Quad bomb mounts. Can't find a real pic so I drew one (I've seen them before I just can't think of their name). Usually only for bombs up to like, 100kg or so. I dunno I just think they could be useful for the lower capacity bombs that tend to suffer from being borderline useless against anything. Also, just holding more bombs internally in ammo boxes isn't a great idea if you've ever played on baik.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/xFllgRu.png[/t]
The best 3d example I can think of is the quad bomb mounts on the SU-2 in Warthunder.
I wonder if they are any acf servers in europe.
[QUOTE=Big Snake Bos;51709360]I wonder if they are any acf servers in europe.[/QUOTE]
Cre8ive is on the continent, IIRC the Netherlands specifically.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51708667]Quad bomb mounts. Can't find a real pic so I drew one (I've seen them before I just can't think of their name). Usually only for bombs up to like, 100kg or so. I dunno I just think they could be useful for the lower capacity bombs that tend to suffer from being borderline useless against anything. Also, just holding more bombs internally in ammo boxes isn't a great idea if you've ever played on baik.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/xFllgRu.png[/t]
The best 3d example I can think of is the quad bomb mounts on the SU-2 in Warthunder.[/QUOTE]
I doubt there are any quadruple bomb hardpoints like the ones you drew (or at least I havent seen one yet), usually, planes tend to carry 2-point racks on wings, fuselage
or bomb bay. Modern and coldwar aircraft tend to carry double (and in rare cases triple) hardpoints and they depend on their combat configuration.
SU-2 could carry 4 bombs or 10 rockets, but it isnt set up as you think it is. It can carry 2 bombs in bomb bay hardpoints and 2 extra bombs [I]on wing hardpoints[/I], not
on a single hardpoint.
For the other side. Quadruple hardpoints small bombs seems reasonable. Some smaller double hardpoints would be cool too, current old models are way too big and puts
ordance too far away from each other and tends to look weird on some planes. It shouldn't be very hard to model racks to be honest, they dont really need to be detailed
as theyre almost literally a structural plate with some mounting hooks.
YES! I finally found it! Explain this science:
[t]http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/Avia/Su2/Pictures/19.jpg[/t]
Tons of SU-2 stuff relating to those lovely quad bombs and otherwise on the last post of the first page of this thread: [url]http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=11659.0[/url]
edit:
Now I don't speak cryllic but something tells me those wheels are distinctively world war 2 or just before which would definitely give it the possibility of being the SU-2 (that and being in russian and all).
Haven't seen quad bomb racks anywhere else than in this picture. I think we shouldn't add something that wasn't widely used.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51712028]Cre8ive is on the continent, IIRC the Netherlands specifically.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the help
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51713755]pictures of small bombs[/QUOTE]
I already did in my post. These are small bombs, and I said its reasonable for small bombs.
[QUOTE=Kardel;51714441]I already did in my post. These are small bombs, and I said its reasonable for small bombs.[/QUOTE]
And I said that before your post. I just wanted to find pictures of it. I wasn't trying to say either way regarding what you said.
something i wonder
y no turbo ?
you could have a turbo entity that boost engine outpud, but take additional weight and space, and maybe other cons
doesnt look hard to me
[QUOTE=Nesara;51741101]something i wonder
y no turbo ?
you could have a turbo entity that boost engine outpud, but take additional weight and space, and maybe other cons
doesnt look hard to me[/QUOTE]
P. sure it would basically be fuel 2.0, which I think everyone can agree is good/enough as it is for the most part, unless performance changed based on speed or altitude or something.
[QUOTE=Nesara;51741101]something i wonder
y no turbo ?
you could have a turbo entity that boost engine output, but take additional weight and space, and maybe other cons
doesnt look hard to me[/QUOTE]
maybe having the turbo kick in realistically based on the displacement of the engine, size of the turbo, etc.
[QUOTE=Nesara;51741101]something i wonder
y no turbo ?
you could have a turbo entity that boost engine outpud, but take additional weight and space, and maybe other cons
doesnt look hard to me[/QUOTE]
You can't put a turbo everywhere tho. To install a turbo you need to rework the engine depending on what you want to achieve. It's a lot more than just "moar powa".
Also are you talking about turbines or turbo chargers?
I don't natively speak english but IIRC you people call an exhaust powered turbine compressor a turbocharger, and a belt driven spiral compressor a supercharger (in germany, we call a turbine compressor a Turbo and a spiral compressor a Kompressor). If I am wrong, correct me, but I will just assume this in this post for now.
I think the general idea of ACF custom wasn't too bad about turbo and superchargers. They have just been like, overkill. Adding a percentage of the engines power is plenty. No need to multiply its output.
I think they could be introduced with the benefit of (obviously) increasing the engines output notably (as said, not nearly as much as ACF custom did), but at the cost of maybe definitely requiring fuel (though that would require you to actually add a buff to your engine to achieve another buff, so might not be too much of a good idea), so you have to invest into more volume than just the charger, while also notably increasing fuel usage, meaning you need a lot of explosive volume for that buff.
Also they should kick in realistically, as in, turbochargers need a certain rpm and from then on a small delay to build up pressure.
Superchargers as a counterpart could give a slightly smaller buff and reduce the engines thottle response while outputting immediately.
Additionally I think the engines having a chance to blow from overspinning which is getting increased by chargers is basically a useful idea. Just wasn't executed too well in ACF custom. An engine can run happily for weeks in its redline without blowing, so a low random chance to blow like, every 10 minutes or so could work.
What could also be changed from its concept could be adding three different sizes instead of one, corresponding to the engine sizes. Maybe even a tiny one, because a small I4 would probably get a bigger one than a single for example. Each one outputting a certain airflow interacting with the engine.
You could add a huge charger to a small engine, though the punishments could be growing overproportional. A 1.something I4 could be equipped with a large charger, though it won't use a turbo properly, because its exhaust doesn't output enough gas flow and thus not getting the buff a large engine would, and a supercharger would make it output relatively much power, but it would respond like a gas turbine while it chews fuel like a large V12 and lasts 2 minutes before blowing. A small charger here would add a decent buff at acceptable risks.
Sliders for the desired rpms where they work most effeciently would add a nice touch. High strung turbos could tend to output more, but would need ages to kick in and a supercharger could have reduced impact on the throttle response, but reduced output with both of them having more reduced effect the further you leave the set rpm.
I don't think chip tuning as ACF custom had should be implemented though, since the time ACF aims at was pre-chipped engines (correct me if I am wrong here). Maybe for the small ones for the car people.
inb4 ACF aims at times where chargers weren't invented. Some primitive versions were already in use in aircraft in the late 30s, though not in civillian vehicles for decades.
On another note, I think electrical engines could use some work. They are basically useless in my eyes right now. Heavy batteries with barely any capacity and heavy af engines that have barely any power. Though they are quite compact. They would be a lot more useful if they were able to work as a generator, had a wire input for the direction, so you can reverse the vehicle without sacrificing a single gear for reverse, and would all in all be more dynamic. A simple approach for generator use would be slapping a percentage of the energy used to brake back into the batteries. A better approach would be keeping the wheels synched with the engine and detecting wether the engine is powering or being powered, so you could build stuff like hybrid cars or concepts like the Elefant, though I remember having read there were issues with synching.
On yet another note, new cannon models are under development for quite long now. Are they still being worked on? Any news?
Edited because grammar
I am currently learning to model and on my way to make accurately scaled cannon models. Still gotta learn to how to make animations and stuff and port all that shit to Source. I don't think Winston will ever finish these models. No promises that when my models are finished they will be pushed into the main fork of ACF for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=Kardel;51781212]I am currently learning to model and on my way to make accurately scaled cannon models. Still gotta learn to how to make animations and stuff and port all that shit to Source. I don't think Winston will ever finish these models. No promises that when my models are finished they will be pushed into the main fork of ACF for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]
Screenshots pls. The long breeches have been an issue to, like, everyone.
I was wondering why the official acf repo hasnt been updated in almost a year? I also have very buggy muzzleflashes / bullet tracers.
[QUOTE=Doomtaters;51788838]I was wondering why the official acf repo hasnt been updated in almost a year? I also have very buggy muzzleflashes / bullet tracers.[/QUOTE]
The owner of the repo no longer updates it.
Would be nice to have a list of forks made by the community.
Ok, i know this isnt really the place to ask it, but i dont think i'll be able to find a solution elsewhere
i have made a Panhard ebr, which has a high center of gravity, so it likes to flip over, how can i fix that ?
Lower turret baseplate, put more weight on baseplate/wheels, no grav gun (depending on how scummy you want to be), put less in the turret, grippier wheels.
[QUOTE=Cinere;51796446]Lower turret baseplate, put more weight on baseplate/wheels, no grav gun (depending on how scummy you want to be), put less in the turret, grippier wheels.[/QUOTE]
rope turret, so turret base weight is insignifant
also, i found that placing a vertical plate behind the tank higher than center of gravity, and finning it really helps
[QUOTE=Nesara;51797081]rope turret, so turret base weight is insignifant
also, i found that placing a vertical plate behind the tank higher than center of gravity, and finning it really helps[/QUOTE]
Every single bit of physical weight you can lower helps, even if you say the turret baseplate weight (if any of course) is insignificant. The lower you put your CoM the better.
Alternatively if you have heavy nogravved guns you can apply downforce to your tank's baseplate relative to world -Z to counter it via E2 or whatever you masturbate with more:smug:.
Ammo box science:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/JG1tPSC.jpg[/t]
2x4x4 vs 4x4x2. Same exact size so where's that extra round coming from?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/imu2JGk.jpg[/t]
1x1x4 vs 1x2x4 Two problems with this: A, why is the 2x4 smaller width wise and secondly, shouldn't there technically be another round in there? There's so many rounds/container scenarios where spamming tiny boxes that fit 1 round is actually more space efficient than using 1 large box. While it's not the most hardware intensive thing in the world, it certainly doesn't help and it also helps negate the effects of ammo box shots since if one gets hit it's probably empty and they don't explode like a full box would. Also, aren't larger ammo boxes supposed to get a capacity boost in addition to a reload speed boost?
Its probably using a generic rounding function instead of an always round up/down function to calculate volume which can cause weird cases such as these.
So, after a night of watching ARMA videos and constructing a pleasantly successful range-table-aimed mortar, I remembered a point raised awhile back that seemed to've been shot down - smoke shells for mortars. While the effects might be underwhelming, memory serving that was part of the response, the bigger benefit really is more giving the ability to lay a decent smoke screen from a distance, and possibly from behind cover as well. It can have the same scale of cloud as the 40mm ones, just with the difference being it isn't locked to an honestly pitiful muzzle velocity - and if it had to be restricted to one even with the mortars, then 100m/s would be fair as that offers a max range easily in the vein of 400m, which covers most source maps.
Where would I go about setting the muzzle pos for custom acf models/guns? Someone mentioned in here a while ago that it was set in acf via lua but the only references I can find mention using the muzzle attachment.
edit:
Actually fuck, I think thats what he meant. Any way to do it on a gun by gun basis?
edit: Asked kickasskyle, he says you can do it via the model QC file.
ACF r573
-Minor optimization of fuel tanks, ammo crates, gearboxes, and engines
-Minor optimization of ballistics courtesy of Red
-Removed ACFs SetParent override, no longer needed
-Fixed gearboxes not working after updating settings
-Fixed auto-gearbox shift point generator UI
-Increased random dispersion of ground ricochets
-Fixed prop ricochet angles, added some random dispersion
-Partial fix for hitting yourself when firing at high speed
-Partial fix for bullets ghosting through props
-Improved ballistics backtracing, increased backtrace length
-Fix for the ocassional bullet exploding when reentering world courtesy of red
-Added a few bugfixes courtesy of Steve
--Fixed issue with world penetration not properly reducing KE
--Fixed bullets getting culled early near source map limits
--Fixed issue with parented guns failing to give bullets inherited velocity
-Made muzzleflash smoke and missile smoke less blinding
-Fuel tank capacity calculation improved, better representation of model
--Capacity increased ~50%, but still 1/8th realistic for balance
--Refuel rate doubled
-Added e2 function acfDragDriv()
-Reverted to old dragdiv 40, increasing ballistic drag
--Minimal effect on cannons, reduces effective range of light weapons like MG
-clamped short round firerate bonus to 19%
-Smoke rounds updated
--Added timed fuse to smoke ammo (min 0.5s), set to 0 to disable timed fuse
--Allowed M and HW to fire smoke rounds
--Smoke effect can handle up to 10,000g WP and 10,000g SM filler (up from 200g)
--WP duration reduced 27% (from 29 seconds to 21 seconds for full length 40mm SL WP)
--Added relevant info to ammocrate overlay
-Increased max guns to 16 to help offset racks/flares using gun limit
-Added rate of fire and magazine info to guns on acf menu tool
-Reduced 40mm SL weight from 25 kg to 5 kg
-Increased 40mm GL reload from 2.5s to 7.5s
-Increased 37mm C round length from 45 cm to 48 cm
-Adjusted MGs
--7.62mm RoF increased from 477 to 600 r/m
--7.62mm given 250 round magazine with 6 second reload
--12.7mm RoF increased from 460 to 600 r/m
--12.7mm given 150 round magazine with 6 second reload
--14.5mm RoF increased from 346 to 480 r/m
--14.5mm given 90 round magazine with 5 second reload
--20mm given 50 round magazine with 4 second reload
-Adjusted HMGs courtesy of Red
--Spread increased from 0.32 to 0.4
--20mm 160kg, RoF 675 r/m, 12 rounds, 8s reload, 40mm pen @ 850 m/s
--30mm 480kg, RoF 434 r/m, 10 rounds, 10s reload, 56mm pen @ 850 m/s
--40mm 740kg, RoF 380 r/m, 8 rounds, 13s reload, 69mm pen @ 850 m/s
-Adjusted SAs
--Increased SA spread from 0.08 to 0.12
--Decreased 25mm RoF from 214 to 180 r/m
--Increased 37mm weight from 480 kg to 540 kg
--Decreased 37mm round length from 45 cm to 42 cm
--Decreased 76mm round length from 75 cm to 70 cm
--Decreased 76mm weight from 3200 kg to 2990 kg
-Buffed ALs
--75mm weight reduced from 2125 kg to 1892 kg
--100mm RoF increased from 18.8 to 22 r/m
--100mm weight reduced from 3750 kg to 3325 kg
--120mm RoF increased from 13.6 to 18 r/m
--120mm weight reduced from 6200 kg to 5850 kg
--120mm magazine increased from 4 to 5
--140mm RoF increased from 10.4 to 14 r/m
--140mm weight reduced from 9180 kg to 8830 kg
--140mm magazine increased from 4 to 5
-New RAC models courtesy of Kickasskyle
-Buffed RACs
--Reduced spread from 0.48 to 0.44
--20mm 974kg, 1200 r/m, 48 rounds, 10s reload
--30mm 1863kg, 1400 r/m, 60 rounds, 8s reload
-[KNOWN ISSUE] Bullets sometimes ghosting through fast oncoming props
--I'm attempting to fix this, but is proving elusive. However, should be somewhat less common now.
-[KNOWN ISSUE] WP filler does not work with missiles
--Missiles will no longer be able to fire smoke in a future missiles update
[QUOTE]-Adjusted MGs
--7.62mm RoF increased from 477 to 600 r/m
--7.62mm given 250 round magazine with 6 second reload
--12.7mm RoF increased from 460 to 600 r/m
--12.7mm given 150 round magazine with 6 second reload
--14.5mm RoF increased from 346 to 480 r/m
--14.5mm given 90 round magazine with 5 second reload
--20mm given 50 round magazine with 4 second reload[/QUOTE]
Hopefully this will help reduce the MG spam that makes playing infantry so painful as well as help with people insisting on spewing bullets while firing at another tank despite the fact that it basically does nothing until you can see interior.
Curious how the heavy nerf on the HMGs is going to affect those people who use remote turrets on top of their tanks. Hoping that it helps non jet aircraft from being annihilated immediately by the ever increasing amount of those turrets.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51853333]Hopefully this will help reduce the MG spam that makes playing infantry so painful as well as help with people insisting on spewing bullets while firing at another tank despite the fact that it basically does nothing until you can see interior.
Curious how the heavy nerf on the HMGs is going to affect those people who use remote turrets on top of their tanks. Hoping that it helps non jet aircraft from being annihilated immediately by the ever increasing amount of those turrets.[/QUOTE]
we could allways just delete the MG section
[QUOTE=Kardel;51854461]we could allways just delete the MG section[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the excellent input. Unfortunately neither I nor Damnation were suggesting the mg's should be removed.
:vs:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
