PDA

View Full Version : .95 Armor


Hunt3r
2010-10-31, 01:53
I believe that it's worth saying that the PR Puma lacks the ability to tackle rough terrain, especially on maps like Lashkar Valley, where taking roads is almost certain death. I believe the Puma has a power to weight ratio equal or greater than the Leopard 2, and that it's armor is capable of shrugging off 30mm APFSDS, no?

Also, I've found that tanks like the Abrams can only take 2 frontal hits of sabot from tank guns before being taken out altogether, while I believe it should be as many as 4-5 sabots to the front.

J.F.Leusch69
2010-10-31, 02:45
the PUMA is fixed for the next patch.

dtacs
2010-10-31, 07:18
Good to see, I was pissed to no end when my squad literally had to abandon it in the field and walk away after it got stuck in a large crater area on Laskhar.

Armor overall has clearly been made much more lethal but there is still the ability for Infantry to evade them as they did in previous versions. There are only a few select maps that armor is overpowered on, specifically Fools where the overload of British assets makes moving Militia infnatry around impossible as the whole map appears black on thermals.

Kendt888
2010-11-04, 09:13
Great work here on 0.95, and nice to see the Ger. faction in the game. Somehow i do fell that its not complete yet. Ive mentioned this under another topic, but is the Ger. truck the same as the brits? and the PUMA dosent seem to be finished to detail for me, cant really tell what it is, but it just look wrong to me, it could be that its just how it is. Its not the biggest help about the puma, but i cant find it, its just a feeling. (maybe the force?)

Other than that there is alot of new amour on fools, its not a problem, but its a challenge to milita, since the brits now have less inf, and that should be used. maybe a few more AT guns? (1 or 2) maybe in the center of the map?

Hunt3r
2010-11-07, 01:09
IMO the Puma needs way more armor. It's a 40 tonne vehicle for a reason.

Hunt3r
2010-11-11, 02:06
Sorry for bumping, but I'd also like to mention that the Mauser MK30-2 cannon on the Puma has a ROF of 700 RPM, not 200 RPM. Also, it may make sense to have the sounds of a round being loaded into the breech and the breech swinging up to close for tanks.

Hunt3r
2011-01-01, 03:25
Another bump:

The Leopard 2 has a very dangerous area that if hit, can send the turret flying into the sky and everyone inside dead:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/leopard%202%20ammo%20storage/Dostanuot/leopard2A6ammo.jpg

Penetration of the front-left side of the hull, or by going through the very front of the left side of the hull, will result in a catastrophic explosion.

dtacs
2011-01-01, 11:09
That picture isn't really a source, there is obviously ammunition stored there but what is the penetration of T90 rounds like on the front armor?

I'm sure that the armor there is incredibly thick if rounds are going to be put in such a dangerous spot.

Hunt3r
2011-01-01, 13:18
The Leopard 2 tends to put it's armor all on the turret face, and doesn't focus as much on the hull. DM53 and M829A3 will definitely go through.

DankE_SPB
2011-01-01, 13:44
Dont even get this started. 1st - vs threads are not allowed, 2nd - bf2 doesn't let us make Steel Beasts tank simulator so that whole argument is pointless.

BenHamish
2011-01-01, 13:56
Out of interest, how does the armour on tanks 'work' in BF2?

Hitting a modern tank with a HE RPG should have no effect on the front.. I never ever aim for the front but have a hunch that rather than just 'deflecting off' or exploding with no effect (not penetrating) the RPG still does damage, but only a certain amount (for example, maybe 10% rather than the 30% it would do on the back).

I've no doubt that the dev's have done the right thing, but it's purely for my interest that i'm asking.

Basically, the front armour of a modern MBT should be either penetrable, or immune. Is the % damage there to simulate track/sensor damage? Or is it the case that hit in the 'wrong' spot no damage will be done by a LAT to an MBT?

Lowjoe
2011-01-01, 14:20
Sorry for bumping, but I'd also like to mention that the Mauser MK30-2 cannon on the Puma has a ROF of 700 RPM, not 200 RPM.

That is true, BUT to achieve higher accuracy it is limited to 200 RPM in the Puma.

edit: @BenHamish: there you go http://www.secretsofbattlefield.com/hitpoints.php

Hunt3r
2011-01-05, 00:37
Also of note, the Warrior IFV should have any stabilization taken out, in PR there is stabilization, albeit buggy and doesn't quite work. Also, the elevation/depression speed of the gun should be slow, as IRL this axis of movement is hand-cranked. Finally, the gun needs to have bullet drop, as IRL it doesn't have the luxury of an FCS.

Finally, I'm rather sure that the M2A2 ODS Bradley takes 3 minutes to reload both AP and HE feeds of the autocannon, and the coaxial machinegun should have 800 rounds ready to fire, and take about 1-2 minutes to reload. The TOW, with infantry mounted, should take about 2 minutes to reload both tubes.

Hunt3r
2011-01-09, 06:15
Bump again:

The Abrams series of MBTs has a rather constant high-pitched whine inside the turret from the hydraulics. Also once the gun is fired, there is a lot more noise from the breech going down and the gun recoiling back, with the base of the ammo being thrown down, and then the shell being pulled off the ready rack, slammed home, and then the breech going back up. Also, I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure in almost all militaries for the loader to say "Up!" or something similar to indicate that a round is loaded.

Murphy
2011-01-09, 15:42
I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure in almost all militaries for the loader to say "Up!" or something similar to indicate that a round is loaded.

In the Abrams I believe there is an "UP" sound cue, but it only really works on one type of ammo (I think its MPAT rounds), or maybe it only works if you do not switch ammo types after firing.

Unfortunately the other factions do not have this luxury, and it makes for some annoying situations.

Hunt3r
2011-01-09, 22:33
The sabot round should have "Up!", but after MPAT being loaded "HEAT Up!" should be said. I'm not too well versed in the procedures of other armies, but the US Army definitely would have it. There's also the sound of the lever that allows the gun to be fired being moved to it's upper position.

Tanks have lots of various noises and such going on inside, especially because noise insulation would just be unnecessary weight that could be diverted to something else.

Something that I'd really like to see in armor for PR is the implementation of realistic penetration. If 14.5mm AP will not penetrate a Bradley from 0m/90deg, then in PR it should never damage a Bradley at all.

And in PR:BF2 since it's not possible to simulate losing a track or having all the optics destroyed I'd rather not have an entire vehicle explode as if the ammo were hit if the gunner sight was hit by a burst of 30mm AP-I.

Speaking of which, 30mm AP fired out of Russian vehicles is incredibly weak and within reasonable engagement distances will only penetrate about 30mm RHAe, or less than 25mm APFSDS.

ralfidude
2011-01-12, 15:56
WTF is up with ABRAMS vs the T72 on Kashan, where the T72 completely disables the Abrams in ONE shot to the FRONT armor? All the while an ABRAMS shot makes the T72 only smoke?


Is this a bug?

dtacs
2011-01-12, 16:24
Whats up with the terrible German armor on SEagle? The Leo's are crap and die incredibly easy. A T-90 TOW to the front puts it on black smoke straight up.

The Puma's aren't any better, camera positioning for the driver is beyond a headache. Needs to be doubled in height so the front of the APC can be seen.

Nebsif
2011-01-12, 18:37
^ U can 1 shot a T-90 if u know where to aim at the front armor, which is what I wanted to post about.. some tanks have ridiculous material "builds", like teh Abrams and T-90... how come that shooting a track "wheel" makes same damage as hitting the engine of a tank and etc. While some tanks have insanely unrealistic weakpoints, an APC like LAV-3 has none.

And uhm.. gotta agree about puma, its so annoying to drive, wish we had two cameras on IFVs just like we have on tanks

Hunt3r
2011-01-13, 00:50
Oh right, it may be prudent to take out the GPS housing "one-hit" feature of the Abrams, it tends to make life frustrating for US crewmen if the MEC exploit it. It's actually quite plausible for the Abrams to be taken out in close range by a BMP-3 that sprays autocannon onto the GPS housing.

The Leopards really should flat out die from an AT-11b that hits the side and rear areas, but not take a scratch if hit in the front.

The Puma IFV production model has the CIV placed higher up, although the model doesn't need to reflect this visually, the camera should be moved up.


http://h-4.abload.de/img/puma_pressebild_02xral.jpg

CastleBravo
2011-01-13, 02:36
The Puma IFV production model has the CIV placed higher up, although the model doesn't need to reflect this visually, the camera should be moved up.




If you do that then you will end up with situations where the puma driver/commander can see over obstacles but from the other side the puma can't be seen.

Hunt3r
2011-01-13, 03:51
Sure, but IRL that's pretty much what happens, except in PR everything is so close that every engagement is a battlesight engagement.

dtacs
2011-01-14, 13:09
On SEagle I took out a Puma by firing 14.5mm KPV at its front armor and killed it as fast as any other APC. I thought the basic armor capabilities meant that it was totally resistant to that?

Jaymz
2011-01-14, 13:32
On SEagle I took out a Puma by firing 14.5mm KPV at its front armor and killed it as fast as any other APC. I thought the basic armor capabilities meant that it was totally resistant to that?

The 14.5mm damage modelling has been off for quite some time now. Making it realistic is going to require some map audits to be done for balance.

As for the Puma itself, it's one of the most protected IFV's in the world. We grossly overlooked this when implementing it in-game. We plan on completely overhauling that vehicles protection capabilities. As for APC's/IFV's in general, an overall damage reduction from Light AT weaponry might be in order for many of them.

dtacs
2011-01-14, 13:59
Good stuff. The Puma simply feels light and ineffective, can't climb hills, dies easily on Lashkar to the Tandem's and is forced to the green zone instead of supporting infantry as they get hill caches. Not to mention the main gun is very quiet.

One thing that I found odd is that when shooting the front left part of it whilst being to its rear left is that it only put it on white smoke, from one T-90 AP round.

Hunt3r
2011-01-15, 03:32
Theoretically we should be making the Puma be impervious to friendly autocannon fire from other Pumas. And anything weaker than Puma autocannon fire.

CastleBravo
2011-01-15, 22:39
Any chance of strengthening some of MBT weak points? It makes no sense for an abrams to blow up after getting shot once in the gunners thermal sight or one of the road-wheels. The big circle thingy on the front of the T-72 to the left of the main gun is also a one hit kill.

Hunt3r
2011-01-16, 01:26
IMO as long as damage modeling besides hitpoints and live/dead doesn't exist, a simple model of armor damage should exist. No one-shotting tanks from the front.

Dev1200
2011-01-16, 09:55
There's lots of "this should have this" and "that shouldn't have this" posts. But nobody has any sources. :)

dtacs
2011-01-16, 10:08
A source isn't needed for tanks not being one shotted in a random spot.

USMCMIDN
2011-01-16, 16:50
I believe that it's worth saying that the PR Puma lacks the ability to tackle rough terrain, especially on maps like Lashkar Valley, where taking roads is almost certain death. I believe the Puma has a power to weight ratio equal or greater than the Leopard 2, and that it's armor is capable of shrugging off 30mm APFSDS, no?

Also, I've found that tanks like the Abrams can only take 2 frontal hits of sabot from tank guns before being taken out altogether, while I believe it should be as many as 4-5 sabots to the front.

well IRL the Abram and Challey can take a tremendous amount of damage to her b4 she'll give out... But for game play sake the devs need to make the tanks destroyable. I have heard of accounts where the Abram and Challeys have taken ATGMs and shrugged it off... and the Challey taking some 100 RPGs in Iraq or something like that...

Its for game play issues that it cant take a beating.

Hunt3r
2011-01-16, 20:06
The M1A2 SEP V2 cannot be penetrated by any APFSDS fired out of any tank gun in service today, but that's just what I've heard, take it with a grain of salt.

Tim270
2011-01-16, 20:32
I thought all the glass mat stuff was fixed? I.e the 1 shot killing of any glass on a tank?

Hunt3r
2011-02-26, 22:08
It wasn't, I've killed Abrams' that way many a times.

Hotrod525
2011-03-02, 16:19
The M1A2 SEP V2 cannot be penetrated by any APFSDS fired out of any tank gun in service today, but that's just what I've heard, take it with a grain of salt.

Well they have been penetrated atleast 2 times in Irak on side armor, even the mighty CR2 have been breached. I think you seriously over-estimate the armor capability and widely under-estimate the capability of A.T. weapon, you dont need to blown it first shot, if you kill its mobility, then the mighty wolf become the sweety bambi just waiting to be knocked off.

MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html)

ytman
2011-03-02, 21:55
Jaymz;1530640']The 14.5mm damage modelling has been off for quite some time now. Making it realistic is going to require some map audits to be done for balance.

As for the Puma itself, it's one of the most protected IFV's in the world. We grossly overlooked this when implementing it in-game. We plan on completely overhauling that vehicles protection capabilities. As for APC's/IFV's in general, an overall damage reduction from Light AT weaponry might be in order for many of them.

I love you jaymz! In my perfect world L-AT would be 4 to a team with reduced damage meant to destroy the lighter vehicles and certain structures/rooms. H-ATs would then be meant to knock out all but the toughest armored assest in nearly one hit. The TOW and then other ATGM platforms would be the Infantry's resort to large amounts of MBTs while calling in AT asset support would be the easiest counter. Of course this is from a gameplay perspective... I have no evidence IRL.

And I really love the fact that 14.5mm damage is being looked into... is a real bother to me for immersion's sake.

Hunt3r
2011-03-03, 01:09
Hotrod, it's key to note that this was only for the frontal glacis and turret.

BenHamish
2011-03-03, 18:10
I always believed that infantry should never be able to take on tanks.. AT missiles are a deterrent not a pound-for-poound compensation of a tank's presence.

I know that BF2 has the rock/scissors/paper gameplay, but it depresses me when as an Insurgent I know all I have to do is shoot a warrior 3 times to blow it up. I'd be happy with having to shoot it 10 times.

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-03, 20:21
You realize the purpose of AT weapons is to allow infantry to take on tanks? And that IFVs and the like aren't even armored anywhere close to what an MBT is? If you had to shoot a warrior 10 times what would it take to drop a challenger or abrams, 100 shots? Which I suppose would work if every insurgent kit had an rpg, which would make for interesting matches I suppose.

ShockUnitBlack
2011-03-03, 22:34
Truth is not everything that happens in real life - let alone war - can be accounted for by physics and math. I'm pretty sure nobody thought it was going to be a bit of moisture that brought down a B2 Spirit, but it did - the world's most advanced aircraft destroyed by a couple of water droplets.

The point - we can't account for everything so we shouldn't try to. Account for what can be accounted for.

Nebsif
2011-03-04, 08:03
This thread is like "western tanks, even the abrams (lol) are invincible and should take 1kk ap shells to destroy..." w/o any sauce.

ytman
2011-03-05, 16:39
Is this the area to talk about the ticket disparity between certain assets and their actually gameplay value?

Best example:

M113 = Styker = BTR-90 <<<<<< MTLB ATGM
Light APC = APC = IFV [All Less than] Light APC w/ old AT capabilities (no thermals)


Another Example:

Supply Truck = Transport Truck = Human Being = VN-3 Batcar

Hunt3r
2011-03-05, 20:19
This thread is like "western tanks, even the abrams (lol) are invincible and should take 1kk ap shells to destroy..." w/o any sauce.

This is actually more like "Any tank with blowout ammo storage shouldn't instantly die if you sneeze on it"

The Ukrainians will get this overpowered realism if they're ever a faction in PR.

T-72s and T-80s will send their turrets flying for any variant that has the carousel autoloader. Leopard 2s will send their turrets flying if the hull ammunition is detonated, unless more recent variants have rectified this issue. Pretty much the single biggest cause of any one-shot kills in tanks are from detonation of ammo in tanks that don't seal off the ammo rack from the crew compartment.

Crewmen pretty much have to be killed off by spall or direct hits by shells, unless an artillery shell comes smashing through the turret roof.

Sure I don't have a source, but it doesn't take much to say that today's MBTs are pretty heavily armored if a tandem 105mm HEAT warhead can only penetrate the sides and lower hull of a CR2 or M1A2 SEP. I just think that it should take lots of shells to defeat a tank from it's strongest point.

And yes, I think it's necessary to look at the ticket value of some assets, a BTR-80 is worth far less than a BTR-80A, and a VN3 is worth a lot more than a jeep.

ShockUnitBlack
2011-03-06, 01:26
My current classification of combat vehicles relevant to the discussion, in order of value (in response to yt's post) -

MBT - Self-explanatory.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle (Bradleys, BMPs, Namers, LAVs, WZ551s with autocannons, etc). An APC with an autocannon, quite possibly a TOW, and enough seats for an entire infantry squad. The Namer has heavy enough armour to be classified here.

Tank Hunters (BRDM-2s with Spandrels, AT MT-LBs). Vehicles with TOWs or similar weapons and nothing else.

APC (Stryker, M113s, BTRs, AAV7PA1s, .50 cal MT-LBs, etc). Defined by me as a vehicle with enough seats for an entire infantry squad and a .50 cal weapon or similar (which is generally not exposed to fire).

Armoured Car (VN-3s, BRDM-2s, etc). Defined by me as an Infantry Mobility Vehicle without an exposed gunner. Requires a crewman kit (something I disagree with, to be honest).

Infantry Mobility Vehicle (HMMWVs, Chinese FAVs, Land Rovers, Technicals, etc). Defined by me as a vehicle with a .50 cal gun or similar, an exposed gunner, and too few seats for an entire infantry squad.

Vehicles I'm not sure how to classify -
The BTR-80A and 30mm MT-LB - their weapon are too powerful to make them APCs but they're probably too weak to be called Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

The Scimitar - doesn't fall into any of the above categories (two-man crew with only an autocannon as a weapon).

The TOW HMMWV - an anti-tank vehicle that doesn't require a crewman kit.

CROWS HMMWV - doesn't require a crewman kit but falls into the Armoured Car category.

Loads of other vehicles I can't think of off the top of my head.

Hunt3r
2011-03-06, 21:20
Light vehicles should cost 5 tickets, so any vehicle that weighs less than 10 tons is automatically this. Any vehicle that's in the 10-20 ton range should cost 10 tickets. Any vehicle in the 20-30 ton range is 13, any in the 30-40 range is 15, any in the 40-60 range is 20. So this would basically set anything that makes infantry motorized be worth about 10 tickets, anything that makes a light mechanized unit is around 15, anything that makes a heavy mechanized unit is 20.

Anything that's not bigger than a Stryker is worth 5 tickets, anything about as big as a Stryker is 10, anything about as big as a Bradley is 15, anything about as big as an Abrams is 20.

KnightFandragon
2011-03-08, 07:29
Well, I DL'd this mod like 3 days ago and now that im actually playing it and figuring it out, im having great fun with it. However, the only real thing I dont like and would like to see changed or atleast an explantion as to why is the vehicles spontaneously combusting from out of nowhere and the Paper Mache vehicles. What im talking about is how when my Uncle and I crewed the Abrams, we go aways then stop to guard or take a post, I will commonly get out of the driver seat to man the AA 50cal for cover. However, after a few minutes our tank will light on fire and send us and our tank flying in various little parts all over the field. Next, the Paper Mache vehicles that im talking about is how easily these vehicles just fall apart and die. I was on Karbala driving a Stryker APC and there are center medians that appear to be not much higher then a normal US Curb and I drove up over one and next thing I know my right side is riding on rims because the curb apparently ripped my wheels off. That sorta makes sense but id think the US armywould not have a Vehicle that falls apart like Lincoln logs or legos to a curb. Also, I drove the same Stryker on Karbala and while looking for a back way into the city I found what I thought to be a suitable hole but instead I ran into a garbage can, a few small barrels or something and side swiped a building........I exploded trying to back up....I mean why do the vehicles just explode to the most minor collisions? Also, in Vanilla BF I hated how the vehicles would burn up and die at below 20 Health..I really wish it would just be done away with.......or be made ALOT slower so we actually have a chance to make it back to main base to repair seeings as we dont have field repair kits. This mod is awesome and after playing so many Run and Gun pointless shooters for so long its nice to finally have found a mod or something which is slower and ACTUALLY allows for teamplay since its not uber fast paced and whatever else RnG shooters are....

dtacs
2011-03-08, 07:42
What im talking about is how when my Uncle and I crewed the Abrams, we go aways then stop to guard or take a post, I will commonly get out of the driver seat to man the AA 50cal for cover. However, after a few minutes our tank will light on fire and send us and our tank flying in various little parts all over the field.Re-read what you just said. You are either leaving something out (IE getting shot by a tank/HAT kit), or you simply made this up. To clarify:

> You get in tank
> You drive to a position and hold there, scanning for contact
> You get into the .50 cal
> A few minutes later, your tank sets on fire regardless of any environmental influence (IE enemies shooting you..) and your tank dies, with you in it.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

I was on Karbala driving a Stryker APC and there are center medians that appear to be not much higher then a normal US Curb and I drove up over one and next thing I know my right side is riding on rims because the curb apparently ripped my wheels off.I would assume you are talking about the walls in the middle of the road in this (http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/9231/95319158.jpg) image? If so, when you go off on a sharp angle, the weight of the APC will shift making you significantly more top-heavy, and flipping it. The vehicle weight ratios are entirely realistic in PR bar the Canadian LAV-III. You cannot go off every single cliff or go over every obstacle expecting the vehicle to right itself. Explain this in more detail, or come to terms that you made a stupid mistake.

KnightFandragon
2011-03-08, 10:54
Well, my first part, I should add we had engaged some BMP's and a tank or two.....but after each engagement we would usually drive to North Bunker on Kashan. I then would drive in the bunker to ensure nothing could hit us.......then yes...I would hop in the 50cal and my tank would light up. Other times I would be sitting outside the wall and unless Tank rounds impacting my armor just make no sound at all then yes, I would be sitting there and my tank would light on fire. I would have my uncle check to see if the engine was smoking, which in Vanilla BF was a signifier of if we had taken alot of damage, see none, other then the dirt the tracks were throwing up. We then arrive with nothing going on, I would have the 50 zoomed looking for stuff, my uncle is scanning for tanks in the main gun and then we just light on fire, its as amazingly retarded and hard to believe as it is to say it happened but yeah...it does. I do know in Vanilla BF if ur vehicle got to like a little less then half the same thing would happen if someone was not in the drivers seat but still, I had figured this mod got rid of that seeings as it is a realism mod and tanks dont just ignite out of nowhere.

As for the Stryker, no, I did not go over any walls, I did not flip the vehicle. If you look in the middle of the road on Karbala...the Center Median in the middle of the road...I zig zagged from the left to right side of the road and drove over a center median, they are not that high, anyway once I did that my wheels on the right side came off.....If it wasnt that then idk what else coulda done it. I had stopped for a second then was told to go chase down a Technical going for factory...it was then I realized we had no wheels on the right side as the vehicle was tilted and driving in circles.....Once again, unless impacting Rockets and tank rounds make no sound, we didnt get shot at.

As for the wall, I was on the back side of the city looking for a rear way in that was not stright up main street. There was an alley in between 2 buildings and not those big gates that let us drive through, just 2 buildings seperated wide enough for the Stryker. I then slowed down, backed up and drove in, however, once I drove around the corner I realized I couldnt fit but was going fast enough I bumped the trash bin and I guess drove up on the small barrels. My uncle, who was gunning for me said there was a fence there as well. Realizing I was going nowhere I started to back up but then exploded, I guess bumping houses kills?

Yeah, I didnt make this up....I dont make up stupid stuff like this, it happened and im just as lost as everyone else. Ive even seen Humvees and British Jeeps just light on fire if you sit there to long, even manned.....

dtacs
2011-03-08, 11:54
Well, my first part, I should add we had engaged some BMP's and a tank or two.....but after each engagement we would usually drive to North Bunker on Kashan. I then would drive in the bunker to ensure nothing could hit us.......then yes...I would hop in the 50cal and my tank would light up. Other times I would be sitting outside the wall and unless Tank rounds impacting my armor just make no sound at all then yes, I would be sitting there and my tank would light on fire. I would have my uncle check to see if the engine was smoking, which in Vanilla BF was a signifier of if we had taken alot of damage, see none, other then the dirt the tracks were throwing up. We then arrive with nothing going on, I would have the 50 zoomed looking for stuff, my uncle is scanning for tanks in the main gun and then we just light on fire, its as amazingly retarded and hard to believe as it is to say it happened but yeah...it does. I do know in Vanilla BF if ur vehicle got to like a little less then half the same thing would happen if someone was not in the drivers seat but still, I had figured this mod got rid of that seeings as it is a realism mod and tanks dont just ignite out of nowhere.
In that case I would assume you were on black smoke, which after time (up to something like a couple of minutes) goes to fire, and after about 6 seconds of fire, explodes. Its simply impossible to not be on smoke, then suddenly explode.

As for the Stryker, no, I did not go over any walls, I did not flip the vehicle. If you look in the middle of the road on Karbala...the Center Median in the middle of the road...I zig zagged from the left to right side of the road and drove over a center median, they are not that high, anyway once I did that my wheels on the right side came off.....If it wasnt that then idk what else coulda done it. I had stopped for a second then was told to go chase down a Technical going for factory...it was then I realized we had no wheels on the right side as the vehicle was tilted and driving in circles.....Once again, unless impacting Rockets and tank rounds make no sound, we didnt get shot at.
Thats called being 'tracked' also known as a mobility kill. you were clearly hit by an RPG, IED or simply took too much terrain damage driving too aggressively. If you think something is clearly wrong with the mod, explain yourself properly. You weren't 'driving on your rims' at all.

As for the wall, I was on the back side of the city looking for a rear way in that was not stright up main street. There was an alley in between 2 buildings and not those big gates that let us drive through, just 2 buildings seperated wide enough for the Stryker. I then slowed down, backed up and drove in, however, once I drove around the corner I realized I couldnt fit but was going fast enough I bumped the trash bin and I guess drove up on the small barrels. My uncle, who was gunning for me said there was a fence there as well. Realizing I was going nowhere I started to back up but then exploded, I guess bumping houses kills?
A problem of the BF2 engine. A dynamic object (an object that interacts with its environment, IE a tank or an explosive barrel) glitches around when put between two static objects (EG a tree, buildings, railings etc.), the power simply doubles each time it hits the objects on its sides, causing it to take terrain damage extremely quickly and explode. Its happened to me on numerous occasions and its really unavoidable unless you specifically take caution to stay away from confined spaces.

One thing you will notice is that there are a significant amount of unrealistic things in PR. These are unavoidable, either to make gameplay (which is the most important thing, even over realism) more accessible, or it simply can't be edited. When it can't be edited, its called 'hardcoded'. Examples of hardcoded features are the VOIP system, and the maximum amount of people in vehicles (eight)

KnightFandragon
2011-03-08, 12:36
Hmmm.......I did not see any smoke...I have my settings on High.......it was weird for sure, cuz if we did have black smoke I certainly would have returned to base. There is a way to keep the tanks from blowing up and the change is quite simple in deed.......I have edited BF stats for weapons and vehiclesa little....there is a line that reads something like armor.hplostwhilecritical: 18....I simply change that to 0....it prevents the vehicle from blowing up like that, which I kinda wish would be changed or lowered to like 2 haha. As for the Stryker Mobility kill, I was actually not dead and drove around for like a minute or so more before the wheeless vehicle blew up, I was trying to make it back to base which is why the critical dmg should be set lower or to 0 to give us time ot make it back to base and have atleast a chance.. I saw a friendly bot stryker on the same map on my 1st day of this mod when I was testing stuff out...he did in fact have no wheels and was driving on round at an angle screaming for repairs. Do the impacts simply make no sounds?

ma21212
2011-03-08, 13:53
The MEC T72 should be replace with a T72B, its more "equal" to the the Abrams and more modern tanks in PR than the old T72 that MEC has.

Rudd
2011-03-08, 14:10
whats the difference between the two? both in equipment and in looks?

ma21212
2011-03-08, 14:26
I think the B version has better armor, reactive armor on the sides, 9M119 ATGM, a new cannon and a better FCS.

edit: and a new turret.

Rudd
2011-03-08, 14:30
I was kinda hoping your previous statement had some kind of sourced research behind it...

Rhino
2011-03-08, 14:30
The T-72M1M is the most appropriate version of the T-72 for the MEC according to our MAs.

ma21212
2011-03-08, 14:34
edit: forget what I said lol I did some more reading.

Hunt3r
2011-03-08, 22:58
T-72s should be able to stop APFSDS to the turret, and for realism, heavy Western MBTs should have this feature for the front glacis too, but all tanks should be easily killed by flank and rear shots to the hull and rear turret.

If this is about making tanks balanced by making them the same, I'd rather have them all behave as if it were an Abrams or Chally 2 in the way of mobility and armor.

ytman
2011-03-09, 01:37
I'd personally appritiate asymetrical armored battles.

The biggest amount of asymetry is seen if the IFV/APC landscape thought the tanks do have their fair share of differences. Really if any tank is 'lower' than another I suggest the mapper take this into account when deciding assets and maybe mix and match the two teams so that they each have weaknesses and strengths. Maybe even use terrain of a 'side' of a map to benifit a specific tank design....


Oh and I just want to say I approve of the TOW turret lock of the Bradely! I was still able to use the bradely as an effective tool today in Kashan on TG server. We came out with two bradelys dead but four tanks due to ATGMs

Nebsif
2011-03-09, 10:52
agree with ytman.. its cool when tanks feel different, as u'd not want every tank ingame to be an abrams u also dont want all the tanks to perform the same.
As I wrote in my leet thread, PR tanks are far from being as good as they are IRL due to engine limitations + to that there are fixable things like unrealistic 1 shot 1 kill hitboxes/materials and overall low armor like hunt3r wrote (can any modern MBT get destroyed by 10 normal RPG7 warheads?)

KnightFandragon
2011-03-09, 14:41
Worst thing about tanks and vehicles is how every little bump and minor dirt mound on the maps damages them.....I was driving the Merkava through Gaza streets and would tap a pot hole, damage....bump a car frame, damage.....Then in Kashan, the Abrams is probably half dead before im to the first post, the sand on that map kills. I can see fast driving and going over rough terrain wrecking a Humvee or the Jeeps and trucks but a tank, really...what does a pot hole do to a tank? Maybe a Panther or King TIger from WWII wrecking the drive train or front suspension, but modern tanks, im sure dont have that issue.

But just for the Record, the Merkava is like awesome, how many RPGs can the Abrams take? In game the Merkava takes like 7 hits, thats sweet lol. Merkava is a good tank.

Rudd
2011-03-09, 14:45
actually Knight, humvees etc easily avoid damage if you just don't hold down W when a bump or hole is coming, which makes sense, hit a bump at high speed and you're vehicle will get hurt...

tanks etc, I don't generally find the same problems as you do unless I'm driving in a place like the kashan mountain...which again isn't a tank friendly area.

the Abrams is probably half dead before im to the first post

lets not say silly things please, the only way this is the case is if you are destroying every single destroyable building in north village by ramming it en route to wherever you're going.

Feedback isn't served by hyperbole.

Tim270
2011-03-09, 15:19
I have had the same problem quite a few times on Gaza and a few other maps. The beach is really the only viable route to move up a Namer/tank to avoid mines on the road and not go through the city yet the terrain there does damage to the tank. Now this is a beach, made of sand that is dealing damage to a Namer/Merk trying to traverse it.

I have actually had a few blow up there trying to RTB after being hit by a few RPGs. I even tried using my joystick (throttle) to go as slow as possible but still ended up dying. I mean my Tank was probably really near death (not on fire) but it seems a little extreme that tanks take so much damage from terrain.

KnightFandragon
2011-03-09, 16:11
Rudd;1559761']actually Knight, humvees etc easily avoid damage if you just don't hold down W when a bump or hole is coming, which makes sense, hit a bump at high speed and you're vehicle will get hurt...



Is the sign of taking damage in a vehicle when the screen goes slightly dark then lightens back up again? I do slow down when I go over hills and holes and stuff but still get damaged a little lolz. I'll figure it out haha

Hunt3r
2011-03-22, 23:30
Things for PR2 that are probably key:

Realistic gearing, suspension, and handling behavior, currently it feels like armor is just far too fast over any terrain besides roads.
Proper gunnery system and FLIR.
Realistic modeling of stabilization
Modeling of ready rack/hull ammo storage (The Abrams only has 17 rounds that can be immediately loaded within 4-5 seconds, the rest are all in the hull and each round takes 20-30 seconds to haul up to the ready rack.)
Realistic damage systems
4km view distance possible on maps.
Correct ballistics, reticles, etc.


Mostly because almost all of this is hardcoded for PR: BF2, but I'd just like to see these eventually.

Rudd
2011-03-22, 23:51
yet you post them in a PR BF2 feedback thread, how odd

sharpie
2011-03-23, 00:25
Damnit, Hunter.
Go back to sleep.

On a more serious note, hunter PR2 is probably a long way off soo...:D

Hunt3r
2011-03-23, 01:05
Mostly because I'd really love to see it in PR: BF2, but... once again, it's not doable.

sharpie
2011-03-23, 01:18
i know.
JUST JOSHIN' WITH YA

(no pun intended...=#...)