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 · Edited by Damian90

    There are several modern assault rifles/carbines offered on the market, we have FNAC based on SCAR, developed specially for US Army as M4/M16 replacement, there is ACR, there are also some other weapon systems, like MSBS which is promoted to US Army during AUSA exhibitions, MSBS also competes as a replacement for French Army FAMAS rifle.

    As a side note, MSBS advantage is that it is first, true modular firearm, which means that there is common upper receiver, which depending on attached modules like lower receiver or handguard can be reconfigured from classic design to bullpup + each version (classic MSBS-K and bullpup MSBS-B) have several different variants, there is standard rifle, carbine, magazine fed machine gun and marksman rifle + each variant can have attached under barrel granade launcher (which can act also as a separate weapon) developed specially for MSBS. Also because of that modular design, this weapon can be quickly reconfigured for different callibers, the only modules that are needed to be changed are lower receiver (because of magazine well, 5,56mm magazines well won't accept magazine for 7,62 ammo mags), bolt carrier group and barrel.

    MSBS is also fully ambidextrous, well probably it's the most ambidextrous and ergonomic rifle designed up to this day.

  2. Posted

    OK, Thanks. Also, may I make a suggestion. The red Thermal vision from the Bradley is only present on the ODS and older (In reality) The A3 model uses the Improved Bradley Acquisition Sight (IBAS) and it is green, very detailed, and can zoom in up to 48X ( I'm a Bradley commander in real life) Do you have plans to differentiate them in this mod. If you wanna see what it looks like, go on Youtube, look up 99bimmer( my username) and click the video "TOW vs Stryker ( I can't post a link until tomorrow because I just registered today). Keep in mind, it doesn't flicker in real life, it only does that because I filmed it with my phone. You cant see all the symbology on the screen due to it being a little washed out, but I could help with that.

    Also, I noticed I can't lock onto targets beyond a certain range with the 25mm M919 rounds. Is that just because it may be out of range, because M919 will go a LONG way. Further than HE, which I have no problem locking onto targets from almost 4km away

    Thanks for informations regarding Bradleys, it is very helpfull, as for eventuall bugs, we still don't have fully modeled FCS for it, so at current state, consider it as still WIP. :)

  3. Posted

    Hi, I'm new to ARMA 3 and to modding it. My issue is that I can't select 25mm gun ammo on Bradleys. It only allows me to select TOWs and 7.62mm. I dont know if there's a mod conflict. Im using the Escalation pack, AGM, CBA, USAF, and a couple A-10 addons. Please help

    It's AGM conflict, there is currently fix in development made by AGM mod team, dunno when it will be released.

  4. Posted

    Sure, and I probably will do that before long, but seeing as I became aware of this mod through PWS, I think there might be others out there that are not getting the "full" RHS experience. And since the two seperate mods are already there, then including the full mod might be a good idea? But it is of course up to you!

    Oh, and reading the second paragraph in the first post: "Under this name we present two totally standalone mods: Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and United States Armed Forces (if you download them separately and play with both enabled, you are effectively playing Escalation)." I sort of thought I had everything I needed :)

    I can later notify Soul_Assassin about that.

    As for both mods, due to time concerns, description is a bit misleading, mod team work hard to make RHS AFRF and RHS USAF independent from each other, however mission packs are only included in Escalation pack, because missions requires both sides. It might change in future, who knows.

  5. Posted

    Ah, then that´s probably the issue. I wonder if that is causing the rest of my issues. I only have the two seperate packs from PWS. I did not know there was a "complete" pack. Will you consider adding this pack to PWS?

    You can just download Escalation from RHS mod page. http://www.rhsmods.org/

    Also remember that we still work hard on improving the mod, many bugs will be fixed hopefully to the next release.

  7. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Dunno if I can speak about this, however believe me, when we finnish work on armor system, there are plans to eventually help other mods to achieve same results. I hope you all understand how time consuming for both coders and researchers like me to find proper sollutions? And finding proper sollutions is not easy either.

    Also if you want a compatibility with vanilla stuff, use RAM (Real Armor Mod) made by Olds and Bakerman, it does not give 100% compatibility but it is good enough in it's current state... I wonder how many times I repeat this?

    For example current RPGs are almost useless against buildings, it takes up to 4 or 5 hits to make first hole in the wall.

    What granades for RPG's do you use? Do you even understand how different RPG granades works in real life? So I will make this easier for you. A standad anti armor RPG granade uses shaped charge warhead which at detonation creates so called shape charge jet, this jet can penetrate a lot of steel, concrete or earth, but in the same tiem due to it's diameter of only few mm (it's diameter is actually smaller than that of the tip of your pencil), it will not create huge hole in building or wall.

    However there are also multipurpose granades for RPG's, like fragmentation, or high explosive, or thermobaric.

    It's all modeled in RHS, so for RPG-7 you have both AT granades, that are great against vehicles but not against buildings or infantry in the open, but also for example thermobaric granades more effective against infantry in the open, and against structures.

    In general RPG-7 granades with code beggining with letters PG are anti armor granades, OG is granade with fragmentation charge, and TBG or TG will have thermobaric charge.

    There are also single short RPG's, these with code starting as RPG are anti armor only, this codenamed RShG or similiar, use thermobaric warheads.

  8. Posted

    Is there a way to disable your own penetration system?

    Because your AT weapons and Vehicles are not rly compatible with any other addon beacuse of this weird penetration system. And it takes up to 5 HEAT rpgs to make one hole in the builidng

    Or at least can you explain how you penetration system works? That would be much appriciated

    Ok, let's be clear here, armor protection and armor penetration system won't be disabled, and can't be disabled by players, as it is hardcoded in to the mod. However system will be improved.

    Besides this, honestly I am incapable to comprehend this desire of some players, to disable, probably one of the most realistic systems of such kind that is used for ArmA3 mod, and probably most realistic in history of BIS games.

    We have some plans and ambitions to make this really close to the level represented by proffesional military simulations.

    But oh well, it seems you can't please everyone... because balance, right?

  10. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I cringe every time I watch an American-produced WWII documentary (please no offense intended to our southern brothers.. but really... USSR won the war)

    Actually any TV documentaries not matters where made are poor... this is why I don't even have a TV anymore. :P

    And no, USSR didn't won the war, not alone, and actually if not help of western allies, and USA, war in east at best for USSR would end as stationary war.

    By the way, I strongly suggest to read memoirs of Dmitry Loza a Soviet tank commander, he makes a very good and truthfull insight in to Lend Lease support for USSR, and his own experience and thoughts about Soviet and western allies tanks he served on... some people might be surprised by his very high opinion about M4 medium tank, and his rather negative opinion about "best medium tank of WWII" the T-34. ;) Other such good book is "T-34 Mythical Weapon" which makes a very good insight in to T-34 design, it's flaws, and why the myth was actually initially created by the Germans, answer is very simple and funny, it was Guderians technical ignorance in which he confused KV-1 with T-34. So after studying various reports of German forces fighting with Soviets, it becomes clear that the wrath for German forces were not T-34 medium tank, but KV-1 heavy tank.

    In general modern studies about WWII completely changes view about that war, and it is good, modern history might change our view about "best medium tanks of WWII", and this title clearly belongs to the... M4, not T-34 or PzKpfw V (which was in fact more a heavy tank not medium), or that German tanks of WWII in fact were not a very modern designs, and had so many flaws that they would not be put in to service in any other country.

    I strongly suggest also to read short articles written by Nicholas Moran, he is a historian, a tanker, and he made a lot of own research about WWII tanks, he is also host of the YouTube series Inside Chieftains Hatch made for Wargaming.net, and before someones discard him as a source, I talked with him on TankNet forums, and he is incredible source of informations. ;)

    In recent years a lot of sources, informations and such kind of stuff become avaiable for general public, and further historical research reveals more interesting informations and change a view.

    In general for non russian speaking/reading audience, I can definately suggest to read books written by authors such as Richard Hunnicutt, Harry Yeide, Hilary Doyle, Thomas Jentz, Walter Spielberger or the great David Fletcher. ;)

    History from the Soviet side is also very, very interesting, however most books or articles are not translated in to english and thus unknown outside former Soviet Union, which is pity, as they have incredible books about the subject, with fantastic drawings and great photos of rare vehicle examples.

    PS. To not create off Topic, is someone is further interested in discussion, PM me. ;)

  11. Posted

    ^ +1 here I'm spending my mission-creation time reading the historical facts :p I'm ashamed how little my knowledge is of post WWII Russian arms and equipment.

    Most people don't know the real facts about WWII equipment alone, be it Allies, Soviet Union or IIIrd Reich, however due to my own research and reading books made by some few great authors, I would be called a historical heretic by most people interested at some degree in weapon systems history. ;)

    The same truth applies to post WWII weapon systems, there was so much BS created by ignorants, and still is created, that when I read it, my eyes bleed. :P

    you will produce USMC?

    Yes, if you didn't noticed, there is allready faction and some vehicles for them in the mod, however be patient, there is so much work ahead that neither me or any other team member could say when for example infantry could make it to the next release version.

  13. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I played the included armor mission where you are in a T80U - I had no issues killing M1's in that mission. I am not sure if it is the same as posted by the others.

    one thing I did notice is that *it seemed* (I may not have taken enough time to figure things out) that once I switched to other than the default ammo (via action menu) in the T80U, I could not get it to reload. I could use the action menu to change to HE and ATGM, but could not seem to get back to the AP ammo.

    READ!!! -> http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/T-80U

    The binoculars key (by default ) open's the ballistic computer window where you can set manually the firing values ( can be closed with [ESC]).

    The handbrake key (by default [X]) switch the kind of round that will be loaded next.

    The grenade key (by default [G]) erase the automatic lead calculation.

    By pressing x you tell autoloader which round should be loaded next, you might had pushed x by accident and autoloader is set to load next ammo other than APFSDS.

  14. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    M1 & Leopard-2 protection values are now well over 1000mm KE? To protect against what?

    There is however good reason to overarmor vehicles. I am close to military (and hopefully soon I will start to serve ;)), and what I understood is, that there is of course a reason not to overarmor and base protection on known threats, but at least for last decade of Cold War, NATO was preparing it's existing vehicles to face a threat of next generation Soviet fighting vehicles, so all R&D was focused on finding a sollution, both in modernizing existing platforms, and designing new platforms, the latter idea was scrapped when cold war ended, so modernization had priority in later years.

    Of course I doubt they get to over 1000mm vs KE protection, but I believe that protection for the front armor of the most modern tanks in NATO arsenal, ranges from 700mm vs KE to ~900+mm vs KE, something around that. For example here in Poland, I seen some documents, stating that to efficently protect a tank class vehicle against current and future KE threats, frontal protection at minimum should be no less than 700mm vs KE, and favorably it should be larger.

    We should also consider the fact that with development in materials technology, manufacturing methods, costs of armor can actually go down, I have here a document, about ECP1 modernization form M1 tanks.

    http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2015/Army/stamped/P40_GA0700_BSA-20_BA-1_APP-2033A_PB_2015.pdf

    You can see there cost of purchase of the Next Generation Armor developed within ECP1 pogram.

    Most of the costs of modern fighting vehicles are actually in electronics, not armor.

    It's very complex issue, and I fear that we can only speculate, at least not without seeing exact design of NATO tanks frontal armor. I seen a photo of Canadian Leopard 2A4's front hull armor cavity opened, and considering a poor quality of photo, it was rather obvious that armor is made from densly packed layers of something, so in fact, protection might be relatively high contrary to most estimations, which might consider smaller density.

    http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/706/o5lv.jpg

    Here is mentioned photo.

  15. Posted

    And I am really looking forward to that armor implementation that I read about. Sounds really good, however something else is going on. I just confirmed that when the tanks are firing, they are not even hitting the M1:

    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=343104180

    See how they are flying a few meters above the M1?

    Sometimes they don´t even attempt to fire which results in this:

    http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197971039805/screenshots/

    It seems the M1 also stop firing when it runs out of APFSDS? Should it not switch to HEAT?

    Hmmm, really strange behavior, I don't have such problems, perhaps try to turn off all mods and run RHS with vanilla ArmA3, then swith on mods one by one again, and see which one causes trouble.

  16. Posted

    Fixed in the deployed version or your internal build? I am using 0.3.0.1

    No, I am not using Extended Armor, and the issue is identical no matter if I am in the tank, or part of another faction. The shots from the T-XXs does not even seem to hit the M1. I just tried putting myself in a T-72 and firing at the back of a defenceless M1. 2-3 APDSDS for crew to dismount (red ENG), I emptied the rest of the AP and HEAT shells in the same location and a single AT missile before the tank blew up. So the T-72 can damage the tank, although it takes too much effort perhaps?

    Strange behavior indeed.

    As for M1's armor protection, take a note that final armor model is not implemented in the currently released version of the mod.

    Also remember that when the completed armor model will be released, M1's will not be easy to kill from the front, just like in real life. So or you have a luck and you will hit a weaker protected zones in it's frontal projection, like gun mantlet, or you will need to use tactics and flank M1's, as their side and rear armor is weaker than front, and front is preatty much impenetrable besides mentioned weak zones.

  17. Posted

    Yeah Olds, but then again, it is interesting to play with TE values, because results are interesting. Reyhard observed that my initial calculations were very different than these made by others, for example SB Pro PE team.

    The funny thing is, that my calculations for Abrams ended up with a very high KE values, above 1000mm, but were very balanced with CE values, for example I got 1100mm vs KE and 1200mm vs CE. Which is interesting and I wonder why they were so high. My conclusion was that it was a depleted uranium layers, and later I was thinking ok, these layers are not thick, I made them around 50mm thick, but then again DU have a very high TE (at least such TE values were on Dejawolfs internet site when it's existed, and Dejawolf is one of the devs working on SB Pro PE so I assumed, it was not a fantasy).

    So I got impression that there should be actually less layers with steel encased DU (and I made it ecnased in HHS plates, which makes most sense), and then I placed them at the end of armor array so it created a backing for NERA layers (but in equations they act as passive layers as I don't have idea how to calculate NERA).

    On the other hand I wonder, maybe all these other estimations are... actually underestimated?

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    can you guys describe how you did armor calculations and did you address any anti-tank weapons with this mod vs. those armor calculations? Damian90 posted in the Real Armor Mod thread, I thought it more appropriate to ask here though.

    It would be great if collaboration can be done to get ARMA3 into a better situation for armored warfare simulation (fidelity of SBPPE not needed). There are a number of different people working on this stuff it seems: Burnes Armories Tanks and Deployment Vehicles, RHS Escalation, Real Armor Mod, AiA with Olds, BWM, something called MANW that Olds is also working on.

    I know mod teams are mod teams, but if some amount of collaboration could be done ala CUP then maybe duplicate work could be avoided and things could get released faster and with a modicum of standardization.

    It's simple, first you need to make a research about the real armor each specific vehicle uses, the better is research the closer to reality calculations will be, however as we know, armor of modern tanks is classified stuff, so not allways you can make proper calculations knowing the exact design of specific armor array. But of course we can make some scientific based assumptions.

    For example there are declassified documents about R&D program codenamed "Burlington" that lead to development of several armor arrays used in most modern NATO tanks like M1 Abrams, and we know that from these designs, a more modern armor arrays evolved, we also have drawings and descriptions of these prototype armors so we can assume that final versions put in to mass production and service in 80's were based on similiar principles.

    Such armor arrays are made as multiple layers of diferent materials, mostly a high hardness steel plates with air gaps between, but we also known that their working mechanism described in documents, suggest that these steel layers actually were also layered and have a design similiar to NERA or NxRA armor. So array will look like this Xmm HHS + Xmm air gap + Xmm HHS + Xmm rubber + Xmm HHS + Xmm air gap + Xmm HHS and so on. This is of course a simplified model.

    Of course we also need to know at least estimated thickness of the whole armor array, and then adjust number of layers and their thickness to match thickness of the complete armor array. We can also change materials from each layer is made, we can adjust their thickness (but thickness of all layers must allways match thickness of completed armor array!).

    If the armor model is completed, we then need to calculate thickness efficency of each material, for short we call it TE. Each material have different TE for example a RHA (Rolled Homogeneus Armor) have a TE = 1 vs KE (Kinetic Energy - like APFSDS ammo) and 1 vs CE (Chemical Energy - High Explosive Anti Tank ammo or HEAT), but HHS (High Hardness Steel) armor have a TE = 1,3 vs KE and 1,3 vs CE.

    So now let's move to equation, if we have a 50mm armor plate made from HHS, then we need to multiply it by it's TE, so 50 x 1,3 = 65mm of RHA equivalent. Ok for example let's take our simplified array above.

    50mm HHS (65mm vs KE/CE + 5mm air gap (TE = 0 vs KE and 0,26mm vs CE so it is 1,3mm vs CE) + 50mm HHS (65mm vs KE/CE) + 5mm rubber (TE unknown) + 50mm HHS (65mm vs KE/CE) + 5mm air gap (1,3mm vs DE) + 60mm HHS (78mm vs KE/CE) = 273mm vs KE/275mm vs CE. And so we have protection, of such example of armor array.

    Of course armor array models can be more complex, more different materials can be added, and these different materials will have a different TE values against KE and CE threats.

    However make no mistake, this is no way a 100% proper and sure method of making calculations for vehicles armor protection, there are more complex methods, however I am not smart enough to make them, too much very complex math, sorry. ;)

    And of course as I said above, the real research about real armor arrays is nececary for calculations, otherwise you can end up with complete fantasy.

    Believe me I had incredible problems creating armor models alone, it is very difficult to have proper materials proportions and their thickness that can be put in a box that have dimensions (mainly thickness) same as the real armor array, and hey, we could allways also start to calculate for example armor array density, and this is a start to these very complex armor calculations, which I won't do.

    I also needed to make some compromises and back up with armor estimations made by others, smarter than me. ;)

    So it is not that easy, and the deeper you dig, the more complex it becomes and there are no simple and strict answers to the question - what is the real or close to real, protection of each specific vehicle. I know that this might not be good enough answer for many people, but I try to keep it as much scientific as possible so it won't go in to that undesirable direction of pure fantasy or fanboyism (my tanks is better than yours, because it more my than yours).

    I hope you get the point.

    Oh and of course you can also calculate armor angle if nececary, for this I use a very simple and convienient tool called armor calculator, which you can find here -> http://www.panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

    Because a small graphic shows you armor angle, you can relatively well adjust armor angle to the real thing, and you get line of sight thickness of plate that have specific thickness.

  21. Posted

    RHS is unusual in that they seem to be paying attention to armor values more than your typical mod. That being said, I have no idea what those values are as of yet,

    I was the guy making calculations, it was a difficult task you know. For Russian stuff not that much, as recently a lot of data become avaiable about armor design and composition, so realistic calculations can be made. As for US armor, it was a pain, simply because TE values calculations at some point become incredible if I used standard "Burlington" armor model that can be seen in declassified documents from R&D phase of the program. I think it was a problem of proportions between hard layers of armor and air gaps, more hard layers you have at specific thickness of whole array you get very high and more balanced protection values against KE and CE, less hard layers and more air gaps (or larger air gaps) you get less protection against KE and more against CE.

    And there is still problem that my data table for different TE values of different materials is not fully complete, also I don't know how to calculate NERA/NxRA interaction to the equation. So I needed to make some compromises here and there, because modern Abrams variants would have just insane KE protection values for front hull and turret armor.

    So yeah, the problem is lack of data, especially on how exactly armor looks like at turret and hull front, how it's internal structure looks like.

    I suspect I could achieve desired armor values using ceramics, but then again, documents and evidence are rather clear, ceramics were never used in armor of these tanks.

  22. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I have another question/bug interogation : the "white" thermal into BMD-2(?) are bright. REALLY bright. Is it normal ?

    Which BMD-2? The only BMD-2 variant with thermal sight is BMD-2M, other BMD-2's have only NV, so in daylight, they won't work properly and will blind you.

    I repeat, most Russian vehicles do not have thermal sights, just like in real life, for night conditions they have passive/active IR night vision, which will not work during day conditions.

    I just tested all BMD variants with thermal sights, everything works ok, as intended.

  23. Posted

    As for RHS armor and ammunition penetration system, well it is based on Olds briliant ideas, however it might be also a bit more complex, but this is only my own opinion based about what I know about current progress of work in RHS and what we have in RAM, but I can be wrong, so RAM actually can have the same level of progress or even larger.

    Of course RAM is also very good tool to actually make vanilla stuff working better with RHS and vice versa.

×