OOB #13 (USMC) Error Report

[Marek_Tucan]

I would suggest Abrams at size 5 and M60A1/2/3 size 6 - it's pretty tall beastie.

[Listy]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

I would suggest Abrams at size 5 and M60A1/2/3 size 6 - it's pretty tall beastie.

What Size is a M3 Bradley? They're quite tall as well.

Edit:
M1: 8ft
M60: 10ft
M3: 9.6ft
Chally2: 8ft

[Suhiir]

5 works for me, I'd assumed the 6 was based on some obscure code thing we mere players have no clue how the game deals with.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

I would suggest Abrams at size 5 and M60A1/2/3 size 6 - it's pretty tall beastie.

Agree if base size mainly on height most Western tanks inc Abrams about 2.4-2.5m so size 5. Russians generaly slightly lower profile so size 4. Think Asia generaly size 5 to
Big Boys M6 series & Leo 2 at 3.0m+ so size 6
Merkerva borderline size 6 to possibly have not checked game size.

[Imp]

Don Andy things like this general research put it out there sure many people are happy to share the load.
People could post what they find, additional posters could post if diffrent or just say verify post by so & so. Perhaps ask to quote sources if remember & verify if your source is diffrent.

Same thing applies to things like adding a weapon slot that require all scenerios to be redone.
If a team is willing to do could assign 2 to each scenerio to update & then check against the others work.

[Pats]

Originally Posted by Imp

Agree if base size mainly on height most Western tanks inc Abrams about 2.4-2.5m so size 5. Russians generaly slightly lower profile so size 4. Think Asia generaly size 5 to
Big Boys M6 series & Leo 2 at 3.0m+ so size 6
Merkerva borderline size 6 to possibly have not checked game size.

Leo 2 is only 2.8m, but the hight can't be all the criteria for the size can it?
So size 5 for MBT or medium tanks looks fine to me.

[Imp]

Leo 2 is only 2.8m, but the hight can't be all the criteria for the size can it?
So size 5 for MBT or medium tanks looks fine to me.

Agree M6 is the really big boy at over 3.0m but Leo2 is closer to 3 than 2.5m.
Its a case of where do you draw the line hence mentioned Merkerva as I think a couple were quite tall.
I would say its not the only criteria but is the major one as unlike front & side it is a constant regardless of facing.
Its a questimate any way unless you actualy work out the profile in metres square or whatever. A tall vehicle with a turret would probably offer slightly less area than a non turreted vehicle whose height was mid way between the hull & turret heights of the other vehicle.
The Leo2 just strikes me as being a bit bigger than the norm.

[Pats]

Originally Posted by Imp

Agree M6 is the really big boy at over 3.0m but Leo2 is closer to 3 than 2.5m.
Its a case of where do you draw the line hence mentioned Merkerva as I think a couple were quite tall.
I would say its not the only criteria but is the major one as unlike front & side it is a constant regardless of facing.
Its a questimate any way unless you actualy work out the profile in metres square or whatever. A tall vehicle with a turret would probably offer slightly less area than a non turreted vehicle whose height was mid way between the hull & turret heights of the other vehicle.
The Leo2 just strikes me as being a bit bigger than the norm.

Just saying here, if you base it manly on the hight and even the whole siluete from the side, all trucks (especialy the haevy ones) should have size 6 (they're abote 3.5m high over the whole length...)

[Imp]

Thats a fair point but trucks are generaly a soft target. Front shot damage is likely to engine or driver side shot need to hit something solid like the chasis or sails straight through with minimal damage. Might hit a few passengers but trucks pretty intact.

Ages back saw a program dispeling Hollywood myths in which they fired light arms at close range at an modern civilian SUV, pistols SMG at under 500m. The idea was to dispel the myth of exploding vehicles.
They were surprised as shots were mainly aimed below the glass line as it drove past so repeated the test with semi auto rifles.
In both cases the vehicle was still driveable though the radiator was gone so not for long so concluded to stop it you would need a lucky hit on engine management box or some such.
They also found modern vehicles with all safety gear like airbags steel crash bars etc designed to soak up energy did just that.
The first test the crash dummy was hit once but the impact was so slow it was a very minor wound, fired 500 rounds if I remember.
2nd test it was hit 3 times but only 1 bullet had enough energy to cause a serious wound & it was not life threatening, the adreneline rush of the moment would have left the driver capable to continue.
Conclusion if its close get the shotgun out of the squad car & shoot for the glass.
Also said in an older vehicle the occupants would probably have suffered worse due to less junk on the vehicle, safety gear wire looms etc but the vehicle its self would probably have survived even better wth a proper chasis & simpler mechanics.

Was a TV program though & firers were local SWAT team so probably some ex military

[Suhiir]

I've long toyed with the idea of making jeeps, hummers, trucks, and the like "smaller" to reflect the fact that it's harder to get a hit that matters on them.
But then, I've also played games where a tank fired it's main gut at a truck 3-4 times before hitting the damn thing
So I've concluded that somewhere in the game code is something that deals with the issue fairly well so left it alone.