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

    M4A1 are only used by spec forces and few designated units that are supposed to "manage" better the bullets and be involved more in CQB.

    Not exactly MistyRonin. US Army currently is in the process of modernizing all it's M4's to M4A1 variant, which means that M4A1 will replace both M4 and M16A4 in regular wide spread US Army and ARNG service. USMC also adapted M4A1 although replacement pace is slower and I think USMC will probably keep both M4A1 and also upgrade M16A4 (I supsect they will replace 3 round burst with full auto and also there were some informations they want to replace solid fixed stock to collapsable stock from M4/M4A1).

    Also do not confuse the old M4A1, with new M4A1 PIP wich is also included in RHS. ;) And both rifles differs a bit from each other, for example M4A1 PIP have ambidextrous fire selector, while old M4A1 had it mounted only on one side.

    Actually I talked about this with Reyhard or Gurdy, don't remember, and I advised to give M4A1 PIP to US Army soldiers in OCP, while these in UCP should retain older M4, to represent difference between US Army prior and after 2014/15.

    However it was not changed as there were more important things to do, and we never discussed that later again.

  2. Posted

    Fully agreed. If its felt that the US tanks are beating the Russian ones too easily on a 1-to-1 basis, then the mission designer should be using a good bit of preemptive 152/122mm fire to make sure the 1-to-1 basis isnt as 1-to-1 as it'd first seem :) When you've got such a big arty advantage in throw-weight, its a sin to ignore it! :P

    Actually if new improved armor models will be avaiable for next update, I suggest to first familirize with vehicles, test them, find weak and strong sides of each vehicle, remember them, and then adjust tactics.

    It will definately be very interesting to see how improved armor models will work out in game. I spent a lot of time preparing proper data for Reyhard, and I must say at some point it was a hard task to complete, especially for Russian tanks turrets, their geometry don't help in creating proper armor model, hopefully Reyhard figured them out. ;)

  3. Posted

    You are taking one word "balanced" out of context of my post and add an entire tirade of how balancing in general ruins the game, boiling down to the good old "if you don't like it get out" argument. Granted it does saves you the trouble to adress the suggested points and reply in a constructive way (i.e. explain why you think the variant would be bad for game play, maybe propose alternatives etc.).

    I never talked to balancing out the factions and vehicles so they all have the same weaponry and capabilities etc. like the Battlefield series. When I used the word "balanced" I was referring to balancing out the choices mission makers have to create diverse scenarios to vary up the experience of the player base. Having an Abrams / Bradley choice that won't be able to utilise the zoom camera will not ruin the game, it just gives players more choice in how to approach a scenario. Nobody says we should get rid of the zoom cameras for balance sake, those variants can and should have a firm place within RHS and vanilla.

    Adding more choices in vehicle variants is always appreciated by mission makers and players alike. Whether or not the suggested variant is useful / makes sense from a game play stand-point is definitely open to debate.

    I am sure the RHS team would agree with me and would say - NO.

    Do you understand that point of this mod is realism? So if vehicle have such and such features in reality they will be if possible modeleled in the mod, if some features are not existing, then they won't be in the mod. Deal with it, it is that simple.

    Besides this I don't understand what you not like in optics for vehicle commander? This is how it works in reality.

    Not to mention, that if you would pay more attention to vehicles themselfs, you would see that some vehicles, have worse optics for their commanders than other vehicles.

    For example M1A1AIM have just simple optics for commander CWS cupola, these optics does not provide great level of zoom compared to M1A2SEPv1 commanders CITV panoramic sight, however in both cases there is tradeoff. M1A1AIM might not have great optics for commander, but CWS cupola mounted MG can be fired from under armor protection, on the other hand M1A2SEPv1 have better sights for commander, but his MG is mounted on a pintle mount, requiring opening hatch, and exposing TC head and torso to operate this MG.

    Something for something, like in real life.

    Same goes for Russian tanks, we have for example T-72B tanks, which have better basic armor than T-80B series, on the other hand T-72B sights are complete crap compared to T-80B sights.

    I said it many times, learn about vehicles, both the ones in the mod and their real life counterparts, how they behave, what features they have or not have.

    Besides this wait for next versions releases, many bugs will be fixed, a lot of new stuff will probably be added. In the end you might be surprised (in very positive way). From my own experience I know, that RHS team will deliver the best they can, and really kudos for their incredibly hard work.

  4. Posted

    This. I still can't (well, I can, to be honest :D) forgive BI for screwing up Kamaz Typhoon for the sake of balance.

    Balancing is the thing that essentially ruins all the fun and diversity, even cartoonish Team Fortress refrained from balancing to some extent.

    To be honest, there should be said clearly that BIS made very good engine with good perspectives and interesting potential. The problem is that BIS didn't used engines full potential in many aspects, pity, vanilla game could be very different. However just wait for next RHS releases, just wait. ;)

  5. Posted

    Personally I care very little for 100% authenticity, to me balanced and diverse gameplay is more important. I think it would be a great idea to have two variants of Bradleys and Abrams, one with the zoom cameras and one where the commander only can turn out and has to use his limited eye sight "zoom". Could be fun for mission makers to vary up the mechanised combat a bit.

    If you care for balance not authencity, then neither RHS is for you, neither ArmA series, as balance was never point for these game and neither a point of any RHS mod version, be it old ones for OFP, or newer ones for ArmA series. If you search balance go and play with Battlefield.

    And I doubt that RHS team will create a non realistic variants of vehicles so they can be balanced in artificial, non realistic way.

    Personally I also don't see any fun in such artificial balance, what's the point? RHS mod will be realistic in many ways (or to be more precise as close to reality as possible), which means players will need to learn their vehicles, and use brain.

    The ACP thingy was totally my bad, was very tired when I wrote that. What I meant was the M113A3. Currently when you hop onto the 50cal gunner seat (currently classed as commander seat) you get the full camera zoom function as soon as you hit right-click to aim down sights.

    This will be fixed.

  7. Posted

    thermal optic on russian federation stuff? i believe russian already modernized their stuff on early 2011..

    There is no thermal sights on vehicles currently represented in the mod.

    For example thermal sights were added in T-72 series currently used by Russian Federation Armed Forces in variants T-72B2 (which never entered service as it was too expensive modernization) and in T-72B3 (just recently put in to service and modernization is pending) with new Sosna-U sight.

    There are T-90A tanks with ESSA thermal sights, but none is in the mod, the original T-90 didn't had thermal sights, only Buran-PA nightvision.

    There are also T-80U variants with PLISA thermal sights, but none of these variants are in the mod.

    So please bare in mind that RHS aims at realism, and if specific vehicle in reality don't have feature x or feature y, then it won't have it in the mod, simple as that.

    Russian tanks that are currently in the mod, represent technology level ranging from late 1960's (basic T-80) to late 1980's (T-72B obr.1984/85/89, T-80A, T-80U), none of these vehicles had thermal sights.

  8. Posted

    Both Bradley M2A2 variants have fully zoomable commander seats while turned in, eventhough the M2A2's do not have commander cameras.

    In reality indeed M2A2 do not have commander panoramic periscope, however for the sake of gameplay, gunner auxiliary sight had been used as commander panoramic sight, in future it might change.

    Same as above for the Abrams M1A2 variants.

    Bollocks!

    All M1A2's have panoramic commander sight called properly CITV - Commander Independent Thermal Viewer, however it is not properly modeled just like gunner sight in current RHS mod release, it will change with time.

    M1A1's however have powered commander cupola with it's own optics.

    The ACP-A2 gunner seat (technically commander seat) has the also fully zoomable view when right clicking.

    What the hell is ACP-A2?! :confused:

  12. Posted

    Damian90 you are like a science and military history book but more "user friendly" to read

    Well thank you. ;)

    However believe me, there is plenty briliant military history and science books out there, with briliant authors writing them, really people these days should read more books. ;)

    - facepalm -

    Sorry, of course you are right.

    Yes, it is indeed impossible to fire all at once, that would turn over the truck.

    Yeah. ;)

    BTW sorry I didn't send you a PM but drawings are not ready yet AFAIK.

  14. Posted

    So it's not intended behavior that the 75mm RPG-26 can K-kill the Abrams in one hit to the frontal armor?

    Yes it is not intended.

    And this will most likely change as armor model is not finished.

    Please don't respond defensively like last time. I'm NOT bashing an unfinished mod. I'm trying to help, and I hope you would take bug reports in good faith, even if they're annoying. I want to make sure the team is aware of problems that do exist, and you make my efforts to test pointless when you deflect questions such "is this intended behavior or a bug?"

    Or would you rather have no one report issues or offer feedback?

    I am not responding defensively, well it might be just my manner, you know, this is scientific style. :P

    And of course, point as many bugs as you find, this is really appreciated, and I am sure that RHS team is aware of the reported bugs, as far as I know, everybody is working hard to fix them, just wait to another release.

    However I think I do not have a liberty to talk about some things beyond a discussion about vehicles protection models, many other questions should be directed to RHS team members.

  15. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Damain...

    Please overhaul all of the armor assets!

    That is truly amazing. I really wish all of the arma 3 assets had that level of thought put into them.

    Well there is a problem, several problems actually.

    First and this is what we discussed with Reyhard, what community will think about armor values we will implement to the models. For some people some vehicles might be too well protected, for some other people they might be too weakly protected.

    Another problem is that creating this calculations is very difficult task, especially that I am using simplified method, there are of course more complex methods but... well I am not that smart.

    So we will see, RV engine have potential as far as I understood from Reyhards words (and he is true genius when it comes to coding, so big applause for that fine gentlemen! ;)), but there are also obvious limitations, limitation of game engine, but also limitations of our own knowledge about vehicles protection, simply because most of data is classified, and what is declassified, don't tell us much.

    Besides this for example when I created a model for Abrams armor, based on declassified documentation of R&D program, I started to have just absurdly high armor protection at the end of calculations, so I reduced protection closer to the Sb Pro PE estimations.

    On the other hand, Russian tanks for some reason allways had relatively low protection, so of course I increased protection.

    These are results of simplified method of calculation, and also a lot of unknowns.

    But don't get me wrong, nobody wants any sort of artifical balance, realism is as far as I know, is one of highest priority.

    But then again, I am not a member of RHS team, and I don't know everything, neither I am addonmaker, so most questions should be rather pointed towards RHS team, I can only be responsible behind some part of scientific research about the subject.

  17. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Just downloaded the mod...It's really outstanding!Thx so much to RHS team for bringing us real ARMA3 content wise!!!

    A question since there are real expert here like Damian:Reading your last post about NATO tanks vs Russians ones it seems that during night time assault,Nato Tanks could swipe their opponents pretty easy(better frontal armour+better thermal/night sights).So my question is if there is some known plan to attack russians tanks divisions only by night?

    I always tought that best tanks from NATO and PACT were very similar referring to technological capabilities...

    Sorry for my poor english

    There are some things that are needed to be explained.

    1) Russian tanks currently being in the mod are actually mostly older designs, for example T-80 series excluding T-80A and T-80U represents late 1960's and early to late 1970's technology level. Which means for example that T-80B have excellent armor protection against threats (NATO anti tank weapons and ammunition) of that period. In the 1960's and 1970's T tanks like T-64 series, T-72 series, and T-80 series were preatty much impenetrable for NATO 105mm APDS and APFSDS as well as 120mm APDS and APFSDS fired from British 120mm L11 rifled gun.

    Same goes for T-72B, T-80A and T-80U that are currently in game, they are very well protected against NATO 120mm APFSDS ammo fired from 120mm smoothbore guns, in early to mid 1980's period.

    So it does not mean that these tanks are badly protected, to the contrary, for the period these were designed, their protection is excellent, also considering Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) armed forces requirements for vehicles size, weight and internal volume that are very restrictive.

    However the mod also contains more modern US Armed Forces, which just have and use vehicles and ammunition more up to todays standards.

    But don't be affraid, if RHS team will include more modern Russian tanks, it will not look that bad. For example T-90A have much better protection, especially on turret, because it's turret is welded from rolled armor plates and not cast.

    That's actually the biggest problem of Russian tanks, cast turrets. Steel armor castings have actually relatively poor protection characteristics (Soviets choosen to cast turrets of their tanks because at the time it was cheaper and faster than rolling and cutting plates that are later welded), also that steel did not had very large hardness, for example on avarage it was 270-300BHN, while for example M1 is welded from plates that have hardness no less than 400BHN, and this is huge difference.

    The T-90A have a turret and hull front armor made from SHS and HHS steel armor plates, so their harndess should be larger than 300BHN, probably comparable to M1, however do not expect the same protection as there are significant differences in armor designs of these tanks.

    Also a lot of protection is added by ERA on Russian tanks. Why ERA is used by Russians, and how it is used?

    Well first things first. Again Russian Army have very strict requirements for vehicles size and weight, so the special armor of their tanks have in general lesser physical thickness and overall volume than their NATO counterparts. However line of sight thickness is similiar because Russian designers just love to play with geometry and angle armor as much as possible. This adds protection but not to the same levels as on NATO tanks because still, even if extremely angled, armor volume is smaller, which means that there is less materials, and less layers on projectile path during penetration process.

    And believe me, not matters how much I tried, M1's armor model allways had higher results of calculations than T tanks armor models.

    But then again there is ERA, and now, Russians do not treat ERA the same way as NATO do, for them this is not addon to the tank, but it is integral part of tanks armor, and this ERA actually adds a lot of protection + it's simple, cheap, easy and fast in production, light and effective.

    Then again it is not perfect either. ERA is a one hit armor, it means that if ERA casette or module is hit, it explodes, disintegrates, and no longer protects the same spot untill new casette or module will be installed. Also there is one particular problem, some design bureaus like LKZ/KBTM (gas turbine powered T-80 variants) or UKBTM (T-72 and T-90 series), have a problem with ERA coverage on some of their tanks.

    For example let's take T-80U and T-72B obr.1989, both of these tanks have "Kontakt-5" ERA mounted on turret and hull. However note that T-80U have much less gaps between it's ERA modules, and much more of it's armor surface is covered by K-5 compared to T-72B obr.1989.

    So in case of the latter, it might happen that enemy projectile won't even hit ERA modules, and will penetrate through base armor which without K-5 is weaker.

    Of course there are T tanks (not included in to the mod) with much better ERA coverage, for example KMDB designs like T-64BV which have much better ERA coverage and mounting system than T-80BV and T-72B obr.1985, on the other hand T-72B obr.1985 have much better base armor than T-64BV and T-80BV.

    So like in real life, you must learn about vehicles, because it is not that a tank with higher code number is better.

    For example T-80B is not better than T-72B obr.1984 in terms of armor protection, both do not have ERA but T-72B will be better protected. On the other hand T-80B is much more mobile and have much much better FCS and optics.

    Also when it comes to ammunition, because of autoloaders design (yes there are different autoloaders in different T tanks, not a single unified design, for example T-64 and T-80 series use 6ETs series of autoloaders, while T-72's and T-90's use AZ series of autoloaders), there is actuall limit of how long APFSDS rounds can be fitted in, so shorter penetrator = less penetration. Still tough 3BM46 round is comparable to M829A2. So might be a very dangerous threat to M1's or other armor.

    On the other hand, these tanks have very good HEAT rounds, the later models of these rounds have penetration much more higher than HEAT rounds used by NATO, and HEAT is actually preffered anti tank round by Russians, while APFSDS is used mostly "on special occasions" and in general, T tanks have much less APFSDS rounds carried than HEAT and HE.

    While currently NATO slowly changes loadout from APFSDS + HEAT to APFSDS + HE (if possible with programmable fuze). So for let's say 2014 scenario, M1 will have M829A3 APFSDS + M830/M830A1 HEAT/MPAT loadout, while for 2018 it will be M829A4 APFSDS + M1069 HE (with programmable fuze, and yes, Americans developed HE round for M1's armed with 120mm guns, however it is not fielded yet, but soon ;)).

    2) The American tanks currently in the mod represent mostly XXI century standards of protection and firepower, in future older M1 variants might be added, I don't know, but if such thing will happen, I will made proper armor calculations for them, and believe me, they will be far more comparable to Russian T tanks.

    Of course what is important to mention here, American M1 tanks used variety of armor systems developed through years. Americans much more often improved their tanks protection than many other nations.

    So you will have the basic M1 from 1980 which used armor developed with program codenamed "Burlington/Starflower" (this is why M1's, Challenger 1 and Leopard 2 tanks from that period, use "Burlington" armor, however specific armor variants used in these tanks never had any codename, and "Chobham" armor is someones creation, in all declassified documents about the program, the only codename is "Burlington" or "Starflower" for it's American part, while each specific armor design is only reffered as "Special Armor No.1" or "Buiscuitt No.5", and believe me, Americans and British developed within that program many different armor designs, I even seen a reference of special composite armor with integral explosive reactive armor elements builded in to it's structure), and the specific armor package developed by Ballistic Research Laboratory (today known as Army Research Laboratory) for the M1 was known as BRL-1.

    Then we had improved M1IP (Improved Performance) and M1A1, which were said to use improved heavier BRL-2 armor design.

    In the mid 1980's in USA there was started R&D work to replace BRL-1 and BRL-2 with new, this time 100% American special armor design. This armor design again do not have any codename, but we know it as Heavy Armor Package, and only certain thing we know about it, is that there are layers in it, made from Depleted Uranium Alloy (make a note, this is not pure Depleted Uranium, but it's alloy, such alloys are mostly called Staballoys, and the one made from DU is said to have very good protection characteristics).

    The 1st generation of the HAP armor was first used on M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) tank which production started in 1986/87 and fielding to the units started around 1988.

    In the early 1990's, new 2nd generation HAP armor was developed and fielded on late production M1A1HA's, but also on new M1A1HC (Heavy Common - a variant that estabilished common components between US Army/ARNG and USMC M1's) and M1A2.

    In 1999 even newer 3rd generation HAP armor was developed and first fielded on M1A2SEPv1, this armor is currently standard on all modern M1 variants, which are - M1A1SA (Situational Awareness), M1A1FEP (Firepower Enhancement Package) and M1A2SEP v1/v2 (Systems Enhancement Package version 1/version 2).

    The M1A1AIM was just a simple modernization and overhaul program, these tanks have mostly 2nd generation HAP armor.

    Currently in development is even newer armor package for M1 tanks, known as Next Generation Armor Package (or NGAP for short if you will), which will be implemented to all tanks that will be modernized within Engineering Change Proposal - 1 modernization program.

    So as you can see, M1's received improvements to armor protection 4 times from the initial fielding and 5th armor modernization will soon be started (I seen official documents stating that actually armor packages for first modernization batch of ~2000 tanks, were just ordered for production).

    And there is ammunition, however I have a good news. If you play as Russians, you can actually adjust M1's ammo loadout so they won't be as deadly. Of course currently mod have only 120mm armed variants of M1, but there are avaiable older and more modern rounds for it.

    APFSDS:

    M829 this is is the oldest 120mm APFSDS avaiable for M1's, it have very low penetration capability of ~500-550mm RHA.

    M829A1 this is a bit newer, developed and fielded in the late 1980's, and is capable to penetrate ~600-650mm RHA.

    M829A2 his is currently one of two standard rounds used today, developed to defeat T tanks protected with Kontakt-5 heavy ERA, penetrations capabilities ~700-750mm RHA.

    M829A3, the most modern 120mm APFSDS in the mod, also developed to defeat tanks protected by advanced special armor and heavy ERA, penetration capabilities ~800-850mm RHA.

    M829A4, this monster just entered production as we speak, developed to further increase capabilities in defeating the most heavy armored targets on the battlefield, penetration capabilities - uknown, no known estimations are avaiable, exact data about the round is unknown and most likely classified.

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    With the armor system the way it is spawning more than 1 or 2 armored vehicles if your playing as infantry makes the game extremely terrifying. It's much nicer than that of the vanilla Arma 3 system. I look forward to cowering in fear more.

    I am sure that vehicle players and infantry players will appreciate it.

    As I said, learn about vehicles more, they are tough but not invincible, they have both strong and weak sides.

    Some vehicles have very tough armor, some have no armor at all (or "paper" armor).

    But armor is not everything, learn about their sights, how good they are (and take a note that Abrams FCS and sights for example are still WIP), if vehicles have thermals, what is their mobility.

    Actually in this case you need to think, use tactics. There is really no point in firing at Abrams front unless you want to commit suicide, the same applies to T-80U. On the other hand their side armor... well here also will be a trick, Abrams have very good side armor against CE warheads, but it is not perfect, and some CE warheads will be capable to defeat it, just like in real life. However T-80U like all T tanks have much, much weaker side armor, and most of the surface of that side armor is not protected by ERA.

    That is another thing, try to learn where ERA is placed on tanks, if possible avoid to fire at such protected surfaces, or use tactics, like volley fire in to the same spot, difficult but possible, just like in real life.

    Of course infantry will have tools to at least have some chance against heavy armor... well US infantry have it allready although not finished yet. Yes it is FGM-148 Javelin ATGM. Actually without active protection system you can't as a vehicular player, count that you will survive a meeting with Javelin. ;)

    I heard about tactics for vehicles that can increase their survivability against Javelin however I don't know if they are possible to use in ArmA3. And tactics are simple - find a dense forest, drive between trees, and pray that warhead will detonate by hitting them. ;)

    However make no mistake, ArmA3 and it's engine are not simulators and neither real life, RHS team made a wonderfull thing to change ArmA3 a bit but it is not easy, and effects never will be perfect, so there are limitations to be expected.

  20. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I think the T-72B's (1984 version) ATGM just flat out doesn't work half the time. It did nothing to the front lower hull of the Abrams, which may be due to penetration values. But I've also had it fail to scratch the turret of a T-72B (no ERA), and even three missiles to the rear turret of the M1A2SEP did nothing.

    Also, can't seem to damage the M1A2 SEP's rear turret with the T-72B's HEAT rounds. Is that SLAT armor working at 100% efficiency or something?

    Edit: Also, the M1A2 SEP, with its supposed 1000mm+ RHA armor, can be blown up six ways to sunday by a few 500mm RHA PG-7VL or even RPG-26. Hits to a wide swathe of the frontal turret disable the gun and turret with a single hit, while it is also possible to somehow blow up the tank with direct damage to its hitpoints in a single frontal shot.

    Are these hidden weak points causing this, or is it glitched?

    1) I hope I won't need to repeat this again and again that armor system and penetration system for rounds are not 100% completed yet? Also due to my calculations it become more than obvious that frontal armor of modern tanks, is very, very tough, and it will be rather comparable with other estimations avaiable in the net. As for T-72's, their armor system is not ready yet, I finished calculations in Friday I believe and provided them to Reyhard, so proper armor system for then and T-80's is not implemented yet.

    However before enthusiasts of Russian armor kill me, I must say that indeed without ERA T tanks are not going to have very favourable armor protection. It is not my invention, it is just what came up with TE calculations based on real armor design of these tanks (I have access to such data, which is not a mystery these days anyway). However variants with ERA will definately had better protection, comparable with American tanks.

    As for American tanks, calculating their armor was pain in arse, first because we do not know exact armor design, so I needed to use a known declassified informations from R&D documentation that was avaiable in UK, and this meant a very complex armor design, with lots and lots of layers of different materials. Another problem is thickness of that armor, modern NATO MBT's have just insanely thick front hull and turret armor, so I needed to fully use that space to create armor model and calculate protection, not easy task!

    Also this work is difficult and I needed a day off from maths, so I will start working on T-80's today.

    2) Proper Abrams armor model is not implemented yet, I finished it, Reyhard is probably implementing proper armor values to the model, and it will be probably in next release (probably because I am only supporting guy and not member of team and I don't know what will happen, so take a note about that).

    So if you plan to play with vehicles more, I strongly advise to learn their strong and weak sides, but with next release when more things will be probably finished.

  21. Posted

    2. The T-80U according to the same source has the 9M119 Refleks missile with a maximum range of 5,000 m. while yours have the older 9M112M Kobra with a maximum range of 4,000 m.?

    That was a mistake, it will be fixed in next version.

    6. Sometimes when i hit an APC wtih the main gun loaded with SABOT, it survives seems a bit strange? (Think i saw something posted in here about armour penetration system?)

    APC's don't have proper armor system yet AFAIK (Reyhard can tell more), besides this, in most cases, APC's are so thinly armored that APFSDS round go just through making minimal damage, rounds that should be used versus thinly armored vehicles should be HEAT and HE.

    1. According to my sources (Janes Armour and Artillery 2003-2004) the gunner of the T-80U has the two planes stabilised Buran-PA Themal sight with a monitor for the commander, while your version has none?

    Actually some modernized versions of T-80U (and also T-80UD) have thermal sight, but not all, T-80U in RHS Escalation is actually the most basic variant of T-80U that never had any thermal sight.

    Not to mention that Buran-PA is a piece of junk when it comes to image quality (resolution), and dunno if it could be simulated in RV engine, maybe but, not now.

    Currently some T-80U's were modernized with PLISA thermal sights which use French Catherine-FC thermal cameras, PLISA is just a thermal sight variant for T-80U of the T-90A ESSA thermal sight, but not many T-80U's were modernized this way.

  22. Posted

    You can make vanilla content of ArmA3, a bit more compatible with RHS Escalation by using for example Olds Real Armor Mod. However make a note that BIS armored vehicles models are far less advanced than RHS ones when ti comes to armor protection simulation, so 100% compatibility is probably unachievable.

    As for vanilla AI, I have no problems, CSAT or AAF will shoot at US Army units or Russian Federation units if they are set to be enemies.

  23. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Is there something wrong with the armour of tracked units? im using the RDS tankpack and cant crack a abrahams with many shots from a T72?

    No to mention that currently RHS will not be compatible with other mods in this regard. Also armor models on RHS tanks are meant to be realistic (it is work in progress) and also armor piercing ammunition will have realistic penetration values.

    In other words, if armor surface X will have KE protection = 750mm and a specific KE projectile will have penetration capability = 550mm, this specific KE projectile hiting armor surface X won't be capable to perforate it and thus won't do any damage to the vehicle.

    Later perhaps there will be avaiable data table for each specific vehicle showing how much KE and CE protection it have at each specific surface, so you will be able to compare that data with ammunition penetration capabilities data and thus learn strong and weak sides of each vehicle.

  25. Posted

    It's easy to reproduce the bug, put a T-72 in the editor, set player as commander , preview, then you switch to gunner position, and look into the optics, then you can only get:

    http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546386497344557250/224D26D72195261647B7048B8555C7D46C491614/

    http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546386497343906021/756715B96FFBE9867F3EE87C7928F6C95C265B8C/

    Whilst it should supposed to be like this: http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546386497343921718/D59B2F19226F3184A7E4458E403612C3983BAD50/

    If you set "player as gunner" initially, then preview, things went well, but if you press "+" zoom, then press "-", the same bug happens, no more FCS UI. I think it must be the FCS script only runs one time, if the first time you are not in the gunner position, then it will not run again, even if later you enter the gunner position.

    Again, I have to report an other bug about T-80 series, that's when you continuously finished the first 10 rounds, reload the next set of rounds by action menu("R"key doesn't work), fired, since then you have to reload one by one by action menu, kind of strange.

    Strange, I never encountered such bug.

×