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

  2. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    So how it fixes the issue then? It won't fix the issue if instead of 0.7 * 10 you will put just 7.

    I just wonder why this hitpoints values for infantry must differ from vanila?

    What? Now you complain when we have even better values than vanilla content?

    And it's differ for the same reasons why vehicles armor system differs from vanilla, because we think we can make something better than vanilla content. Simple as that!

    We have also comparable protection levels for vests, for example RHS IOTV have armor = 15 while vanilla V_PlateCarrier2_rgr armor = 20.

    RHS ACH helmet have armor = 2, vanilla ECH helmet have armor = 4.

    So protection levels are comparable and note we try to recreate reality as much as it is possible.

  3. Posted

    @Saul & John_Spartan

    As a pedantic person :P I have a one suggestion for consitency, can you improve designation codes for your awesome planes? I mean Flanker-E is wrongly written (at least was, don't know if it was allready fixed) as Su35, should be Su-35S Flanker-E, while F/A-18's should have designation without space, which is F/A-18E or F/A-18F instead of F/A-18 E or F/A-18 F, purely cosmetic, but I have an eye for such details. ;)

    Either way keep up the great work gentlemen!

  4. Posted

    I think the ISIS flag and inscriptions are great, they make them unique and realistic, well as realistic as we can hope for. I still have my question regarding what I think is the over use of body armor but I need to know if anyone else sees the ISIS forces wearing body armor, and not just the tactical vests, I mean full on plate carriers, anyone?

    It would be rare if they would use plate carriers or even heavier body armor, I seen one ISIS guy in the mod using US IOTV and unifomr in OCP cammo from RHS mod. Well, we can argue it was captured in some magazines. :P

    But in reality they mostly use bandoliers, maybe some other lighter stuff and eventually vests captured on Iraqi Soldiers, and I think they do not use IOTV's.

  8. Posted

    RHS, what about russian atgm?

    9К111 "Fagot", 9К115 "Metis", 9К135 "Kornet" and their modifications

    We wish to have more content, but remember, that RHS aims at quality, and because of that, and the work guys making models have, plus fixing all the stuff that is released, before new content will be avaiable for mod, some time can pass.

    Do not expect content hoping out of the hat just like that.

    ;)

  9. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    On World Tribune, Pentagon confirms ISIL captured tanks, building ‘faster’ military force:

    When IS routed the Iraqi Army in northern Iraq back in June, the latter abandoned a lot of equipment as they literally stripped down to their underwear and ran away.

    This is not truth that IS captured 50 tanks, they captured only 5 M1A1, all of them destroyed, however they captured some number of T-55 type tanks at one caputred FOB. However number of caputred tanks was no way near 50 in Iraq. Also in Iraq they did not captured T-62 tanks, Iraqi Army operates only T-54/55, T-72 and M1A1 tanks.

    Again, carefully watch IS propaganda, they would show captured M1A1's in action, however up to this day nothing, no photos, no videos.

    Pentaon officials might reported about capturing tanks in general, and someone confused things with capturing M1A1's means they were kept and used by IS, tough IS itself does not confirm such thing.

    However they actually shown M1A1 captured in that FOB, and they burned it as it was abandoned by Iraqi troops.

    That's a lot of information without one single source. Info on war gets twisted and manipulated by people's opinions on the world so often, it would be nice if you could be so kind as to provide at least one article depicting IS capturing M1A1's.

    I can provide you with photos, however I doubt terrorist propaganda is something that should be presented on this great forum.

    However I made my own research by simply diging through terrorists propaganda and counting vehicles they presented.

    Seriously, do a research, it is not something that will be anywhere soon presented in article, but making own research do not harm, and can be very educating.

    http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38977&page=1

    However this forum might help, me and my collegues from tank and armored fighting vehicles enthusiasts community, kept attention to events and tried to make sense from all this chaos.

    You can also notice how much our knowledge and opinions about some events changed when more and more source material was avaiable. This subject of research is unfortunately very fluid, so it's difficult to make sense by the first look on source material.

  11. Posted

    I think the BMP-3's armour might be too low.

    I was testing it against Bradleys, and usually it lost unless it got lucky as within a few rounds the crew would jump out and the BMP3(A) would explode.

    I then tested vs the BMD-4M, they are similar and so while I am no expert, they should have similar armour levels, considering both are the most advanced model of each one (BMD and BMP)

    I then placed them on an airfield and got a BMP-2 and just fired at the front armour with the BMP-2's 30mm, the results:

    BMP-3 less than 40 rounds will explode, BMD-4M will not explode even after firing 340 rounds at it it will not take any serious damage.

    So, either the 4M is really over armoured or the BMP-3 is underarmoured, but IDK.

    Take a note that M2 Bradley 25mm M242 fires M919 APFSDS round with DU penetrator, and this thing despite tiny calliber, at least in theory, will make a swiss cheese from most WWII heavy tanks, some sources provide informations that M919 can penetrate ~100mm RHA at ~3000m, tough our M919 in the mod actually have lower penetration capabilities, around 85-90mm.

    While 2A42 and 2A72 30mm cannons mounted on BMP's and BMD's use preatty obsolete ammunition with very low penetration capabilities, 3UBR6 APCBC can penetrate around 50mm at 1200m and 3UBR8 APDS can penetrate around 60 at 1800m.

    In general automatic cannons of Russian BMD's and BMP's are suffering because of lack of modern APFSDS ammo.

  12. Posted

    Wow. Your beta updaters are very slick and well done. Upgrading to beta now. Good work, people! :)

    ---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

    Did you guys catch this one? I haven't tried beta yet to see if this has been fixed. A quick scan of the bug tracker found nothing about this, but perhaps I missed the entry.

    Yeah, seems we missed that one as well. Please post these issues on our feedback tracker, we will look in to it later.

    http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

  13. Posted

    IS have procured pretty much all of their vehicle fleet by capturing them from enemy forces. While they don't have any M1 Abrams at this point of the conflict, it is not beyond the realm of reason that they may in the future capture them from the Iraqi Army that has been, ehm, less than stellar in performance.

    IS captured 5 M1A1's from Iraqi Army up to this day, all were abandoned by their crews and were operational, and all were destroyed by IS, 4 were burned and 1 was blow up (literally they put tons of explosives inside it), this 5 tanks are ~50% of total M1A1's lost by Iraqi Army up to this day (around 10 maybe few more), much more M1A1's were however damaged during fights and are now in the rear bases where they are slowly repaired.

    IS just do not have people capable to operate vehicles like M1A1, neither logistical means to do so, some tanks they captured (3) were stuck due to fault of their crews, and could not be recovered by means IS have.

    Also there is ideological issue here, as IS and similiar terrorist groups must proove that their fighters are glorious and brave and such kind of shit, so in propaganda it's best when they pose with burning M1A1 behind them.

    So all in all, no islamic terrorist group would use such tech, it is too much for people that most time spend reading religious book instead of some scientific books or technical manuals.

    For IS more sense is to use equipment smaller, lighter and easier to operate for their uneducated fighters, like T-54/55 tanks or T-62's and T-72's which they indeed operate (most captured from Syrian Army and some from Iraqi Army).

    Actually i talked with Leight via PM and provided him with some advises as to what tanks should be used by whom.

  14. Posted

    Any plans for alternate camo for the vehicles? I'd love to see winter white and two tone sand/green if possible.

    No snow camo for US vehicles I am affraid, as US do not use snow camo for them. It is more a concept of background color which is created by vehicle desert or woodland pattern on which later snow, mud or anything else stick, creating some sort of natural camouflage, very similiar concept like the Israelis do with their vehicles, painted in to sort of desert background color which later is covered with mud or dust.

    US vehicles however can have olive drab (green) color, some are painted in such pattern, but then again, dunno if we can apply such pattern yet, other more important things are in progress.

    As for Russians, dunno, I believe they also do not use dedicated snow pattern for vehicles.

  16. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Hmm that's strange. Do you have the defusal kit in your inventory? "AGM_DefusalKit". Toolkit is only for repairing with AGM active. I tested it with rhsusf_army_ocp_engineer and it worked, only tested vanilla mines though.

    I used both, and with vanilla units only. In both cases (with and without agm_explosives) it didn't worked, I also removed all mods, leaving only CBA and AGM, still nothing, I removed AGM, and I could defuse mines and explosives.

    I think it might be something with agm_interaction, when I removed it, and played with AGM on, I could defuse mines and explosives.

    I will try to download AGM again, maybe I had a corrupt download.

    Yup, it works now, just fine, after redownload.

    However I think there might be a problem if someone does not use agm_explosives. The toolkit is as DavidZi said changed by AGM in such way that it can't be used to defuse mines and explosives, and it stays that way when agm_explosives.pbo is removed from addons folder, I prefer to do so, as I like to use AGM with ArmA3 campaign but sometimes it breaks missions, my advise would be to change this to vanilla configuration where toolkit can be used to defuse mines, when agm_explosives is removed.

  18. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Do I need to set this also for engineer or explosive specialist? They should be able to defuse explosives at all times no?

    And nope, it does not work.

    Edit: It think there might be a problem in this subject between newest AGM and ArmA3 in 1.36 version, even older AGM versions have problems with mines and explosive defuse, and such problem was not present in previous ArmA3 version.

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Hey AGM team, I have a question, and possible bug report.

    It is about mine, I am unable to defuse mines, bug is present with both agm_explosives pbo active and when I remove it from addons folder in mod.

    Was this intentional, or perhaps there is indeed a bug in the mod?

    Does anyone else encounters the same problem?

  20. Posted

    1)

    Most Russian vehicles (GAZ23301s, URALs, GAZ66s) have extreme problems with going up small gradients. [tested on smd_a3 and most AiA Maps]

    I understand that they are supposed to be slower uphill, but this is just to extreme imo.

    They slow down to 8-10 km/h, i hope this is not intuitive?

    RedPheonix should answer that, but I suspect it is not our fault but physx, simply because RedPheonix gives vehicles realistic engine power, rpm, gearboxes and such stuff, and this might cause some glitches with current physx system.

    2)

    The firerate on the M134s of the UH60 are a little bit low, is this just a mistake?

    Normally they should be between 2000 and 4000 rp/m.

    Might be something that we didn't noticed when other, more noticable and serious bugs were detected and fixed.

    3)

    Will we see some GAZ23301s or old UAZs with mounted weapons? (like dshkm)

    It is on our wishlist, so hopefully yes. Butthe wishlist is long, and we are short on manpower when it comes to people actually creating content, to make all that stuff quickly and with RHS quality in mind.

    Also remember that we have official feedback tracker, you can post things like detected bugs.

    http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

  21. Posted

    RHS team,

    I cant seem to figure out the RPG-7.Is there a way to range with it?It seems zeroed at 100m but my zeroing key does nothing.

    I checked documentation,but am i missing something?Is it just designed this way?

    I might be wrong, but there was some bug, it is fixed in our internal version probably (didn't tested it yet), I would wait for fix in next version if there is a bug indeed. Or try to use RPG-7 with optical sight, there you just use reticle to properly compensate granade drop.

  22. Posted

    I doubt that this would happen, taking in account the amount of time and money spent on development of armata. Even if Armata would not fit army's requirements fully, the Goverment will probably force its adoption into service because of that. And if the crisis will continue, even more efforts will be put into rearmament program.

    Besides, the more cheaper rubble becomes, the more money Russian Goverment get

    for budget spendings, as Russia's reserves are kept in USD and Euro.

    The same amount of time and money (if not larger) was put in to Object 195 project, and in the same time it was cancelled because it didn't meet requirements (it's FCS was bugged, and main gun have very low service life) and was expensive like hell. "Armata" platform takes many mechanical and general hull design for tank variant from Object 195, but as far as I know, they still have problems with FCS.

    In best case scenario, we will have delays in production, and production itself will be in very, very small batches, some guys sitting in the tpic says that up to 2020 no more than ~300 vehicles of all types based on "Armata" platform will be manufactured, if production starts per schedule.

    Sorry, but that's grim reality.

    And it don't makes me happy either, because "Armata" would probably be a catalyst to push forward Leopard 3 project, and also new US IV generation MBT project, that is scheduled for serious R&D work around 2025-2030.

  23. Posted

    That's not entirely correct statement, Damian90. It is true that the idea of buying new modification of T-90 or upgrading existing ones were discarded by Ru MoD, but only because it was decided to switch to Armata platform entirely until 2020, thats why upgrading T-72 to T-72B3 as a temporary solution until arrival of Armata was deemed more cost effective. As I know, right now the majority of T-72 in Central & South Military Districts were upgraded to T-72B3. The first of Armata tanks will arrive into service this year for evaluation. The same situation is with both BTR and BMP which will be replaced by Bumerang and Kurganets-25 platforms (that's why Ru MoD will not buy any BTR-90 or BMP-3(4)).

    Before talking about the speed of rearmament program of RuAF and its funding, you have to take into consideration the simple fact that starting from the end of 2011 it is supervised on the highest level in Russian government and by the President, so MoD finally got much needed attention and budget's money. It's seems that even planed shortcuts of budget spendings in 2015-2016, due to ongoing financial crisis, will not touch spendings, planed for military reform.

    Don't be surprised if "Armata" will be cancelled or postponed due to economic cirsis in Russia.

    In fact sooner we might see Leopard 3 and new US main battle tank in service, if Russian economic crisis will continue.

×