Hev Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Anyone else think the challenger sounds to much like the scimitar? the challenger sounds like a toy tank to me, is there any chance of just making the sound file a little deeper (less tin more base) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Here's a Youtube of Challenger 2 engine at work. Got both the high screech and low rumble (and the marbles-in-a-blender) sounds all at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 And compare that to the sounds of a Scimitar. Actually I was surprised by how similar they sound! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Damn, they do sound alike! guess ill have to get used to it. Not a very scary sound tho is it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I noticed the challenger popping smoke from the engine. Please BFC could you model engine smoke!? It would make a difference to the challenger and entire Syrian armoured fleet (especially the older models) and with 2 smoke commands (target smoke and pop smoke) tanks can choose whether to use engine smoke or the smoke mortars. That and a Syrian truck, but that is for another thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgaroktonos Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Can't talk about Challengers without including this Top Gear clip! I appreciate that they usually cover the sound of the Challenger engine with the Range Rover's or music, and they seem to have edited out the whine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roter Stern Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Can't talk about Challengers without including this Top Gear clip! ROFL! That was a great episode! Best of all, CMSF simulation is accurate enough to precisely replicate Clarkson's field-test of the new Range Rover Sport: http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9545/cmshockforce20090731.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I noticed the challenger popping smoke from the engine. Many tanks can do it, M1's, T-62's, T-72's, T-80's, probably also T-90's... funny thing Germans never use such design solution in Leo2. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Can't talk about Challengers without including this Top Gear clip! "The thing I'm interesting most interested in, though, is the big gun, which, as you can see is rifled for greater accuracy. Unlike those smoothbore American ones, which just hit something . . . <waves dismissively> over there." --Jeremy Clarkson Ah, Clarkson . . . what would we do without your humorously snide ethnocentrism. Rifled vastly more accurate than smoothbore? Hey Jezza, I think you'd find that if you attempted that challenge against either an M1A2 Abrams or a Leopard 2A6, you would lose just as much -- or "as near as makes no odds", as you're so fond of saying -- against either of those tanks as against the Challenger 2. That said, I dig the CR2, especially the Enhanced version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 As one of "Tank Lovers" here i must say that indeed rifled gun is... ehm no, was more accurate than first smoothbores, now accuracy is same, and then again smoothbores have more advantages, they can use more powerfull propelant charges for ammo, have more life time than rifled guns, it is more easy to fire ATGM's from them etc. But also rifled guns have some advantages, they can shoot HEP or HESH like Brits call such kind of ammo, accuracy is still grater when tank crew fire beyond 4000m (but beyond 4000m to shoot accuratly you must use HESH/HEP) etc. So both solutions have good and bad sides. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Here's a Youtube of Challenger 2 engine at work. Got both the high screech and low rumble (and the marbles-in-a-blender) sounds all at the same time. At first I wondered what MikeyD was talking about, when viewing the clip of the challenger at the show. You don't get a real appreciation of the awful grinding marbles until after 2:14 in the clip, when the scene changes. That is serious noise pollution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Here's a Youtube of Challenger 2 engine at work. Got both the high screech and low rumble (and the marbles-in-a-blender) sounds all at the same time. Gah! Kind of sounds like a cross between a forklift and a leaf blower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "The thing I'm interesting most interested in, though, is the big gun, which, as you can see is rifled for greater accuracy. Unlike those smoothbore American ones, which just hit something . . . <waves dismissively> over there." --Jeremy Clarkson There is no "American one". [...] In the 1960s smoothbore tank guns were developed by the Soviet Union and by the experimental U.S.–German MBT-70 project. Based on their experience with the gun/missile system of the BMP-1, the Soviets produced the T-64B main battle tank, with an auto-loaded 125 mm smoothbore high-velocity tank gun, capable of firing APFSDS ammunition as well as ATGMs. Similar guns continue to be used in the latest Russian T-90 and Ukrainian T-84 MBTs. The German company Rheinmetall developed a more conventional 120 mm smoothbore tank gun which does not fire missiles, adopted for the Leopard 2, and later the U.S. M1 Abrams. The chief advantages of smoothbore designs are their greater suitability for fin stabilised ammunition and their greatly reduced barrel wear compared with rifled designs. [...] M68A1 rifled gun The main armament of the original model M1 was the M68A1 105 mm rifled tank gun firing a variety of high explosive anti-tank (HEAT), high explosive, white phosphorus and an anti-personnel (multiple flechette) round. This gun is a license-built version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 gun. While being a reliable weapon and widely used by many NATO nations, a cannon with lethality beyond the 3 kilometer range was needed to combat newer armor technologies. To attain that lethality, projectile diameter needed to be increased. The M68A1's performance in terms of accuracy and armor-piercing penetration is on par with the M256A1 up to 3 kilometers out, but beyond that range the 105 mm projectile lacks the kinetic energy to defeat modern armor packages. M256 smoothbore gun The main armament of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany, manufactured under license in the United States by Watervliet Arsenal, New York. The M256A1 is a variant of the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 gun carried on the German Leopard 2 on all variants up to the Leopard 2A5. Leopard 2A6 replaced the L/44 barrel with a longer L/55. The M256A1 fires a variety of rounds. The M829A2 was developed specifically to address the threats posed by a Soviet T-90 or T-80U tank equipped with Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor. It also fires HEAT shaped charge rounds such as the M830, the latest version of which (M830A1) incorporates a sophisticated multi-mode electronic sensing fuse and more fragmentation which allows it to be used effectively against armored vehicles, personnel, and low-flying aircraft. The Abrams uses a manual loader, due to the belief that having a crewman reload the gun is faster and more reliable and because autoloaders do not allow for separate ammunition storage in the turret. source: wikipedia 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Well Wikipedia is incorrect. M256/L44 120mm smoothbore gun is very different and upgraded derivative of RH-M-120/L44 used on Leo2A1/A5. First, barrel have much grater life time, something about 1200-1500 APFSDS rounds to shoot. Much simpler breach, and other changes, probably upgraded breach. M256A1 was an L55 prototype. I have somewhere and pic of M1A2 or M1A2SEP with that gun, maybe I find it, or maybe not... damn. So, M256/L44 is not and RH-M-120/L44, it is only it's derivative with some changes and upgrades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Interesting. But my point has not changed: ... versions 120mm Rh 120 /L44 smoothbore gun produced under license or weapons identical in their ballistic performance are also used in the following MBTs: M1A1 and M1A2 (USA), K1A1 (South Korea), Type 90 (Japan), Merkava III and IV (Israel), Leclerc (France) and C1 Ariete (Italy). for trials the was also mounted in a Leopard 1. ... Tests with a 105mm and 120mm smoothbore tank gun were conducted simultaneously. The 105mm gun offered the advantage of being compatible with some of the ammunition already in service. a real step forward could be made only with the 120mm, as it was the only gun that offered further growth potential. During development, major difficulties were encountered with the durability of the internal barrel plating. In addition to that, the gun was initially not as accurate as required. The U.S. Army-, which had not made a final decision for a smoothbore gun yet, was not willing to take such a risk and decided to fit the 105mm M68 rifled tank gun in its new M1 Abrams MBT. This was not very inventive as this gun was already in use with the M60 MBT, but it was comparatively risk-free. The Bundeswehr, in turn, had great confidence in the competence of Rheinmetall who was developing the 120mm smoothbore tank gun, and it was willing to take the risk. Source: Lobitz, Leopard 2 MBT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Oh, in that what you quote also are mistakes. Leclerc use French CN-120/26 L52 120mm smoothbore gun, C1 Ariete use OTO melara 120mm L44 gun. The famili of Rhinemetall guns are. German RH-M-120/L44/55, US M256/L44, Israel MG251/L44 and MG253/L44, Japan use licence copy of RH-M-120/L44 with no significant changes in construction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 My point still stands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yes of course, these guns are one family but M256 and MG251/253 are much different from the original Rhinemetall design. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Smaragdaddler already made a point I was going to jump in with. Early in the Rheinmetall gun's development they were embarrassed by a test face-off against the British 105mm gun. The rifled gun persisted in scoring higher accuracy points. That may have been one of the reasons why the Brits didn't fall in line with the common smoothbore gun. The smoothbore gun designers had to jump through a lot of hoops to bring accuracy up, from fanatical quality control on munitions manufacture to fancy metalurgy to decrease barrel flexing during firing. The Israeli Merkava had (last I heard) air-conditioned round stowage to keep the charge temp from going outside of spec for reliable firing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Okay, back to the original topic... I've put together a couple replacements for the Challenger movement sound. Please test both versions (version 1 and version 2) and tell me which is preferred and if volume level is appropiate in the game: http://www.filefront.com/14181935/AKD%20Challenger%20sound%20test.zip Just place the respective versions in your "Combat Mission Shock Force\Data\Z" directory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricochet67 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 The Israeli Merkava had (last I heard) air-conditioned round stowage to keep the charge temp from going outside of spec for reliable firing. So when an Israeli tanker says he's getting a cold one from the fridge, you should run for cover? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Okay, back to the original topic... I've put together a couple replacements for the Challenger movement sound. Please test both versions (version 1 and version 2) and tell me which is preferred and if volume level is appropiate in the game: http://www.filefront.com/14181935/AKD%20Challenger%20sound%20test.zip Just place the respective versions in your "Combat Mission Shock Force\Data\Z" directory. Well, absolutely the version 1 is better,it is a real good sound for C2! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 ah man, I like this! but im all in for test2 sounds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Thanks for the feedback. I have another round to test and compare: http://www.filefront.com/14204753/AKD%20Challenger%20sound%20test2.zip Also, a new idle sound to try: http://www.filefront.com/14204799/AKD%20Challenger%20idle%20test.zip Please be sure to try them out in the game, as they can sound significantly different. Once again, drop the respective versions in your "Z" folder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Just an FYI for the devs: the idling sound for the Challenger ("vehicle loop engine idle challenger2") and the Jackal's movement sound ("vehicle loop move jackal") have a noticeable clicking sound that can be heard as the sound loops in-game. A quick, small trim of this audio file will cause the problem to go away. Something for 1.22 perhaps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.