Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'tanks'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


    • ARMA 3
    • DAYZ
    • ARMA 2
    • ARGO
    • YLANDS
  • ArmA Toolmakers's Releases
  • ArmA Toolmakers's General
  • Die Hard OFP Lovers' Club's Topics
  • Japan in Arma's Topics
  • Arma 3 Photography Club's Discussions
  • The Order Of the Wolfs- Unit's Topics
  • 4th Infantry Brigade's Recruitment
  • 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit OFFICIAL | 11th MEU(SOC)'s 11th MEU(SOC) Recruitment Status - OPEN


PlayStation PSN














Found 30 results

  2. Hey I'm trying to add some additional damage simulation to tanks and was trying to figure out how to disrupt sensors and displays. DISPLAYS: I've found the render targets for the example vehicle; "commander_display" and "driver_display", but I can't quite figure out how to modify them. I don't know how to refer to that render target for that vehicle when using a command like setPipEffect. SENSORS: So some vehicles have incoming missile warnings and such. Is there a way to disable these? I'm thinking I might also be able to disable data link send/receive. Are there any other sensors or electronics I may be able to disrupt? Cheers
  3. Hey guys. Today I'm happy to announce to development of Conflict '85. A re-imagining and recreation of Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis. Conflict '85 was born out the CUP project as I created Russian and FIA units in the style of OFP units. From there the ideas grew and grew. Re-imaging: There's a lot of military hardware from 1985 that would fit sweetly into the OFP timeline. I aim to bring a unique yet fitting armory of vehicles and weapons into the fold. We'll get into a few examples later. Recreation OFP is a game adored by those who played here, those who yearn for that era one more time. There were vehicles and weapons in OFP that perhaps shouldn't have been used. (I'm looking at you OT-65) yet why the hell not have them back in A3. While a lot of vehicles don't exist right now. Hopefully as time goes on, it may be possible to bring back those missing vehicles. Screenies. M1 Abrams FIA captured T-72. Painted with the classic green stripe indicator. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/505902374494994338/08E6AE6C33FA9B14DC8FA08F533ABA7CC4BCCC06/ RU T-72 M151 Jeep M113A1 and M577. The ever reliable M113 and it's cousin, the M577 command post.ambulance. Return in MERDC camo. Giving them a new look. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/505902374502543185/82F5BE3A43D2020A48805BE6E574A7E1D1A1D034/ FIA encampment http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/509280040511509501/8F966F03C798E84F36357DD87F90FE36BD40AD72/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/509280040511509723/F5BAC5DCB3816B5F931D10EA410273DEE0E5846C/ US Army UH-60A armed with M2 MG http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/501399955305426393/489CE502859FF3832A20C40CDE7C080A0B1B362E/ RU Ot-65 FUG CUP will be at the heart of this mod. A standalone is out of the question before you ask :) I'm a man of few words who can't think of much more to say but if you have any questions or suggestions. Fire away and I'll do my best to answer as soon as I can :)
  4. In today's Dev-Branch we've added an ability to customize the appearance of all vanilla armored vehicles. It is possible to do it via the Virtual Garage and in Eden Editor. The customization not only brings new ways to give your vehicle unique appearance, but it also affects the durability of your vehicle. Cage armor will protect you against RPG rounds, and camo net will make you less visible in Thermal Imaging.
  5. With Tanks DLC one of our priorities is to improve the feeling of driving a tank or any other tracked vehicle. Refine how the vehicles perform, handle or simply how enjoyable they are. What do the improvements consist of: updated PhysX libraries to 3.4 and switched wheel contact queries from raycast to sweep. We believe the precision and reliability of terrain traversal has improved quite significantly. On the other hand it's been a change that undoubtedly affects already released content. Especially the n-wheeled vehicles and tanks. Watch out for new issues with us, please. Report anything suspicious. And if your own mod got negatively affected by the update - get in touch with us asap ;) revisited physics configuration of individual vehicles, their engines, drivetrains and suspensions. Together with new config. properties and options. revisited sound configuration, with new samples and new approaches AI tank driving - AI driving feedback topic, following up on previous AI car driving refactoring player tank commanding changed to direct control over the vehicle (test) Most of these changes are WIP, to test things and get feedback from you!
  6. he Sound overhaul that came with Tanks DLC and 1.82 audibly backfired. Two main problem manifested. 1.The engine pitch and RPM barly change when driving. Most vehicle seem to shift an endless set of gears at low rpm instead of shifting at a high rpm. This is particularly noticable uphill, when one would exspect to shift in low gear with high rpm. What we see on the dials is not what can be heard, the two factors, audible and intrument feedback don't corelate. 2. Volume and audible distance for vehicles. Audible range is simply much to short, onyl a few hundred meters. After 500m all vehicles, and that includes Tank, run completly silent. From my personal experience I remeber that MBT at med to high rev speed can be heard from a kilometer away and even beyond over an hill quite easily. Another issue is that you hear the road noise befor you even get to hear the tracks, but that road noise is that of a car on gravel. Much later you can barly hear the engine. This should be reversed...you hear the engine first, followed by the track noise and then, if not completly overlayed, you can hear gravel sound from track contact. The game entered a very strange stage now, introducing such problems at the end of its development. A Solution must make it into the planned hotfix.
  7. Today's dev-branch update brings in an improvement to ranging, weapon zeroing and deflection. Most of the rangefinding equipment in the game lost its ability to measure range continuously. If you want to know the distance of a target you're pointing at you first need to lase it. By the "Auto Elevation" action. (The default keybind has been updated to "T" in Arma 3 and Apex presets) All tanks and APCs have lost the ability to automatically track targets. (The Visual sensors that have been recently added to Tank and Wheeled APC base classes have been removed again. If your mod vehicle should have an automatic target tracker you need to define a new sensor component.) At the same time they've received a more tanky-proper fire-control with an ability to use the laser ranging for assisted gun laying. What that means for tank gunners: Whenever you lase a target your main gun and coax's zeroing and deflection will be automatically adjusted according to the target's distance and motion. Keep pointing at the target and fire. First-shot hit ensured. As long as your target moves in a predictable pattern. For everything else you'll need to use your skill ;) Dumping the deflection and zeroing is possible via manual zeroing. New or adjusted elements in the optics: Large 4-digit number (usually at the bottom of the reticle or top right corner) - measured distance Smaller 4-digit number with SPD (bottom left corner) - measured speed of the target Small square (Ready to fire box) - indicates that the gun's zeroing and lead have been adjusted (does not indicate whether the gun has been loaded and is ready to fire) We're pushing the FCS way ahead of the Tanks DLC itself because of how the mechanic complements the Jets DLC Sensor overhaul. Try it, use it, break it. Please let us know what you think!
  8. Now after the Tanks DLC, am making a pure OPFOR tank mission, meaning no hostile infantry. I made an infinite spawn of enemy tanks. The problem: The infantry that ejects from a disabled tank, often runs away and survives. And it stacks up. And stacks up. And stacks up. And crashes/lags the server. My solution is to make all BLUFOR infantry get detected via an eventhandler, then get the "CARELESS" stat assigned so they dont run around, and then give them a waypoint into a hidden place where players cannot see them, for example the edge of the map. There will be a trigger, which loops and deletes every blufor unit that enters it. My question: How do i create an eventhandler (has to work with JIPing players), that gives all Blufor infantry which isnt in a vehicle a waypoint and the CARELESS behaviour. Also, how do i create a black hole trigger, that eats blufor and only blufor? Just putting in "BLUFOR present" and making it repeatable might not work, as it might get stuck due to blufor still being present and not reactivating the trigger.
  9. Hello, As part of the changes made for the upcoming Tanks DLC, we have just upgraded three wheeled APCs with fully modeled interiors. You can try them on Dev-Branch already, we would like to encourage you to post your feedback to this thread. To clarify, interiors are still work in progress and are also subject to change. The plan is to introduce them to all vanilla armored vehicles as part of a free platform update. We hope you find them as enjoyable and immersive as we do, please let us know what you think! More about the interiors and their development in the latest Report In!
  10. Hello there, I've been making some player+AI vs AI tank-on-tank scenarios for quite some time and lately I'm getting somewhat tilted by the fact that in a head-on engagement NATO vs CSAT tank-on-tank scenarios, the results are often heavily skewed in favour of the CSAT t-100. I was sure the problem wasn't due to the tank per se. I've seen some partial unbinarized MLOG p3d of both the Slammer and t-100 and found that the slammer does have overall more armor thickness in the fire geometry. So I did some testing and I found out that when going up against the Slammer, an AI, especially a 100% skill one will converge its aim around the turret ring of the slammer, which is its weakest spot from the front, while when an AI goes up against the T-100, its aim converges around the upper plate, the strongest part of its frontal armor. My question is, how does the AI determine the point of aim against tank targets? Is this set in a cfg file somewhere? Is there any way to tweak AI's point of aim at all? Cheers.
  11. Hello all, Looking for the player overhead icons/tags from the Vanguard mode that came with Tanks DLC. I looked in functions viewer, found nothing. Tank DLC files are encrypted (EBO). Hopefully a BI dev can share how? We'll see, lol.
  12. I've run into an issue since the update for the Tanks DLC where my game downloads, then tries to validate and install the update but whenever it gets to the end of the install I get hit with an error such as "An error occurred while updating Arma 3 (corrupt content files) : F:\Program Files\steamapps\steamapps\common\Arma 3\Expansion\Addons\vegetation_f_exp.pbo". The exact error changes every time but it always seems to be in \Addons. I have tried several things such as restarting steam, restarting my pc, clearing download cache, verifying the integrity of my files, changing the download region to SEVERAL different regions, changed network/internet, and restarted network/internet. The only thing I can possibly think of at this point is to entirely re-install Arma 3 including all DLC and I believe mods as well. If this includes mods I'll be looking at a several hundred gigs I'll need to redownload which I am obviously not too excited about especially with my current download speeds. So that's the reason I'm here I'm hoping I can find some other solution other than completely re-installing everything and help if that doesn't fix my issue either. Complete rundown of what happens: My game downloads the 15.2GB update, goes through a validating period and then goes to installing which lasts up until about two-thirds of the loading bar is filled it then gradually increases the time up until "more than a year" (I originally thought this was pretty funny), and then if I have the "Launch game as soon as it's ready" checked it will spit me out an error like the one given above or just goes back to the validating stage if I don't have it checked. Error: An error occurred while updating Arma 3 (corrupt content files) : F:\Program Files\steamapps\steamapps\common\Arma 3\Expansion\Addons\vegetation_f_exp.pbo Many of the attempted fixes were found here https://help.steampowered.com/en/wizard/HelpWithAppError/?appid=107410&error=13 I haven't tried everything but I have tried about all of the ones that are reasonable.
  13. Tanks DLC Feedback

    The new additions to the tanks dlc are all great, a very good job. The only two bugs I noticed in the dev branch are some bugs involving the physics of the tanks. I had to occasions that might be linked to the same bug: One time, I was driving a slammer backwards and bottom of the tank hooked on a tree, resulting in the tank flying upwards like a rocket. While driving the Lynx, Scrapping the bottom on a rock made it instantly explode. And a few other minor sporadic jumping when scraping the hull on something. It seems like whenever the tank is mostly making contact with the hull rather than the tracks these weird things happen. I haven't been able to replicate on demand.
  14. Tanks DLC Feedback

    First off I would like to start by saying I have the upmost respect for the work Bohemia does and I truly love Arma 3 and the Arma Franchise in General since I started playing back when Arma 2 came out. I also would like to apologize if this is in the wrong place and if it is I please ask that a moderator move it or redirect me to the correct place to post this. This is all my personal opinion and feedback on Arma 3 Tanks DLC on the Dev Branch. The Tank DLC is one of the last DLC's for Arma 3 and if one were to look back at the track record of their past DLC's they haven't exactly lived up to the communities expectations with a few exceptions like Helicopters and Marksman DLC and Tanoa being the Best DLC Arma 3 has released. However beside Tanoa, the Tanks DLC has been one of the most exciting DLC's I've been looking forward too since I saw the T-14 in the 2017 Roadmap as I think it was for most people. However now that the Tank DLC has hit dev branch and people have tested it out I can say in my personal opinion it is extremely disappointing and I do honestly wonder if the Developers listen to our feedback? Besides for the T-14 and vehicle interiors, this DLC adds nothing great and Vehicle interiors should have been in the game from the start. I'll quickly run down everything and what's wrong with them. However Tanks DLC is already too far along so nothing I say will really make a difference, but I feel it should be pointed out. The T-14: It's amazing there really isn't much to say and was what I've been waiting for so long since I saw it, However it's so amazing and powerful that is the problem with it. I'll explain why in a moment. However I have a few complaints with it. First I suggest the Developers and whoever is reading this to please watch this quick video below. T-14 Promo in English After watching this video and if you've used the T-14 you can probably tell there are a few things missing from Arma 3's version. Now you could say that the T-14 doesn't have any of this and the Russian Government is just lying. However I see no reason not to believe them and underestimating someone is the quickest way to the Grave. So Bohemia what the heck? Where's the Active protection? I know for a fact several us including myself when you were asking for Tank Feedback like a year ago told you we'd like Active Protection. Well the T-14 has Active protection just as the Merkava does and the T-14 has jamming technology and several layers of defense. The only possible excuse I could think is because you can't do it in the current engine, however if the excuse is that it is overpowered. That's a terrible excuse. There is no fairness in war and there are several vehicles that obviously are more powerful than the other factions. The AH-99 Blackfoot has less armor and less powerful rounds than the Mi-48, however you can still beat the Mi-48 if you're careful about how you engage them, but that should be Arma in General. So the T-14 should have the Active protection, jamming, and stealth technology. For heavens sake it's 2035 they should be using the most advanced equipment out there. Also where's the Green Paint Job like the Russians have and like I swore I saw in the 2017 Roadmap? The T-14 looks best in Green/Olive Bohemia. However Bohemia you did a great job on making the T-14 in Arma 3 look almost identical to the T-14 in real life and I love the T-14 interior. The Rhino MGS: I don't even know where to begin with the Rhino? What were you thinking Bohemia? I can't speak for all of the community, but I think I can speak for most of us that nobody asked for this. NOBODY. I can say with an almost 99.999% Accuracy that almost everyone was asking for the M1A2 Abrams. I can't even comprehend why you choose to include a weak 1985 South African tank called the Rooikat as a NATO Apc no less, we didn't even get a New Tank. We got an APC. Not only is the Rooikat what nobody asked for, it is unsuited for dealing with the T-14 or the T-100 no less. The Rhino loses to the T-14 and T-100 in every straight up fight in every possible way. Now yes yes, the Rhino is not made for a straight up tank to tank fight and is made more for long range fire on maps like Atlis and Malden and maybe Stratis (Good luck fighting on Tanoa where all vehicle combat is short to medium range) and you aren't suppose to fight a tank head to head and should try killing them from the rear and sides. However the M1A2 Abrams can fulfill the Rhino's role just as well if not better, in fact the T-14 can also do exactly the Rhino's role given a good gunner and commander especially with the new systems being involved. So what is the point of even having the Rhino? None what so ever. The M1A2 Abrams could fulfill this role just as well, upgrade the armor of the M1A2 Abrams and give it active protection and a 125mm or 130mm cannon like the Germans are working on right now and upgraded tech all around. The M1A2 Abrams could fight the T-14 and T-100 in a straight up fight and have a chance of winning, while the Rhino can do no such thing at all. Not only that but adding the T-14 to CSAT and giving NATO such a weak vehicle has handicapped NATO to such a great extent. The Slammer with the 105mm cannon can't beat a T-14 in a straight up fight and it takes 1-2 shots from the T-14 to kill the Slammer, while it can take 4-5 shots to the front of the T-14 and that's if the T-14 hasn't killed you by then, and not even the AI will be stupid enough most of the time to stand there and let you take it. The 120mm Slammer still takes 3-4 shots to the front to kill a T-14 but it still gets killed in 1-2 shots by the T-14 and the Autocannon version of the T-14 completely will cripple your tracks or gun extremely quickly. Yes yes you shouldn't fight head to head but try to kill it from the rear and sides, however that hardly matters when the T-14 will move once it gets shot in the back or side and still likely have its track in tact and quickly swerve it's 125mm cannon around to kill you, the first shot could and will cripple your gun and the second shot you're dead. So NATO is now at an extreme disadvantage, more so than they already were. Why did NATO not get a new MBT? I know America is pulling out of NATO in the Arma Universe basically, but you're telling me they couldn't spare ANY M1A2 Abrams? We have like 4,000 Abrams (Rough Guess, probably wrong) and the T-14 is more costly than the M1A2 and it's unlikely Russia would sell them to Iran or anyone, let alone in mass production. NATO needs a MBT not some old apc from South Africa that hardly has seen combat, let alone I don't even think any country except South Africa uses it and I don't think South Africa is part of NATO (I may be wrong) Hey Bohemia if you wanted to give us a beefier APC what you should have done is take the Marshall and give us a combat variant where you got rid of the seats in the back of the Marshall and made room for more AP rounds and GPR-T rounds to fight other APCs and infantry, reinforced armor along with the slat armor and a coxal machine gun for the Commander on the Marshall and make it the assault Marshall. That would certainly have been more useful and made me happy since the Marshall is my favorite APC. Could have given it AT Launchers like the Bradley too if you wanted to help deal with Tanks. Or better yet you could have added the Mortar Marshall from the Pre-Alpha footage that lots of people were interested in, including myself. (If anyone wants to make an Assault Marshall variant Mod I'd be externally grateful) This would have been more awesome than the Rhino and I still want to see it. However even if you had added it, NATO still would be at a disadvantage as I have described. CSAT already had the T-100 and that is super powerful, adding the T-14 a Tank Destroyer only tips the power balance more in CSAT's favor. So I don't understand this logic from Bohemia on why they would even give NATO the Rhino. AWC Nyx: You know I railed on the Rhino pretty bad, but I really really Really don't even know where to begin with this. I don't think anyone asked for this. Like at all. I think I can speak with 100% certainty this was never asked for. I don't play AAF very often, but I certainly have no problem with AAF and I think it's fun to play them occasionally. The FV-720 literally does almost everything that the AWC can do and it's all in one package while the AWC only has one weapon per variant. Sure I guess it's nice to have that, but I don't really know what's the point? Is there a point? I doubt it. The AWC really was not needed at all and offers nothing new to the battlefield let alone does it make AAF more appealing. The AAF already have the Leopard II which is possibly the only tank that can now compete with the T-14 and T-100 in a straight up fight, and even then it's doubtful. Especially considering the Leopard II certainly has proven it's not as invincible as people believe if anyone has paid attention to a certain world conflict in the middle east involving two countries that start with a T and S. There really is nothing useful or good to say about the Nyx. It has an auto cannon that can take out APC's but the other APC's in the game on the CSAT side have tougher armor and powerful weapons that will wipe the AWC out almost instantly if it's spotted. It has AT variant for Tank battles, but the Leopard II stands a better chance against other MBTs, and it has an AA Variant which I guess is useful since AAF has no AA tanks or APC's, but the Cheetha Even the Tigris is better suited for AA than the AWC. The AWC is awful and shouldn't even be added to the game. Not like it matters, but I think that AAF should have gotten the Challenger II MBT from the British since AAF is using the FV-720 which is a British APC and they are buying hand me down vehicles from Europe. The Challenger II should have become a new AAF MBT, because it would fit their MO and it certainly would prove to be an actual threat on the battlefield and make the AAF a real force to be reckoned with. The Challenger II is often called the most invincible tank having only suffered one loss (Blue on Blue) (But when do the British ever actually fight anyone nowadays?) So I think it would have been certainly interesting to put the Challenger II up to the challenge in Arma III and made the AAF deadly. Zamak: I was certainly surprised that a Zamak rocket variant was added to Arma III, however it's basically just a Soviet Artillery truck with lock on systems. Once again I don't see the point for the Zamak Artillery truck, if I were to choose a vehicle for the AAF to buy to compete with rival powers I would have chosen the S-300 as an AAF AA Truck to compete with the To-201 and F/A-18. The S-300 is more modern and cheap at that, the Russians would no doubt sell to Atlis if asked seeing it's 2035 and the S-300 will likely be super cheap and or phased out by the S-400 in 2035. However the Zamak Artillery truck is an Artillery truck for Surface to Surface combat so I would have chosen something a bit more modern Artillery platform from the Europeans or Hey Bohemia could have given that Artillery Marshall to the AAF. Nudge Nudge Once again it was pointless to add this and should have added something more modern and or tip the balance more in AAF's faction. Most people in the community already don't like AAF (However maybe there is a part of the community that loves the AAF) and this isn't going to make them interested in the AAF and this certainly only helps the AAF in a minor way against NATO and CSAT when they are already underpowered against the More powerful Artillery of NATO and CSAT. So in conclusion Im still going to buy this DLC which I guess makes me a hypocrite, however Im only buying this for the T-14 and nothing more. So I do hope Bohemia sincerely takes into consideration what I've said.
  15. Hello. If we consider the upcoming update - DLC Tanks, then for me, creating the interiors (driver, commander, gunner) for armored vehicles - it would be the most welcome innovation for Arma3, which can be related to upcoming game update. Please Note. Today (v1.76) in Arma3, !only armored vehicles do not have interiors and this looks at least strange. Why such dislike for armored vehicles!? Why the player does have such a contrast in the simulation of controls of all vehicles and armor? I remember that OFP had interiors for armored vehicles and it was in 2001! I think in 2018, @BIS need to revive the old traditions, because any vehicle in Arma should have a interrior, then the player will have the same feeling from controlling all vehicles. In any case, equality it is a fair! I can imagine, that this is not a small amount of work, but such work, realy could raise the Arma3 gameplay to a new level! I want the users of Arma3 to express their thoughts about the interiors of armored vehicles, which are lacking in game. Subsequently, developers can consider this topic and draw useful conclusions. Welcome...
  16. G'day everyone Announcing a new project I'm slowly working on. I'm still fairly new to modelling so this may take a while, though the good thing is that I'm an avid World Of Tanks player and they have most of the tanks I want to make, thus its a great source of reference material for me to look at as they would have gotten their hands on their own reference material I most likely can't, not to mention I get to see their models first hand in game when I play which gives me ideas of what I can add or do etc. Still cant make cables/wire for shit though haha What its about? Project 1947 is mod that is based mainly on armoured combat, tank/armoured versus tank/armoured combat if you'd like, steel beasts going head to head. This mod will most likely not include any uniforms or hand held weapons as I currently don't posses the skill or excitement to make uniforms and hand held guns, not to mention that other mods like IFA3 and FoW fill that gap of infantry equipment. Overall, Project 1947 (working title) is about the possibility of if World War 2 was prolonged and did not end in 1945 and Germany successfully took Stalingrad or D-Day was not as big of a success as it was, for example. A bit like Wolfenstein, but without all the Nazi robots and spaceships, a more 'realistic' approach if you want to call it that. What would it include? Here is a list of factions I'd like to include into the mod. Most of the factions in their spaced groups would use similar vehicle, thus re-skins only really apply to some factions. However some factions will get their own unique kit at some point. Factions/Nations---- Nazi Germany Japan Italy (I have no clue what they'd use at this point of the war) Finland Soviet Union Communist China United States United Kingdom France Poland Nationalist China Australia I'll first be doing front line armoured vehicles such as heavy tanks, mediums and possibly lights. Depending on the reception I get I can always make APC and IFVs. Vehicles---- (Only a small list) [USA] M26E1 Pershing, M34, M30 and Easy 8 Sherman.. (To name a few) [German] E10, E25, E50, E75, E100.. (To name a few) [Soviet] IS3, T44A, T44B.. (To name a few) I'm also hoping to have a dynamic stowage system, so ultimately you're able to mix and match all kinds of stowage, even randomise it so no tank looks identical. What has been done so far? So far I'm doing all the German vehicles first, the E-series. The good thing about the E-series is that they share most if not all of their assets, from road wheels, exhausts systems, stowage, handles. For example, the E50 and E75 share the exact same hull, just different turret and number of road wheels. Since I've made the E50 hull and road wheels I've also technically made the E75 hull and road wheels. However this is what I've done so far. Germany E-50 E-75 Feedback/Suggestions Pretty sizeable project for someone like me, but I love making stuff so I don't mind. If you have any suggestions or feedback, go ahead. Cheers.
  17. With the buzz of all the new DLCs coming I wanted to ask if Ol' BIS thought about, that even though we'll be getting flashy new tanks & improving the old stuff but it wont matter if the Coloum gets bogged down, for instances; the terrain Isla Duala is split into several halves by sharp, narrow gullys and rivers. Not to mention some of the key citys are connected by bridges that can be destroy easily. SO! I wish to push the conceptual thought of adding Armored-Launched Bridge-Layers, It'd be a nice flavour added to the Engineer/Armored Warfare elements of ArmA, now this might sound offensive to some (which is a given) but I'd say it'd be an easy model to make since the chassis is only slightly modified to the factions standard issue tank and has a retractable bridge, plus since there are many to chose i.e. the Panther IFV or the T-100 for instance... I think these types of tracked would be essential along side whatever MBTs we're getting in the because if an Armored column gets bogged by a blown bridge on say... Tanoa Near the Blood Ruins having to divert down and into the gullies to keep moving can be dangerous and time costly, furthermore Armored/Engineer based Clans and Mission Makers would get a real kick out of such a vehicle for it's potential! Hope some ArmA devs or Modders pick up this idea and think "Hmm, this would be actually cool to try out..." But If no-one does then meh, I tried, Who am I to demand stuff, I'm just an ANZAC from the 40's. With Regards, Digger James.
  18. SP Breach and Clear

    Hi all I'm currently working on a mission featuring STGN's great Abrams addon. The mission involves the player and the rest of the tank platoon breaching a defensive line and capturing a position. ETA, when it's done (soon hopefully). EDIT Version 1.1 released. Download - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzRflMUsChYlMDI5R3ZXVkFRazQ ReadMe
  19. Tank elevation angles

    This is my first forum post here so if this is not in the right place feel free to move it, I, and probably others, have noticed that the gun depression values on some tanks are incorrect as compared to their real-life counterparts. This includes the MBT-52 Kuma (Leopard 2 revolution) and the Slammers (Merkava MK4). I have looked into the files and for the Kuma it appears to have -9°, this however isn't what we have in game because they changed it in patch 1.58. The cannon was clipping the back end of the vehicle (and still is) so they gave it -5° to stop it from clipping. But because elevation angles are uniform this overrides the -9°.... I suggest making two "gun depression variables", one for the "maximum" minimum elevation (-9°)and one for the "minimum" minimum elevation (0°).There should also be a transition between the two. Below I have a link to the feedback ticket, of you want Bohemia to fix this or take a look at it, please comment on that feedback ticket so it can get some traction :) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123481 Thank you for your time!
  20. 7th Armoured Divsion With roots in the War Thunder Community 7th Armoured are looking to branch out into Arma and create a historically accurate unit based on the famous Desert Rats using combined arms tactics. We've picked two units that served together historically and are looking to form a Platoon of the 1st Rifle Brigade (Mechanised Infantry) and a Troop of 5th Royal Tank Regiment utilising period equipment, structures, and tactics. We already have a solid player base, server complete with mods, and teamspeak but are looking to fill our ranks with like minded gamers to allow us to organise full scale missions with German WW2 milsim units from within the community. As a milsim unit we are aiming to be quite structured but have always prided ourselves on our relaxed and friendly nature so we hope to find a good balance. If you're interested in finding out a little more about us or would like to join, please either send me a pm, leave a message here or join our Teamspeak: and ask to speak to an NCO/Officer.
  21. Self driving vehicles

    OK I have racked my mind out trying to figure this out. What setting(if their is any) do I use to prevent any vehicle from starting and driving once entered as a driver? Or how is this rectified? Vehicle control setting. https://youtu.be/F-DdfqhFEWI Thanks
  22. M1 Abrams 0.7 Included are now models for early M1 Abrams the Improved Performance M1 and the M1A1. Download M1 addon Want some action!? try -Snafu-'s Mission "Breach and Clear":
  23. Hello, the last update ruined the game experience completly, the disadvantage for people who play King of the Hill and are not playing with premates is now incredible big. The AA has to lock on again everytime one rocket was shot, the rockets hit even less than before, the new radar is not showing the right symbols and you cant see shit on it. The Tanks got no rangefinder? You cant lock on to enemy tanks? Where is the sense? Why do you downgrade the game? Why is the Minimap now on the otherside of the screen while driving a normal tank? Why cant you move it? What the hell is going on with the camera while flying chopper in 3rd person?? why cant you leave it as it was, now you need VR and a Headtracker to fly proper? Im angry and slowly but surely im losing the believe in this game and the dev's. Explanation would be great
  24. I everyone! I was hoping to find some help from the community. I'm having trouble with tracked vehicles, and the first problem is with the land contact. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the LOD landcontact, since that seems pretty straight forward. There's a pic of the problem in my dA gallery: Well, that was supposed to be just a hyperlink, but it just displays the photo I wanted to show anyway. Tank 1 has different sized wheels. However, it's all just an illusion, because I set up the memory points on all wheels the same size as the 3 covered wheels' center and bounds. Mass is also weird, because it's supposed to be a total of 10kg for the components, and 4 weight boxes evenly distributed for actual mass. That's how the sample tank is done. The 3 wheels and drive wheels move, but the front and back wheels do not, as expected for what I did (btw, is there a better way given that same-size wheels are not an option?). The tracks move, and even an AI soldier can drive it, somewhat. IT stays in that position while moving. EDIT 1: I forgot to mention that all the wheels on this tank, except the front two, are dampened all the way up even though they don't touch the ground. When testing in buldozer, they rise and drop together. Tank 2 is about 10 cm off the ground. I placed my character in prone on the far side to sort of make it more clear. The wheels do not move in Eden (although they do in buldozer). The tracks also don't "move" or damper. The tank is driveable; though it is too slow, turns too tightly, and stutters about every 3 meters as if tapping the brakes. Same size wheels are not a problem with this tank, but none of them move. Weird. EDIT 2: This tank also has a similar mass set up as the sample tank, where 4 mass boxes distribute the weight. It seemed less important to mention that here, but I reconsidered. Ok so... I know I'm gonna need to post more pics or screenshots of the LODs in OB, or maybe paste sections of my config and model documents. For the sake of retaining some secrecy on my project and also not posting unnecessary pics on the servers, I want to limit what I post to only what is needed. So, where shall we start? Any help is much appreciated!!
  25. Tanks DLC Unofficial Discussion.

    Hello there guys I'd like to start this forum to discuss Arma III's last DLC for the year. I know its still a longs way off, but its never too early to start discussing these things. Well actually Bohemia encouraged us to give feedback and ideas on the their DLC. So here are mine. I'd like to brainstorm or suggest Tanks and APCs or upgrades or fixes to the current Tanks we already have. This is simply just a place to discuss Ideas and I don't except Bohemia would choose all of them or any of them for the matter. Below I will put some of the Tanks I would like to see make their way with the Tank DLC. LET US BEGIN! P.S If this is in the wrong section I apologize Moderators, please move it the correct section. The first Armored Vehicle I would like to see is the AMV-7 Marshall Mortar variation from the Pre-alpha that was never put in the game. It looks really great and I think would be useful when you need mortar support but don't want to use the large long range mortar Tanks. A variation perhaps for all the factions including CSAT and AAF. I would also like to see the AMV-7 and all the Faction APCs get more armor or perhaps add the option to add Reactive armor I feel like the APCs defiantly can be taken down too easily with Grenade launchers which is a main reason why I think APCs don't see a lot of action or seen on the battlefield a lot which kinda sucks when you want to use armor. I personally like the AMV-7 Marshall and wish I could use it more. I also feel like the Wheels on APCs can get shot way too easily so maybe add light plating that covers half of the wheels making them harder too hit. Also if you could perhaps add a 12.7mm machine gun to it, either that or change the description of the tanks armament. Next I'd like to see the American Main Battle Tank, but instead have the M1A3 battle tank the Military is currently developing and working on. There currently no blueprints or pictures of it for obvious reasons so Bohemia could probably use some creativity in how they think it will look in 2035. Here are American APCs that the US Military currently uses that would be cool to add. The M113 Armored Personal Carrier. Stryker LAV-25 Also the M3 Bradly Next up I want to suggest maybe a tank for the CTRG or the British. The M2 Challenger is highly regarded as one of the strongest tanks in the World or was atleast with only one being destroyed by friendly fire (Quite tragic) Now this amazing futuristic tank is real and is currently being developed in Poland as their next main battle tank. Its considered a stealth tank and by far is one of the most futuristic looking tanks we are currently making in the world the PL-01 MBT. It would only be fair to in cooperate a polish tank since ironically they are only one of a few countries who actually pay their 2% to NATO. This gorgeous looking tank I believe I already spotted in the Roadmap Video on YouTube, but if that's not it I'd like to suggest it now. This tank is currently regarded as one of the most powerful tanks in the world and can beat any NATO or US Tank. It also has some of the most advanced weapon systems and counter measures in the world and the inside literary looks like the inside of a Spaceship. The T-14 Armata. The T-15 Armored Troop transport Carrier. The BTR Bumerang The 2S35 Artillery Tank Now moving onto the Chinese or Pacific CSAT Forces. Not much is really known about what new Main Battle Tanks or APCs the Chinese are developing so I'll just add the current ones they have and maybe futuristic versions can be made by Bohemia. Type-99 ZBL-09 Not a lot of new Chinese APCs are being made atleast from what I can find. I'm pretty sure the T-100 actually is already this, so maybe Bohemia is time travelers or has access to super classified intelligence but this is Iran's newest Main battle tank the Karrar just hit the production lines this year. The Type 10 is Japan's newest Main Battle Tank and would possibly be relevant for the Pacific in Tanoa. The Type 87 is Japan's current APC. Germany is currently using the Boxer I believe as their APC of choice, although it has a similar look as the Stryker, but Id thought Id just put it here anyway. The AFF Tank is already based off the Leopard MBT so I won't include it obviously. Next up is Itlay's Ariete Main Battle Tank which I think would be relevant to Altis since Altis is suppose to be near Greece and Italy. On top of that the Greece use the Leonidas IFV APC which would also be relative to Altis That's all the Tanks that I wouldn't mind seeing in the tanks DLC, now I know you won't add every single one of these or any of them on the list and some of tanks currently in the game might already be based off of some of these, but these are just some ideas. Outside of that I wouldn't mind seeing tweaks and balances to the older tanks with a Dynamic Loadout system (Nothing too crazy) Just changing ammunition types or the Machineguns on the Tanks with perhaps different types of Defense systems like the option to have Smokes or the newest Active Protection system that some of these tanks have. The Germans are currently working on a 130mm Cannon, but they don't know how feasible it will be, but this is in 2035. So maybe change out cannons on tanks? Also wouldn't mind having Reactive armor option to add too tanks, but this would make tanks slower and eat up more fuel as a disadvantage if you wanted to keep things balanced, or add harder hitting rounds to penetrate the Reactive armor, or make tanks harder to kill. Heck maybe Reactive armor is already on some of the tanks, doesn't feel like it though. Should be able to add to APCs though. Also maybe add TOW launchers to the APCs to help with dealing with Tanks (Although I know APCs aren't made to fight tanks, but sometimes you run into Tanks). Also possibly add Incendiary rounds for the Tanks Commander Machine gun. These are all the ideas and suggestions I have, if there is something I miss or forgot, be sure to comment your ideas too so we can make Tanks Great Again!