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

    5 hours ago, Harzach said:

    I said that I have tried every key command related to weapon switching. The F key is the default bind for "Next Weapon." How is that confusing?
    It works perfectly fine for switching fire modes on rifles and switching weapons in tanks/IFVs/etc. It does not work (for me) for switching weapons in the GAZ Tigr. I have not rebound the key command and my install is valid.
    Thank you for your kind attention.                                       

     

    Perhaps try vanilla with RHS only, if this does not work, reinstall.

    I gonna test it in our internal version to see if everything is ok.

    Update:

    Tested our latest internal version, and Tigr weapons seems working ok, I can switch without problems using F between PKM and AGS.

    Strange that you can't, again, try without any other mods, and if it still happens, reinstall RHS.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    8 hours ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:

    @Damian90 

    As I stated before, I was merely pointing out your incorrect statement.

    Once again for clarity: 


    It can and it does. No amount of armour protection (or lack thereof) will change this. I know this from my 10 years in the military. I also know this from my time in combat in Iraq. I also know this from my 10 years as a professional Firefighter / Paramedic.  Your opinion and misinformation will not change this fact. 

     

    Ok I will admitt my statement was wrong.

     

    More accurate would be to say, JP-8 and Diesel fuel greatly reduces chances of being ignited during combat causing fuel fire compared to gasoline, thus increasing survivability and safety, but of course not in absolute terms as my previous statement would imply previously.

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2

  6. Posted

    9 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    The APU still has to have its exhaust come out at somewhere. Bet that's how that MG bullet got in, you can't really armor an exhaust pipe (a grate is just not the same as a proper plate). One in a million shot, but if you spray something with enough bullets, you will get a handful that do strange things like that. It's not a really the kind of thing that could be consciously exploited, though.

     

    Exhaust is not directly behind APU itself, tough I can imagine at some ridiculous angle it could get inside that way.

     

    Altough still, IMHO it was not APU fire per se, but all that stuff crews carried on turret. I will point out again that one single fact, US Army changed regulations about storing equipment on vehicles, sying clearly that it's forbidden in combat zones, APU's were not changed on M1A1's. On M1A2's change to APU design was based on fundamental design changes to the vehicle, there is significant difference between Block 0, Block 1 and Block 2 M1 variants, so significant that these can be considered as different vehicles even.

  7. Posted

    How many LCAC's were in the same situation as tanks, being fired from all directions? Are LCAC's APU's mounted inside boxes made from armor grade steel plates? You see, in terms of AFV's, nothing is same as in case of other vehicles, and a lot of stuff needs to be solved differently, including taking a lot of consideration in to survivability under fire.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:


    Patently false!

    JP-8 has a flashpoint of around 100 F  and an autoignition temperature of 474 F. We would often set it alight manually for training burns. It does not catch fire nearly as easy as gasoline, but to say that it "will not ignite due to fire" is inexcusable. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZiOoRzuB0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfdxjXlZLB4
     

     

     

    In fuel tank not really, especially considering that fuel tanks are self sealing and used as additional armor in many NATO tanks. The M1's fuel tanks act as addon armor and are designed to self seal (they are also isolated from the rest of vehicle) and if fuel would ignite it would most likely just leak outside and burn there.

     

    Contrary to popular belief burning fuel is not that dangerous for tanks or other AFV's. There are few interesting videos from tests showing this, especially interesting are tests of Strv103 and T-80UD, showing vehicles having only cosmetic damage due to burning fuel or napalm etc.

     

     

    Far more dangerous than that are any ammunition cook offs, be it main armament ammunition or even stuff like small arms ammo, granades and other explosives, that can cause fatal damage.

    • Like 2

  9. Posted

    Important information for all RHS users. This is connected to some change done recently by US Army with designation codes of their tanks, from now on US Army simplifies them.

     

    At the moment I have only confirmation for M1 Block 2 (M1A2 and subvariants) and not for M1 Block 0 (M1 and M1IP) and M1 Block 1 (M1A1 and subvariants).

     

    So from now on:

    M1A2 (without change)

    M1A2A (former M1A2SEPv1)

    M1A2B (former M1A2SEPv2)

    M1A2C (former M1A2SEPv3)

    M1A2D (former M1A2SEPv4)

     

    I write this because we consider changing designation codes from the former ones to the new designations, however to avoid confusion I will left this here for now and we will not make this change yet, but in some future.

     

    https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_designations_for_upgraded_m1a2_sepv3_and_sepv4_abrams_main_battle_tanks.html

     

    Here is the original source of information for M1A2C and M1A2D, however rest I have from my contact within US Army.

     

    Reminder:

    At the moment in our mod we only have M1A1HC, M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEPv1 variants.

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    10 hours ago, sammael said:

    do all old abrams have this vulnerable point?

    Just find old news about waek point

    Iraq 2003

    Abrams fell under the fire of machine guns and the rear of the tower was shot. Naturally, the machine guns did not hit the armor, but they were enough to punch a thin box in the antiheat basket, where the auxiliary power unit (APU) was located. APU caught fire.The fire from the APU spread to the machine-gun belts that were stored there. The tank was finally disposed of when the burning fuel got through the supramotor plate into the engine.

    In the modification of the M1A1 SEP it was planned to install the APU  armor, but this was not done by replacing the installation with additional batteries. A full UAAPU (Under armor advanced power unit) appeared only in 2015 on M1A2 SEP v3.

      Hide contents

    https://x-true.info/73799-kak-amerikanskij-tank-abrams-pulemetnym-ognem-unichtozhili.html

     

     

    This source is very poor... I would say it was all written by some kind of moron without basic knowledge about the subject.

     

    Second thing is that this case with EAPU (External Auxiliary Power Unit) is far more complex. You see neither diesel fuel, neither JP-8 jet fuel will ignite due to fire. In fact in many western tanks, fuel tanks are also used as additional armor protection vs HEAT warheads.

     

    The incident with EAPU fire might had been caused by something else, mainly the fact that back then, tank crews were allowed to strap a lot of flammable stuff like rucksacks, boxes with supplies etc to the turret storage basket, where EAPU is also mounted. It's more than possible that it was not EAPU fire but that stored items caught fire.

     

    To support this, note a fact that US Army ordered tank crews not to store supplies in rear basket in combat zones, instead of replacing EAPU's on M1A1's.

     

    In case of M1A2SEP series, UAAPU or Hawker Battery Packs replaced EAPU due to different reasons, mainly because now on the back of the turret, EAPU was replaced by VCSU.

    • Like 3

  12. Posted

    4 hours ago, wsxcgy said:

    is it possible to damage/disable vehicular imaging systems for the vehicles in this mod? say I want to deploy a sniper team in a defensive capacity against oncoming mounted forces, would firing at a commander's viewport or weapon optic on an enemy vehicle render it inoperable and cripple the vehicle's operational capabilities?

     

    Yes, partially at this moment, I believe T-90's have this feature, and some T-72B's.

     

    In future we would wish all vehicles to have optics and periscopes that can be damaged thus reducing visibility from inside, altough, while it will definately make human players in these vehicles more difficult, dunno how it will affect AI.

     

    Also remember that tanks have multiple optical devices, some vehicle have auxiliary sights that are well hidden and extremely difficult to hit (like the M1 series) + all optical devices have armor around them and in front there is armor glass which would demand several hits to be completely broken, heck vehicles like M1 have armored shields in front of primary sight that can be opened or closed by the gunner. Of course this is not implemented in to the mod, but perhaps some day?

    Also one thing, just for explaining curiosity of you guys about how modern vehicle sights work.

     

    What you actually see from the outside is not a sight per se, but it's mirrors, the sight itself is hidded inside vehicle under it's armor, so even if you destroy the exterior, sight itself is mostly intact, so only head assembly with mirrors need to be replaced, which can be done in the field.

     

    f_m1a1-fcs_005.jpg

     

    This is schematic of the original M1/M1IP/M1A1 sight. Hope this is helpfull and interesting. ;)

    • Like 5

  18. Posted

    On 11.06.2018 at 3:15 PM, ghost_o said:

    We always wanted to redo the IFV Puma. Since it was our first vehicle and the actual one that is in use by the german army differs greatly.

     

    Well maybe two variants of Puma? The current variant in BWMod is representing what Puma will look like around 2021, with MELLS ATGM launcher. While current Puma confoguration can be considered as early (economic) variant. ;)

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    4 hours ago, taro8 said:

    Thread necromancy, but I'm working on AIS in order to make it a bit better and working for any shells and such.

     

    https://vimeo.com/273519491

    A small showcase of my progress on modifying/fixing the Armor Improvement addon that aimed to add a working Active Protection System for vehicles. Sadly the script didn't work all that well. I decided to change it so instead of checking projectile classnames it now checks: whats the projectile type (APS blocks missiles, rockets and shells), how much damage the projectile does (so APS does not trigger on small pew-pew guns) and, finally, how much of that damage is kinetic (APS cannot protect from Armor Piecing Sabot rounds and similar). Then it is decided if APS can or cannot block a projectile. Checking it like this ensures compatibility with any mods without the need for manually adding shell types. I also decided that, instead of just deleting the projectile and spawning some explosion effect, I instead make the projectile detonate right and proper. I achieved this by spawning an obstacle in a way of a projectile and have the projectile smash into. It means that if APS manages to intercept a laser guided bomb, it will cause it to explode in a huge explosion, just away from a tank (every little bit helps I guess). This also means that infantry and other stuff can be damaged by the detonations.

     

    This is fantastic work mate, what is ETA on release? :)

  22. Posted

    @Night515

     

    Sorry for a double post, some bug with forum prevented me to write. Mod can you please remove previous post?

     

    Now to the point, few suggestions and questions.

     

    1. Can NATO tank/vehicle crews receive just like in real world ballistic vests/plate carriers and uniforms protecting their entire bodies or coveralls? It's unfortunetaly not a vanilla feature, but it would be realistic, as this is how crews are protected:

     

     

    2. Perhaps NATO (other factions?) offciers also wear something else than bandolliers? Maybe rangemaster belts to have holster for their sidearms? Looks more realistic. Eventually also standard plate carriers?

    3. Is there a bug with CSAT soldiers? Not all of them seems to have vests/bandolliers etc. I still test stuff, perhaps it's a mod conflict, just informing.

    Cheers!

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    A lot of work would be needed tough, for example commander panoramic sight in front of hist hatch do not move and is non usable, the physx as you said, the laser jammer on turret rear rotates but I would need to do some research how actually it works.

     

    The FCS would need work, that's a lot of stuff unfortunetaly.

     

    There are also other things not only on tanks but other vehicles, like wrong maximum gun elevation and maximum gun depression, sometimes it's ridiculous. :P

     

    But yeah I think physx and crew views should be priority now, step by step.

     

    I can help with my knowledge on the subject of AFV's further if you wish to, tough keep in mind I am rather busy man these days, so my free time is limited and I need to slice it between private stuff, writing, work on RHS mods etc.

     

    Anyway, cheers!

  24. Posted

    No problem! :)

    Also one more consideration, ammo loadout, a ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 use similiar ammunition loadout as a T-72/T-90 series, which means they use a copy of the AZ type autoloader, which holds 22 rounds + some additional rounds are stored inside a vehicle.

     

    This means that for a T-72 class tank, a max ammo loadout would be around 40-43 rounds, these rounds are APFSDS, HEAT, HE and gun launched ATGM. So the vehicle crew would at max take around 4 ATGM's, and the rest of ammo loadout would be divided by APFSDS, HEAT and HE.

     

    @hcpookie if I may suggest something, you might want to take a look at our RHS Armed Forces of Russian Federation mod, where vehicles have realistic ammo loadouts (only for autoloaders for now, so only 22 rounds in autoloader are loaded no additional rounds inside).

    Or in general look at RHS mod for inspiration how we did that stuff.

    Another thing are ZTZ-96/99 tank commanders MG, it should not be capable to be fired and controlled from inside, it's mounted on a simple pintle mount and can be used only when commander open his hatch and exposes his upper torso, when his hatch is closed, he can only use his panoramic sight.

    Another problem are of course physx, tanks are too slow, also they sit on their suspension too high, it should be adjusted.

    There are also some problems with models I think, for example ZTZ-99 seems to have too short hull, so proportions are wrong. For example the real thing:

     

    6525cdd694206f87205165c4807ad42a.jpg

    I probably will be capable to say more tommorow or at monday when I have more free time.

    Cheers mate!

    • Like 1
×