
    6. Better physx handling for tracked vehicles.
     
    Yeah so this all for now, would be great if BI devs responsible for this project would for example put here their own questions, at least I can vouch for myself I can help by providing real life data, and all research + my own knowledge about this subject. This is really ocean sized subject so a specific questions for each point would probably be the best.
    • Like 33

  6. Posted

    Do you guys reference steel beasts a lot when making/designing your armored vehicles in the mod? Just curious

     

    Depends, when it comes to optics, FCS then yeah. When it comes to armor protection values, then no, in such case we do our own research, which sometimes takes long time of digging through various avaiable sources, and then Olds makes calculations based on gathered data.

     

    You can read more in our devblog chapter about making armor values for vehicles.

     

    http://www.rhsmods.org/b/5

     

    Same with ammunition, however here we tend to avoid "official data" and do our own research and calculations. Just an example, shaped charge warheads manufacturers like to cheat to increase penetration values of their HEAT warheads, how they cheat? Oh that's simple.

     

    Let's say a warhead penetrates per advertisement 1200mm RHA - Rolled Homogeneus Armor, ok, but for example armor of a modern tank, is made from other materials, for example Titanium alloys, various armored steel alloys, Depleted Uranium alloys, Tungsten alloys, and other materials, not counting the general armor design. And of course that data in general is secret, so HEAT manufacturers can't use it.

     

    But for example they could use a target made from High Hardness Steel plates, however, to make a target from HHS plates that would be 1200mm thick, is expensive, because HHS plates can be made only as thin plates due to manufacturing limitations. So you would need a lot of such plates to do so, which means more costs.

    Also 1200mm of HHS plates would mean that a shaped charge jet would penetrate less armor, for example not 1200mm but 800mm (just an example), simply because HHS armor offers greater protection than RHA.

     

    So during presentations for advertisement, HEAT warheads manufacturers use a simple RHA armor, or sometimes they even use a simple soft construction steel. :P

     

    So to get closer to reality, one need to dig deeper, make own research, own calculations etc. It's a long, difficult process, and not always successfull, so then you need to use official data provided unfortunetaly.

    But sometimes even military provides some help unintentionally during various tests. For example officialy German DM33 APFSDS round was estimated to penetrate around 500+ mm RHA at 2000m, while during tests in Poland, it become obvious it can only penetrate 470-480mm RHA at 2000m. Of course it's an obsolete ammunition, nobody or nearly nobody uses it anymore, but it shows that sometimes it's better to dig deeper for informations and data than base knowledge only on official statements.

     

    And there is also a fact that some team members like I am, are active or reserve or former military servicemen in their respective countries, besides that, sometimes we have opportunities to get around, inside real military vehicles, as an example for a few last years I was around and inside Leopard 2A4's, Leopard 2A5's, T-72 class tanks, M1A2SEPv2's, M2A3's, M88A2's, BPz2's, BMP-1's, 2S1's, ZSU-23-4's and their modifications, and tons of other military vehicles. So it gives a lot of opportunities to get some more knowledge about that kind of equipment, talk with crews sometimes, get own impression about them.

    • Like 8

  7. Posted

    Quick question out of interest as you seem to be an expert for american tanks., i always thought that the FCS of the Abrams was a licensed/adapted version of the Leopard 2 one like the gun, but it seems it is not, because in the german army we were told that the Leopard can accurately hit targets at high ranges out of full movement speed about 60 - 65 km/h.

    Just a question not really that important but i am genuinely interested

     

    1. No, M1's FCS was 100% designed and made in USA... actually it's some components of Leopard 2 FCS that were made in USA and licensed by Germany. :P For example the WBG-X thermal camera is US designed by Hughes and later purchased by Germany, same with components of EMES-15 primary sight as it was better and more compact than original EMES-13 sight completely designed in Germany. ;)

    I had a very good book about Leopard 2's history, just recently written and published.

     

    ok%C5%82adka-WBS-leopard-prz%C3%B3d.jpg

     

    So this is my source. I know the author, and I can assure he knows what is writing.

    2. It's not true that you can hit accurately targets at high ranges at speeds of 60-65 km/h, especially with Leopard 2 sights, day sight is fixed 12x zoom, while thermal sight is 3x and 12x zoom, with such sights you will barely see target at maximum range of 4000m, heck even modern versions of M1 with thermal sights having 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom, would not be able to hit targets accurately at maximum 5000m ranges at such speeds. I will put it that way, always treat with a grain of salt what they say you during military service, I learned that myself as well. ;)

     

    I mean it's not immposible, but very difficult, especially if your own tank manouvers or target is also moving.

    I would strongly advise you to purchase and play a bit with Steel Beasts Pro PE simulator, you can there see how FCS works, and also compare of FCS of various tanks.

    PS. If you want further discussion please PM me, let's not spread too much OT in RHS topic. ;)

    • Like 4

  8. Posted

    By the way, for RHS vehicular players, I started updating our Wiki with help from Misty Ronin. It's not much yet, but might be helpfull, soon I will start updating informations about Russian vehicles as well.

     

    http://www.rhsmods.org/w/m1a1
    http://www.rhsmods.org/w/m1a2
    http://www.rhsmods.org/w/m2a2
    http://www.rhsmods.org/w/m2a3

    I hope some informations in these brief descriptions might be helpfull or interesting for all of you. :)

     

    PS. Of course in time I will try to build up these articles, especially with FCS section.

    • Like 7

  9. Posted

    Does this mod model crew damage from penetration? Like APFSDS or anti armor rounds killing crew? 

     

    Im pretty sure ive had it happen a couple times but it doesnt seem consistent and im not sure if it was a bug or not. 

     

    Yep, the crew can be killed without destroying vehicle, although still consider it WIP, in next version it should be better, thanks to Reyhard magic, there is also sort of simulation of spalling effect inside. ;)

     

    As for consistency, well real world is not consistent either. :P

    • Like 5

  10. Posted

    RHS, can you make a table with penetration values of tank shells from mod on deffirent distance and rha armor value of tanks?

    Is Kontakt-5 in mod work agains m829/a1 ?

     

    I will eventually do such data for RHS Wiki, and armor values but for the second thing I need to wait for Olds to come back and give all the data because he have it. So it won't happen soon for armor values.

     

    And yes, Kontakt-5 works against M829, and is't a bit less effective against M829A1. However proper simulation of ERA/projectile interaction is difficult in ArmA3 engine, and it's generally simplified.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    RHS, why you dont want add new russian apdsds 3bm59 and 3bm60 (Svinec-1, -2)?

    US have m829a2/3, why russian tanks have to use the old shells?

    3bm59 and 3bm60 in service since 2013

    http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=1218

    http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=2107

     

    Because current T tanks in the mod are unable to use such long APFSDS rounds, 3BM59 and 3BM60 can be used only by T-90SM (and if it will be adopted by Russian Army T-90AM), and T-14, other T tanks do not have autoloaders capable to use such ammunition. T-72B3 is other story, I have some doubts about it. While T-64 and T-80 series can use newer ammunition de to different type of autoloader.

     

    Not to mention Bakerman explained you other reasons like lack of hard data about these rounds being in service, or their real performance.

     

    It's the same reason why we still do not have M829A4 in mod, even tough it's in mass production already, and it's slowly replacing in service older types of ammunition, but it's real performance is a mystery for us, also because it have some features, like ammunition data link, which we still do not fully understand purpose of, even tough there are some theories.

     

    And we do not want to do stuff based mainly on assumptions without good scientific base or fairy tales.

     

    Simple as that, be patient at some point you might see such ammo in the mod.

    • Like 4

  21. Posted

    I think I found another bug. Some Russian vehicles (T-80 and BMD-4, so far, in all variants) don't have the "Sand" texture variant, instead getting 5 or so single-color (as in, just a flat color) textures. I dunno if that's a known issue.

     

    BTW, are we going to get more "Desert Russian" gear in the next release? Just plain yellow would work, someone posted a pic with a helmet and vest in that color. I'm trying to plan a few missions specifically for RHS (as in, using nothing but RHS and a suitable terrain mod), but I either have no idea for a story (for the woodland assets) or lack a suitable OPFOR faction. Ideally, GREF would get some ISIS or even just a generic ME terrorist faction, but I think I could work with Russia vs. US, provided the Russians got proper desert equipment.

     

    EDIT: Ok, one more thing. What's with the ERA on the T-72B obr. 1985? It seems to take on Hellfires and Javelins without as much as a scratch on the tank itself. Mind you, that stuff kills every other T-72B (including the 2012 version). The '85 version does feature prominent Kontakt 1 ERA, but I thought that the other tanks also had ERA installed (and more effective one to boot, they'd be using Kontakt 5 or Relikt in 2012). Even the T-80A, which seems to have the same kind of ERA, can't shrug off a Javelin.

     

    When I will have time I will investigate ERA problems on T-72B.

  22. Posted

    This is some amazing looking gear. Really can't wait for the next RHS release. :)

     

    BTW, did anyone else notice a bug where you can't use the commander's MG on USMC Abramses? Army ones are fine, oddly enough (and none of the Russian tanks are affected, either). I'm on devbranch (last tested on friday's version, but it probably won't change with today's update). 

     

    It was a bug we fixed, wait for next update.

  23. Posted

    Hey i have a question about all the rhs mods.. I did everything and they are in my gane but i think something went wrong because when i go into eden editor i think i see all the stuff i can place from the mods but its just blank spaces and they have no labels and when i try to place them it doesnt work. Like they are there but i cant put them in. But its working because i have abunch of new helmets and stuff. But idk what the problem is any help?

     

    Probably corrupt download, try to redownload it again.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    Some questions about M1069 AMP on Abrams:

    1. Is M1069 in game a multipurpose round (HEAT/HE-FG) like IRL, or just a HE?

    2. Will M1069 get airburst capacity in the future?

     

    Right now M1069 works as simple HE only.

     

    However in future hopefully it gonna get a programmable function to be airburst etc.

     

    When? I have no idea, but it is something desired.

     

    However M1069 is a bit tricky because contrary to other programmable HE rounds that have only two operating modes - explode on impact and airburst, M1069 have three operating more, same explode on impact, airburst and then there is delay/armor piercing mode, where this round can even penetrate armor of older tanks like T-55 and explode inside, making an absolute carnage.

×