BTR

Good thinking I'll split up later today and let you test some . I kept NMaps vanilla since they are very good to be honest.

What do you regularly use for large file uploads? My current file is circa 500mb's. I could let people test this if they want. Currently done: T-XX seris, UAZ/GAZ/URAL, BMP-3 line, MT-LB line.

With MT-LB's all done, Ural truck is on the list followed by Tunguska.

Just to confirm:

MT-LB land . Been slightly busy over the past two days so I didn't have much time to update. Did MT-LBU for now. I'll have to revisit BMP-3 line since it's coming across as too dark later. I'll get the whole Ru lineup before going there though.

DCS called, it want's its discussion back.

Sounds like a game of chance at 650m, i.e, were T-90AM's vision cones pointed towards the M1A2 things could have been differently. Also, what do experience levels actually represent? Say would a "Veteran" be someone career, or someone who's spent a year in the army?

I've seen 120mm go through T-90AM at about 1000m, so two tin cans are understandable .

I would attribute the reason for lack of DU in Soviet Armoring to weight. Soviet tanks were not allowed to crest 45 ton mark (well, with a degree of freedom here and there), so alternative methods of armoring had to be found. That said, DU is very expensive as well.

Nightly progress: I'll add tac-markings and whatnot after I'm done with all the base textures first. The amount of MTLB's is just outrageous .

Another progress report: Another question, tactical markings, yay or nay? Example: http://i.piccy.info/i9/b8c123787bcaa4f484acfffc80f947e5/1421705561/24359/857457/6.jpg

I'm not doing any weathering atm, so I'm more than happy to let you do your thing why my PSD's. In terms of weathering, I'd take a look at this: http://cp12.nevsepic.com.ua/8-5/1355088535-0882272-www.nevsepic.com.ua.jpg . Shows exactly how and where the rust accumulates.

For RuAF vehicles, I'm currently done with T-72B3, T-90A, T-90AM, GAZ Tigr, BMP-3, BMP-3K, BMP-3M (50% readiness). It's up to you if you want to wait for the rest, but I feel like if you do, we could avoid doing double work .

St Petersburg case: -So NATO would risk fighting ~35% of all active Russian military, surrounding a 5M city using three weakest NATO members being the aggressor and risking a full-blown thermonuclear retaliation for a diversion? I mean, fine, but what would they be diverting? Most of Ukrainian fighting would be handled by Southern MD with reinforcements form Western MD and Central MD's, while fighting in the Baltics would be handled by the bulk of western MD with reinforcements from Central MD's. Kaliningrad case: -So NATO would risk provoking the said ~35% of all active Russian military surrounding the largest naval base in the area with about 14K active fighting land personnel, blockading 440K city being the aggressor and risking a full-blown thermonuclear retaliation for a bargaining chip? Russian intervention into NATO states: -So we would risk provoking NATO reserve mobilization in a region not connected to the operation in Ukraine, straining our economy beyond measure activating over 50% of our active standing personnel, acting the aggressor and thermonuclear retaliation for a bargaining chip? None of those scenarios are adequate or make sense if both sides are fighting a war of limited objectives in the Ukrainian theater of operations. At least to me anyways.

Everyone always needs a quick and decisive victory always and everywhere and the otherwise always results in a nasty slugfest. Thing is, Russia will go for the most limited of conflicts possible in a scenario of Ukranian invasion. No mass movement through neutral states, no show of force in the Baltics, no Black sea blockade or anything alike. Downsizing conflict is both economically and politically viable strategy, while keeping things tight on one operational theater is sound form CnC and logistics point of view.

I think brightening would occur naturally IRL as well with weathing especially during summer time in Ukraine as it gets quite hot. In essence, new: http://primamedia.ru/f/big/582/581344.jpg / weathered (dust and sand): http://www.mil.by/ru/forces/sv/equipment/pics/bronetank/bmp2/IMG_0564.jpg

Full shaders enabled LOD 1 http://imgur.com/ypRFCbu LOD 2 http://imgur.com/MMBg9nM LOD 3 http://imgur.com/PHO3ZG5 LOD 3 from far away http://imgur.com/EEYFZTY I think I understand what you meant by "too dark". Sometimes some sort of processing kicks in between LOD 2 and LOD 3 making all units artificially darker than they are otherwise. I'm not too sure I want to affect the palette due to that occurence. Especially since the brighter appearance is still there. Once I'll release this, I'll include all the PSD's for people to tweak . LOD 2-3 darkening http://imgur.com/cyj7CPi

Checked at 20-200-600-1000m distances, the "darkening" is, if at all there, not visible on my monitor.

Yeah, I'd give that a test, but I keep crashing now .

De-vibrancing 10% seemed to do the trick. I'm fairly happy with the result for now. Bearing in mind it might look different on different monitors.

The other two are left with vanilla colors for comparison. Trying to get as close as possible to this (most comparable in terms of ambient lighting): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8qiZ47lpHXk/TmES9m5IIJI/AAAAAAAAAOE/gL9CEU9g5nc/s1600/T-90.jpg So I might have to de-saturate further.

After several stages I think I've found what looks most authentic in CMBS's lighting (T-90AM in the middle):

I'm partial to proper stocks, so AK wins visually there. Damn rails though.

Personally, I don't think that even the A4 round can go through AM's turret side armor, and towards the outer rim of the glacis.

And, by the way, (please use google translate) - both A-545 and AK-12 are going in for army trials in limited serial production. In effect, nothing is still decided. http://itar-tass.com/armiya-i-opk/1742976