|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
|
|
June 26th, 2005, 04:26 AM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH (Yeah I know, you don\'t need to say anything)
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Hello all,
I am making an ORBAT for the US Army, dates 1990 - 2020. Is there anyone who would like to help design some FCS icons? I prefer globalsecurity.org as a source, they have some pictures of what looks like small models of concept vehicles.
Kevin
|
June 26th, 2005, 06:53 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Hello Kevin,
I have nothing against new icons (except for the time it take doing), but are you sure something is doable from these pre-concept mockups? Apparently no one agrees yet if the thing will be tracked or wheeled. Oh, sorry, just checked, seems that the latest preview will be the ugly brown tracked box with Ratel-like driver post.
For good pics see:
http://www.jedsite.info/misc/foxtrot...cs-series.html
Hey, I guess the concept will go refining over the time, so I may give that a try when I am free from other icon-related obligations
That means, if you don't mind waiting, then, maybe...
Come on, I guess you can find someone else in between, or am I the only one still interested in icon design in here?
Besides not knowing what the final beast will look like, the FCS will pose another (big) problem, i.e. the networked communication and above all targetting, and the ground unmanned and above all remote-controlled units.
All things currently undoable with this game...
But stay tuned, apparently better info is bound to bubble up anytime now
Cheers,
Plasma
|
June 26th, 2005, 02:01 PM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH (Yeah I know, you don\'t need to say anything)
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Plasma,
Oh ye of little faith. One can simulate all the C2I mods somewhat easily.
1st --> Since the player has a "God's eye" view of the battle field, IVIS systems are not a problem
2nd --> Since the game does not simulate active radar detection, vision can be boosted to simulate UAV's, sensors, etc.
3rd --> We know from open sources FCS will be: 20 tons, less armored (than MBT), engage and kill targets at 6K meters, etc. There is a wealth of info if one digs.
The only things I'm missing are the desiginations.
Kevin
|
June 26th, 2005, 02:03 PM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH (Yeah I know, you don\'t need to say anything)
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
P.S. Thanks for the website info and the other icon mods.
|
June 26th, 2005, 02:26 PM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Quote:
kevin said:
Plasma,
Oh ye of little faith. One can simulate all the C2I mods somewhat easily.
|
OK, let's discuss that
Quote:
1st --> Since the player has a "God's eye" view of the battle field, IVIS systems are not a problem
|
If you mean that the commander ("Lt Col Player") has an instant view of the whole batle field and collects the inf from every sensor at once, right.
Actualy, that is much easier to do in a video game than on the field.
Quote:
2nd --> Since the game does not simulate active radar detection, vision can be boosted to simulate UAV's, sensors, etc.
|
Boost vision of units to simulate other attached units? Sounds weird but might do the trick for now. Just not quite as good as what you could expect . What about ground-launched one-shot UAVs/FOGMs? Maybe time for a new weapon class?
Quote:
3rd --> We know from open sources FCS will be: 20 tons, less armored (than MBT), engage and kill targets at 6K meters, etc. There is a wealth of info if one digs.
|
Alright, the global concept is not a problem, though it can still change until fielding time!
Besides, take a look in MOBhack, check ALL 20 tons, medium armour, KE gun vehicles, and dig out their icons.
See what I mean with unfinished design? I don't rely enough on my mediumnic skills to extrapolate an icons from such general info. That is why I would have personnally waited until release of the first prototype.
From this point it is easier to deduce the final result (i.e. more intricate, ugly and EXPENSIVE ).
And, can you put the FO logic far enough as to count as laser designators, unit-to-unit data link and so on? So one unit can do the FC and the othr one the firing? Remember Apache/Kiowa teams?
Well, do as thou willst, I personnally will wait and see [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon10.gif[/img]
Thank you, Kevin, for putting my feet back onto the right path...
Regards,
Plasma
|
June 26th, 2005, 03:52 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Hehe, Didn't we have this conversation recently Krab?
Something about FRES....
|
June 26th, 2005, 04:05 PM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
C'mon
But when you insist, that's just the same for your FRES!
You bring yourself to no good end by modelling things from pre-project mockups and private venture advertising!
Particularly now all the governments have discovered about 3D design, you can publicize a project in no time, to get everyone in awe, before even thinking about the way of bolting the two first plates together! Fancy worn-off textures don't do for a CAD layout of the fuel circuitry, for one.
And take a look at the JED database, for example, and look at all the things that never, ever went into production, and never will.
http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html
They're easy to spot, they're the ones with one single black&white pic and no user listing
And such things are already clogging the oobs in the game: export versions, funny variants never to be funded, things that reached pre-prod stage and were found useless or not working...
We're not talkng WW2 when everyone fielded any old project, hoping at least to surprise the enemy!
Now that won't prevent me from having a look at these things for modelling purposes
All I meant is that it is still too soon for the FCS.
But the FRES begins to pop up... Let's work on a hull, since no one knows what will be put on it, or for what purpose...
Cheers all,
Plasma
|
June 26th, 2005, 09:51 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
We do know, kinda whats going on it. It's basicly destined to replace the FV432's.
So that's a comand post, ambulance, Troop carrier and AT versions, plus a Recce version.
The ACAVP has a fox turret on it, so we can guess all thsoe spare fox turrets from the Sabre program will be lying around. The AT version will probaly either mount TOW, Swingfire or Javelin, I'd go with Javelin as it's an new program that's currently being brought, and it would help lower the logistics load on it's intended area of opperations.
The APC is faily easy.
The Other Version the Big gun tank destroyer.. Meh. I still don't think the hull will take something that huge.
|
June 27th, 2005, 03:59 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Quote:
Listy said:
So that's a comand post, ambulance, Troop carrier and AT versions, plus a Recce version.
|
Mmh, already ambulance and CP are out of sight for this game heew:
Quote:
The ACAVP has a fox turret on it, so we can guess all thsoe spare fox turrets from the Sabre program will be lying around. The AT version will probaly either mount TOW, Swingfire or Javelin, I'd go with Javelin as it's an new program that's currently being brought, and it would help lower the logistics load on it's intended area of opperations.
The APC is faily easy.
|
Do you really think they will put the Fox turret on an ACAVP chassis? The thingis nearly 40 years old!
I gather the British MoD planners these days tend to be tight and have strange ideas, from what you told, but that pushing it quite far!
From the pics I saw the turret looked really Warrior-like to me. Then again, you may be in a better position to judge these things
What about the dnmaed TRACER thing? Are both program going to merge? They seem to be in nearly the same niche, and that's a bad thing for fundings!
Only one can survive
Look at this turreted version: the Warrior is still worth its weight, the MRAV is coming soon, so there is no need for a third IFV. Therefore the thing must be for recon. So basis metal from Fox turret with delirious optoelectrical sensors plugged in?
Quote:
The Other Version the Big gun tank destroyer.. Meh. I still don't think the hull will take something that huge.
|
Well, What about the MGS on a Piranha III hull? Seems to be working, except some rumors say better not fire 3 or 9 o'clock got to check that, there's been so much lobbying on that thing...
Hey, what about an ATGM version with TRIGAT-LR?
I heard the program was up and about at last!
|
June 27th, 2005, 11:48 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
The ACAVP Does have a fox turret on it. It would make sense form financial point of view, which is what drives MOD policy these days, like the discussion on putting the Rheinmartel gun on the chally so it's cheaper.
Tracer is dead. However the US and UK are using some of the tech from TRACER in FRES and FCS.
Warrior is to heavy to ship by air, as is FMRAV. FMRAV is designed for use just outside of enemy direct fire ranges. FRES is designed to be air portable, for Airmobile forces to use, for all roles such as APC and Tank destroyer.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|