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

    I think penguin has a valid point in that the Bradley should not be able to hit the plane traveling at an altitude of 1300 meters with a speed of 600 km/h. Also the plane appears to be roughly 2 km from the firing bradley which is far beyond the cappabilites of a bradley. The AI bradley is too precise.

    Everything seems ok, it is not that aircraft was hit with each shot, and IFV's can be very deadly for aircraft.

    Heck even a tank can shoot down aircraft with a bit of luck.

  4. Posted

    Thanks for the heads up, everything about rws placement has thus far been based off of bohemias A2 model (the M1A2SEP in steel beasts doesn't have crows sadly, that's where i learned the layout of the interiors etc) I'll get them moved for the finished version :)

    on another note though I'm also working on an M1A1 version with cupola mounted M2

    No problem, you can allways inspire yourself by looking how Gurdy made M1 models for RHS Escalation, his M1 models are probably one of the most accurate and realistic you can find in any sort of game.\\As for BIS, their M1A2 with TUSK kit was based on photo's of early prototype.

    By the way about M1A1, you plan to make M1A1 with older CWS commander cupola, or the modern ones with SCWS cupola?

    The different between CWS and SCWS is that SCWS have thermal sight, full stabilization in elevation and azimuth + improved controls.

    nowyobrazmapybitowej4f.png

    Both USMC M1A1FEP and ARNG M1A1SA uses them (US Army completely rearmed all it's active brigades with M1A2SEPv1 and M1A2SEPv2 tanks).

  7. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Hello!

    Do you have in your plan to integrate M60 Patton for the United States? And the variants of M-113?

    It would be brilliant, especially as for the Russians you integrated the old T-72 and BMP-1, I would find that cool to have at the United States, M60 Patton and variants, M-113, and her anti aircraft version, the Vulcan.

    In any case your mod is the best mod that I have never seen on ArmA 3, it's almost compulsory to use your mod when I make a mission. I find however the soldiers Russian protected in a rather light way. (They looks badly equipped compared with the American soldiers.)

    M60 never received officialy honorable name "Patton", it was allways just M60, the last tank that receive name "Patton" was M48. ;) And M-113 never existed, it was allways M113. ;)

    We might think about this in future, or perhaps no, currently we want to finish what we have in our plans, and then we will see. ;)

  8. Posted

    I know the mod was rushed out for MANW.However i have had between 3-5 crashes(straight system lockups) since using RHS.

    I cant say its this mods fault for sure,but all signs point to it.Now,i dont mind so much as im sure future updates will fix many things you guys didnt have time to get around to earlier,but for the meantime,so i can play scenarios without fear freezing,could you advise on what other mods may be causing the most conflict with RHS?

    For example,mods that add veihicles similar to RHS,(Names) and weapons also that add similar names/weapons that RHS add,would it be a safe bet to remove them,could it help?

    I cant narrow down why crashing alot,but on two occasions it happened while changing weapons(your AKs) and changing a scope on the AK.

    Any advise would be great,really dont wanna take this mod out

    Hmmm, strange, indeed it might be a bug within early version of the mod. Most likely fixed as we do not have any problems with our internal builds of that kind so far, and I also use a lot of different mods.

    My advise would be to be patient and wait for next release. Meanwhile you also should test existing released version of the mod with vanilla game only, and then step by step readd other mods and addons.

  9. Posted

    We know of this guy, and how much of a ..... he is. But we don't care.

    Actually, we make a lot of jokes about him in our group chat :D

    Yeah, funny, he plays a military realism orientated game, don't have any idea about military tech in reality, and seems that's the reason why everything makes no sense to him... not to mention tons of ignorance and lack of understanding that every mod, that is hasty released due to reasons will have bugs, shortcomings and placeholders... but yeah, meh.

  10. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Been driving a ton of you guys vehicles around, and in particular i find that the armored vehicles really turn very fast. Now I've never driven an armoured vehicle in real life but I was wondering if these are just a little too twitchy at high speeds? For me just tapping a or d results in a 20 degree turn instantly. If that's true to the real handling then no problems but if it's maybe a little off then it's worth mentioning.

    Great mod. An essential for me now.

    RedPheonix is still tweaking vehicles. And I must say he made a brilliant job so far, with the next version many of you will notice that many vehicles will behave differently, more realistically. Theres literally tons of things that needs tweaking.

    All please remember that 0.3.0 release was a hasty release due to MANW, there were many bugs team was aware of, many of these were fixed, many more problems will be fixed. We also have many ideas and plans, however I can't and will not speak about, so I must repeat myself, be patient, and I am sure, with time and each next release everyone will be pleased. However neither do I, or team want to promise something to early, not to disappoint anyone, simply because there are many unknowns.

    Make a note that I am neither coder nor model artist in a team, just researcher and tester, so I might not know everything. ;)

    Can you elaborate a bit on the tank modification? What exactly does that mean?

    Mainly more refined and improved armor and ammunition system, something that is allready partially implemented but this is still not a state we desired. Coding and modeling work behind this, is made by Reyhard, Olds and Bakerman, why me and Olds are mostly researching and discussing about calculations, armor models, protection and such kind of complex stuff.

    We also work on vehicles FCS.

  11. Posted

    Congratulations, guys, this is truly one of the greatest mods for Arma 3! I've seen some CTI missions with this mod already, considering it's only 0.3!!

    Could we request some content for 0.4?

    - Stryker ICV M2/Mk19/TOW

    - Armed HMMWVs (M2, Mk19)

    - GAZ 233014 AGS30

    - BRDM 2

    - RPK-74

    - M2010 ESR

    - FMTV or HEMTT retexture

    - Kh-29 missile, or maybe Su-39 (with Vikhr missiles)

    P.S.: any plans for multirole planes like Su-34, Su-35, F-15E, F-16, MiG-29?

    Be patient, I think with each update everyone will be pleased. ;)

    However remember that team members must do a lot of hard work, and this is not only about modeling but also research, for example about vehicles engine performance, or it's armor, or what is each vehicle storage of weapons and supplies. This is a lot of work to do, especially that we all do it in our free time.

  12. Posted

    WOOOW! So sexy :D

    And does it have new sight for operator?

    Cas T-72B3 have "Sosna-U" (Russian: СоÑна-У) with thermal vision.

    You can see it on this video (fisheye camera) on 0:22

    And some pics of this:

    http://i.imgur.com/76aUuJf.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/pPgMe3i.jpg (296 kB)

    http://i.imgur.com/xTAcRq8.jpg

    I can only say that we will at least try to create realistic FCS and optics for each vehicle in the mod.

  14. Posted

    I have had occasion to spend some time in your Bradley and have found some issues I would like you to consider.

    1. Commander's Independent Viewer - No depression allowed. This poses a problem and from what I can tell IRL is not a limitation. I looked for the specs for the sight online but cannot find where it gives its max min elevation. A good assumption would be that the it is slightly more than the main gun to allow the commander to direct same. Main gun is -10deg.

    2. The armored glass around the commander's hatch is nicely dirtied up. However IRL I doubt that a crew would allow that to accumulate to that degree as sight is life.

    3. The reverse speed of the Bradley is slow. Now I wish I could quote chapter and verse on this but I cannot find this speed quoted anywhere. I did find where they modified it to increase it's speed from 11 kph to something higher to better match the M1 Abram's 32 kph after Desert Storm. But no specifics were given. Maybe some actual users of the vehicle might have some input?

    4. Also the speed of the M2A3 drops off dramatically while attempting to climb any slope, even on a road.

    5. HE Rounds from the 25mm do not damage structures. While the AP rounds will drop walls and buildings.

    6. There is an antenna directly in front of the Commander's Independent Viewer. This blocks the view straight ahead at high magnification. It appears to me that this antenna is actually offset on the real M2A3.

    Thanks for the MOD it is great and we enjoy using it tremendously.

    Many of these problems were known, I don't know if all were fixed allready but team is working hard to find any bugs or problems and fix them.

  15. Posted

    If someone have problems with terminology, please read the damn documentation people! We put as just hard work to improve it, expand it as with mod itself and it's content. It is really that difficult these days for people to spare some time and read?

    http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/Category:AFRF_Factions

    http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/Category:USAF_Factions

    Whole documentation here -> http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/Main_Page

  17. Posted

    When it happened and if russian troops actually entered Crimea during the crisis I'm sure he wanted his troops to look like rebells instead of hightech forces that anyone could see miles away they were regular russian units. I think it was more of a strategy or tactic by the russians.

    Nope, actually when they get the troops outside barracks (Russian troops where there whole time due to Russia-Ukraine agreements prior conflict), they didn't hide their identity. Neither they hide their presence in Donbas.

  18. Posted

    Within defence, high readiness units are considered to be at peer level to western military formations of the same size.

    High readiness units issue out optics more so than rear echelon units. At the moment colimator optics are being added into the default loadout of some troops, and the magazine count is being increased to six.

    For example here we have VDV soldiers in Crimea, equipped with colimator sights (and 1p29)on their weapons.

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1650216/thumbs/o-CRIMEA-570.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/03/article-2571799-1BF9C24800000578-536_470x619.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/03/article-2571799-1BF9C20900000578-982_964x915.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/03/article-2571799-1BF9C22300000578-82_964x882.jpg

    I will look to see that the VDV faction are better equipped than their MSV peers. :)

    Yeah VDV as high readiness troops probably will have optics contrary to regular troops and rear echelon.

  20. Posted

    Im all for realism,but it seems to me these days its actually the russian economy,which is fairing better than the american one

    No, Russian economy do not fair good at all, and Russian army budget is limited. Do not listen that propaganda stuff from Russian MoD. Russian army have even problems maintaining most of their current vehicle fleet. Did you seen in what shape most T-90 tanks are? They need complete overhaul, which is expensive, and it does not help that Uralvagonzavod is corrupt company demanding too much money for production or service for existing platforms, this is why instead of ordering T-90A's or T-90AM's, Russian MoD order cheap T-72B3 which is nothing else than a cheap and relatively simple modernization of T-72B, UVZ developed a more advanced model of T-72B, codenamed T-72B2 under "Rogatka" program, but it was still too expensive for Russian MoD.

    MoD have hopes that for example new MBT on "Armata" platform will be worth the prize UVZ demands, but people deep in the topic, says that at best, if production will start, it will be slow and vehicle batches will be small, so no more than ~300 to 2020.

    On the other hand US DoD even when facing cuts, fares much better. I closely observe the situation and it is interesting, for example sequestration of Pentagon budget is not needed any more, it is kept so Obama can take that money and waste it on his useless welfare programs. There is many people in Washington openly saying that sequestration should be ended, because it can cause harm to not only military and arms industry but also economy.

    I strongly recommend to read what US Army and Pentagon officials says, for example the ground combat vehicle despite media hype and hysteria was not cancelled, however because of sequestration, it was put on low priority and renamed as future fighting vehicle program. Funny thing because GCV program was on schedule and below costs, also both GDLS and BAE was able to reduce the base weight of their vehicles to 40 tons.

    GCV can be called an equivalent to Russian "Armata" program, tough it is a bit different, as the intent was to use only common components within all vehicles intended to be designed within the program, first vehicle of course was heavy infantry fighting vehicle as replacement for M2. There were also mentioned new self propelled howitzer and so called secondary vehicle, but this not matured enough before program hit the low priority phase. But both GDLS and BAE are still working on their designs.

    In the mean time, US Army decided that funds saved on GCV should be used elsewhere, this is who Engineering Change Proposal modernization programs started for existing platforms.

    M1 tank ECP1 is currently reaching it's final R&D phase and production should start perhaps in 2016, 9 prototypes are currently tested by US Army, and also work on ECP2 should start in next years.

    M2 infantry fighting vehicle is currently receiving it's ECP1 upgrades, ECP2 upgrades are also nearly ready for vehicles integration and ECP3 is in early development stage. Also new specialist variants of M2 are in development to replace M113.

    M1120 platform (Stryker) also will soon start to receive ECP1 upgrades.

    The M109 and M992 platforms also recieve their "ECP" codenamed PIM, the turrets of M109A6 will be taken off their existing hulls, modernized, and placed on new hull that are based on M2 components, M922A1/A2 will be phased out, their usefull parts taken off them, and installed inside new M992A3 ammunition carrier also based on M2 components.

    So in the end US Army's armored brigade combat teams (which are stronger, evolved versions of heavy brigade combat teams) will operate only two platforms, and stryker brigade combat teams will operate single modernized platforms.

    ABCT combat platforms:

    M1 Abrams Family of Vehicles (M1A1SA/M1A2SEPv1/v2 MBT, M88A2 ARV and M1150 ABV).

    M2 Bradley Family of Vehicles (M2A2/M2A3 IFV, M2 based replacement for M113, M109A7 SPH and M992A3 FAASV).

    SBCT combat platforms:

    M1120 Stryker Family of Vehicles.

    Of course there is more investment in creating more FoV's inside US Army, we have HMMWV FoV, FMTV FoV, JLTV FoV, HEMTT FoV and so on. So there is a lot of investment in US Army, but they keep it quiet mostly.

    Also take a note that US Armed Forces have the largest, active tank fleet on this planet. Based on avaiable sources I calculated that US have:

    ~2000 M1A2SEPv1/v2 in US Army ABCT's and reserve of high readiness.

    ~2000 M1A1SA in ARNG ABCT's and reserve of high readiness.

    ~442 M1A1FEP in USMC tank battalions and reserve of high readiness.

    ~3000+ M1 tanks in various variants kept in long term storage facilities like Sierra Army Depot or Anniston Army Depot.

    This tank fleet actually dwarfes tank fleet of China which would have around ~4000 tanks that can be considered as battle worthy in total. I count there ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 series, Chinese clones of T-54/55 tanks can't be considered as modern, and their battle worthiness is pathethic. However Chinese Army due to their size have neither capability, neither money to replace old eqiupment in all their units, so you can still see photos and videos from many PRC Army units with vehicles from 50's and 60's.

    Russian Army tank fleet is also much smaller, forget about stories of thousands of tanks kept in storage, most of them are obsolete junk that is scrapped due to various reasons like lack of spare parts or the fact that because many of tank design bureaus or manufacturers disappeared or are currently outside Russian borders so not logistic support for these designs exist, and their tank fleet will be smaller and smaller every year.

    Of course Russian MoD try to fix the situation, for example they were claiming they would withdraw from service and scrap T-80 series, leaving only T-72's and T-90's, this didn't happen yet, perhaps they postponed decision. Even T-64's it appears were not fully withdrawn from stocks, as we could see that Russian army sended these tanks to Ukrainian separatists, so perhaps they keep them still in long time storage, however in modern battlefield these vehicles are in huge disadvantage.

  23. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    RHS team

    just been running tests for balance assessing.

    It seems that 10times out of 10, a Russian squad will destroy an american squad,on equal terrain.

    Even with the US squad leader having an ACOG,and thus US squad opening up first.

    The end result is always a full russian squad,and a dead US squad.

    I am running bcombat,but even disabled for testing.Terrain used is an airstip,so equal sighting etc.

    Is this intentional,happening to others?

    This is strange, however it might have something to do with weapons, currently in released version, US infantry have mostly M4 carbines with single + burst firing modes, we need to change this as US Army is rearming completely to M4A1 carbines with single + full auto firing modes.

    However I will do my own tests.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Well, during my single test so far, both sides lost only a single soldier, and were expeling ammo at ridiculous rate. :P

    IMHO several things need to be done.

    1) Replace M4 with M4A1 (at least for US troops in OCP).

    2) Increase ammo for each individual soldier for both sides, this probably leads to point 3.

    3) Increase ammo storage capacity for vests and such stuff.

    Maybe accuracy for AI should also be increased, because two dead on both sides when squads are less than 100m from each other is a bit ridiculous.

  24. Posted

    What I meant is that all the information I could retrieve about the AH-60 points that is only used in Australia and Colombia ( these countries asked for a customized versions of the UH-60 ), so it wouldn't make much sense to add it in our mod, as RHS only covers the Russian Federation's and USA's Armed Forces.

    MH-60L DAP (Direct Action Penetrator) variant is used by US Army 160th SOAR, amont other MH-60 variants. MH-60L is preatty much analog to AH-60.

    There is also new variant MH-60M based on UH-60M, however I don't know if MH-60M will have it's DAP variant or will have capability to be reconfigured for such purpose.

  25. Posted

    That is great to hear! Just to clarify, do you intend to fix the fact that a single soldier can (and quiet effectively) can completely disable a BTR-80 with his little ole m4?

    It is such an immersion killer to have this ARMORED personel carrier being engaged and disabled with 5.56. Both coop and especially PVP scenario. It also pisses me off that the vanillia vehicles aka the M-ATV Hunter "M" standing for MINE RESISTANT gets taken out by little ole footsoldier rifles also. Ridiculously gamey and ridiculously unrealistic. Ofc im not relating the M-ATV to RHS, but please consider the RHS assets with specific countermeasures to prevent 1 footsoldier to disable this armored vehicle.

    APC's AFAIK didn't had fully implemented armor system in initial release, also consider that we spend more time on MBT's right now as their armor being more complex, will take more time to implement, APC's aren't really that fancy, tough indeed it is something we should take a look in to, I will discuss this later with Olds and Reyhard and perhaps we will find a suitable sollution, if it wasn't fixed allready in our test versions of the mod.

×