Wendigo

Damn !!! Anyone know where I can get 2 sets of level 3a body armour and kevlar helmets by Monday ? </font>

Ok, here's more realistic model for the one-man-tank concept. Two-shot ATGM and machinegun with limited turret traverse. One man crew with thin armor. Modeling tracks is giving me a major headache as I really don't like the lack of detail in those "bands" but adding any details results in humongous polycounts. Oh, BTW, is there anyone here who loves texturing? It isn't exactly my strong area and creating good textures (as they are in the game) might be a bit beyond my reach currently. Basic camo is OK but creation of detail seems a bit elusive unless I give it much more effort. Creating UGV is simple, I just remove the "cockpit" and move the turret to the centre. As controlling multiple vehicle could be pain in the behind to code, I'd think that this could be easier to begin with. [ August 26, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

Yea, the main protection would still be size. Actually those weaponpods are from my mech-project and may not represent best possible solution. I'm just wondering if this concept (fast, small weak armor, midrange weaponry) would be feasible. Currently all included vehicles are HUGE. Even Shrike. The model can be refined, but still getting vehicle small makes sloping armor hard unless one widens it to get room for engines and battery.

Ok, here's another concept. Little tracked scout vehicle. Armed with 4 ATGM:s and machineguns. Paperthin armor.

Yeay!! 3ds can be done by anything, even my beloved Rhino

Ok, I'm having huge problems with texturing. Shortly: How one gets useable UV map from a object? I've tried Blender and I can't spread the meshes properly however I put the seams. As I look at the texturefiles for the game I just can't imagine how they're made. Projection? Any good tutorials out here? Right. It seems that if I import any model from Rhino3D to blender, the UV mapping doesn't work properly. Great. [ August 12, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

Ok, here are few draft renders for first try. I'm wondering if you can restrict the turret rotation as it is limited with this model. Any comments?

Yep, I know how it is. "This is MY beautiful design and to hell with gamebalance" Mainly I'm just interested in trying to restart my modeling hobby. As a disclaimer I'm only a novice when it comes to modeling and texturing is yet something I've really to try. Still, I plan to begin with something like tracked IFV in the spirit of Bradley and CV90XX series CV90 I'm not promising anything but if I get anything done, I'll let you know and I'd be glad to do parts of it together. As I've looked at the files, the XML doesn't look bad but anyhow. Why is it that the version 2.42 of Blender won't open the COB-files as it says that it doesn't recognize the format.

If you mean IFV:s you might be right but awfully many APC:s are still wheeled. There are typically 6 or 8 of those and I agree that 4 is ridiculous unless the wheels are sturdy enough to take punishment without being the most fragile thing in the vehicle. In comparison a MBT has only two tracks, loss of either will disable it. Thing is that with current technology track is much stronger compared to wheel. In the backround story you get that picture that these wheels aren't any aluminum alloy/rubber wheels but very durable affairs on their own. in practise the wheels are rather fragile, but that is just tradeoff for speed.

As I haven't had any combat experience (thank goodness) my experiences are limited to military training and airsoft. While the load I'm carrying when playing airsoft (uniform, gun, lbv) is much lighter that I carried while in training I tire much faster. Even when you're not in any danger (risk of rolling ankle excluded) being constantly on alert and scanning your surroundings even when just moving. Add to that adrenaline and need to constantly adapt to changing situations and energy reserves just disappear. Brain uses humongous amounts of glucose if it is properly stressed in addition to muscles.

Ok, thanks. Preliminary design/modelling work can be done already anyways.

As I have dabbled in 3D-modeling every once in a while I'd like to try to create some vehicles (Aliens-type APC anyone?). How many polygons per model is recommended? It seems that turrets are modelled separately. Any special things that should be noted. I'll be using blender or rhino3D. If you could send the model --> collision XML tool to wendigo (at) deimos.fi I'd be grateful.

Quick note. There are few different things when considering capability to penetrate body armor. If it was as simple(!) as with tank rounds. There is caliber of the bullet which affects the pressure that bullet generates against armor. Smaller diameter --> more pressure --> better penetration. Energy of the bullet which is not only affected by the weight and velocity but the energy retention capabilities of it. Slow heavy bullets (7.62 in general) keep their energy better than modern light fast bullets. The shape of the bullet affects penetration but it can pretty safely be assumed that with rifle bullets there aren't enough variety to affect thing. Round nosed pistol bullets are different thing. Then there is the armor itself. Typically multiple layers of modern aramidtype fiber with ceramic plates on top to shatter bullets and to spread the energy to much larger area in lower layers. Because of this the structure and material of the bullet affects the equation too. It makes big difference whether bullet is lead/steel/DU/tungsten and if it is jacketed/hollow-point/solid/hollow. As the plates don't cover the whole area of the armor the physics change totally when the bullet hits straight to "soft" materials. Then there is of course the normal effects of angle which may change awfully lot depending on the posture of the person wearing the armor. The basics however remain the same however. Typically the best penetrator is thin, long, heavy projectile moving with very high velocity (APDS anyone?). Everything else is compromise

While this would be a nice addition, I'd say that we're not going to see this as BFC has repeatedly said that they aim for maximum realism and "testing" your moves wouldn't be exactly realistic. I mean, the real commanders just gave the orders and hoped for the best. I'm for this feature because trying out some trickier moves beforehand (columns and roads anyone?) might reduce the wailing and gnashing of teeth.. There might be problems because the moves that you test out might not be replicated in the "real" phase due to randomness.

I think that it is up to you. In the eastern front we saw many kinds of leaders. If it turns your stomach don't do it. Me: "Sergeant, [snigger] take that halftrack and surprise the enemy from the rear. We need a diversion." Sergeant: "Tavaritsch commander, you're not doing this to satisfy your bloodlust again, are you?" Me: "[innocent face] Never! How dare you? Now go before I find something else for you to do.. we have that minefield on our left.." Sergeant: " ..on my way..!" Oh, BTW "drawn and quartered"? I understand the quartered part, but how are you drawn?

If we're on the topic of luck in competitive arena, look at sports. In many sports luck plays a definite role. Sometimes even a great athlete fails because of the circumstances weren't favorable or they were even downright aginst him. It is part of the sport and the players aknowledge that. Now people who play in ladder have chosen to play THIS game. They should be aware of the things it implies. As this is highly realistic wargame, it is possible to vehicles to bog, sometimes in the most unconvenient places and times. Been known to happen. The reasons why vehicles seem to bog more in CMBB are believable and as long everybody KNOWS that this is possible it doesn't give any advantage to anyone. But, if player is skillful it all balances out in the end. It will happen to their opponents sooner or later too and by minimizing their own risks and using all the edges they have more skillful player will emerge victorious in the end. High risks are optional, even in chess you might have chosen some hihg risk tactic that depends on whether your opponent spots what you're planning.

System specs: XP1600+ Shuttle AK31+ 256DDR GF3Ti200 SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 Windows XP Pro I have all the latest drivers 4-in-1, graphics, sound, DX9 and I lost all sounds for CMBB. All the other sounds work fine. The sounds just disappeared one day without any apparent reason. I rebooted the computer and sounds were back. This happened a few times and yesterday the sounds didn't come back by rebooting or shutting the computer down. I removed and reinstalled CMBB, nothing. Reinstalled sound drivers, nothing. Ran directsound tests in dxdiag, all OK. Anyone knew what could cause this or how to fix this? Help..? Please? Oh, BTW, I have the AC97 sound disabled from BIOS [ January 10, 2003, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

Once when I was training (I'm a combat engineer) we had an exercise where one squad mined a strip of road (in the winter, snow etc..) and another squad tried to find the mines with the traditional spike(?)probe. It's simple basically. You just push the end of the probe to the ground very gently and try to find anything hard that could be a mine. We didn't have much time to mine the strip (3m x 5m) but still it took us two hours to search the ground (you stick the probe 5 times into 1" x 2" square) and still we missed 20% of the mines. Hiding mines in the battlefield is even easier as the soil is usually already disturbed. Just my 0.03 cents.

One kilogram (~2,5lbs) of C4 (or equivalent) can destroy light wooden building. I've seen it done. Now if you compare that to TNT or Amatol where same mass creates more gasses with lower detonation velocity the effect could be even more devastating. The explosive block was just put simply on a desk in the house (2 rooms, ~50m^2). The walls just blew off and the house collapsed. I'm not sure how shrapnel would add to this. basically it is the overpressure that breaks things in these kinds of situations. If I remember correctly from my training (combat engineer) the most difficult buildings to blow up are solidly built stone buildings whereas wooden shacks would be the easiest. On the second hand, if house is just built by stacking stones with low-quality mortar I suppose those would collapse nice and easy.

Think about all the air that CMBO disc is finally getting after CMBB is out. Beware of the scratches.. maybe is should just purchase another cd-drive so I could keep both discs in at the same time.. hmmm --- It's all in your head

Ok. Found this: "Contrary to what we had thought, flamethrowers were introduced fairly early on. They were first employed by the Germans at the battle of Hooge on July 30, 1915. Flamethrowers consisted of a backpack with a resevoir of compressed nitrogen and a tank containing about ten pints of "liquid flame", usually a mixture of coal tar and benzine. A hose ran from the fuel tank to a nozzle, on which was an ignition device; on pressing the trigger, gas forced the liquid through the nozzle and at the same time the ignition device fired the liquid. The result was a stream of burning liquid with an effective range of about 45 meters." I, for one, wouldn't carry a tank of butane on my back. It probably makes the thrower more effective and easier to use, but is way more dangerous to the user. Although you tend to draw fire anyway carrying that thing on your back.. Nice info about modern use of flame weapons: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-11/toc.htm

If I'm not completely mistaken the flamethrower used fuel (not under pressure) and compressed gas in the other cylinder to press it out. So that means that hit in the other cylinder would spread the fuel around and possibly ignite it but wouldn't cause an explosion. The other cylinder would probably at least *pop* but wouldn't cause much damage (the gas being nitrogen(?) or some other inert thing) -Lasse - It's all in your head