I am okay with this freedom annoying sound but also have to volume down most of the time when playing as a tank crewman too. 😄ACE can solve this problem too if you enable ACE Hearing which muffed sound by wearing any helmet with the headset or ears protection. Mate, This is ALREADY muffled by ACE. The ending part, after 2:05 is without the ear protection. See the difference. Personally, i dont care how loud is this supposed to be in the real thing, this is ridiculous in a game. The iddle inside volume should be halved.
I'm not going to juggle my sound settings every time i enter and exit the tank, mind You, ONLY this family of tanks. Gameplay over annoyance, always. Does the crew helmet reduce the Abrams' jet engine at all? Maybe some tweaks could reduce it but still be our favorite annoying sound xDDo y'all not realize that the Abrams engine is literally a jet engine?Yes it's loud, but that's pretty close to what those f.kers sound like.
Lol.You're lucky they haven't made it so it blows your ears off during acceleration, or the over pressure that could collapse your chest when the cannon fires.To be fair, I do think it could be turned down a bit w/ earplugs/ear protection on, but we can't demand super accurate models/functionality/effects from these guys, then wince at the noise when the sound is accurate.Gameplay over annoyance could mean anything. 1-manning tanks, infinite ammo, god-mode. C'mon people. So far, we've tested the TOW, Kornet, Metis, Cruise missiles, RPG-7, MAAWS, SMAW all of which is RHS, Maverick missiles, Hellfire missiles, even tank guided ones from the T-72s and T-90s.
It eats them ALL. I do have the footage, but I wanted to leave this one.
If there's need, I can upload it all. 🙂Regarding vanilla vehicles, so far we've tested the Wiesel AWC ( Nyx ), AT version, used by the AAF (Greenbacks) and the rocket hit without the system activating on the Armata.Well this is my First ever report, so go easy on me. Ah, I thought it was a bespoke job for RHS. TBH, I was just messing around, seeing if I can recreate the OFP-era soldier with RHS equipment only. 🙂I just found it unusual that only the ERDL variant of the BDU has been added, given the range of camos available for other equipment, such as PASGTs and the like.
I suppose it's there if I ever have an actual need for it.I have to say, the equipment selection in GREF is quite impressive, seeing as the US guy is only missing the period-appropriate rifle. However, the Russian soldier is even better, and he's only wearing ARRF gear. You could probably make an OFP/Afghan-era Soviet faction just out of that mod alone. Good job with the update, I do love the new vehicles.But the T-14 Armata Not gonna say it's OP, but here's some footage of it eating a Cruise Missile.I feel like it's. I don't think the crew should be getting killed from the tank exploding, because all that really means in game terms (and real world) is the ammo detonating and fuel burning. Given what we're told about the T-14, it would seem that the crew should remain unharmed in their little armored capsule even if the ammo is blown to kingdom come. I'm curious to know if it's possible to do that in Arma: have the T-14 blow up, but the crew able to climb out with just minor injuries.But yeah, I've already done testing and had T-14s blown up by frontal shots from Abrams and T-72s.It's really a shame all the beautiful tanks in this mod are so limited by Armas 1999-style simplistic vehicle damage mechanics.
Air Force Links
But yeah, I've already done testing and had T-14s blown up by frontal shots from Abrams and T-72s.It's really a shame all the beautiful tanks in this mod are so limited by Armas 1999-style simplistic vehicle damage mechanics.Again.the T14 armor is really not finished. Also a lot of people confuse reality with 'what they feel it should be' or propaganda.
We simply punch in the numbers we see in blueprints and spec sheets and let the simulation take care of it. Its really that simple. When people say an RPGs shouldn't kill an Abrams etc its meaningless unquantifiable unprogrammable bs. We have a round, it has so and so penetration, we have a frontal sheet of such and suck thickness. Boom turns out it would penetrate. What is true, however, is that ArmA doesn't handle explosions all that well.
Armata excels in protecting the crew specifically, at the cost of protection everywhere else, the turret in particular (even from the front). It would be fine if an ammo explosion didn't kill the crew anyway, because of how ArmA does this. Even early Abrams tanks have blowout panels to prevent just that from happening.Please, keep in mind we still do not have a proper blow off panels and isolated ammo storage simulation implemented.
AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missile developed at the Air Armament CenterActive16 October 1943 – 18 July 2012CountryBranchRoleWeapons SustainmentPart ofGarrison/HQInsigniaAir Armament Center emblemThe Air Armament Center ( AAC) was an (AFMC) center at, Florida, responsible for development, acquisition, testing, and deployment of all air-delivered weapons for the. Weapon systems maintained by the center included the, and the.The Air Armament Center was inactivated as an AFMC center on July 18, 2012, and its functions merged into the former at Eglin AFB. The new organization was renamed as the (96 TW) the same day as a subordinate command of the at, California. Contents.History On May 15, 1940, the at was redesignated the.'
It was redesignated Proving Ground Command on 1 April 1942.: 15In 1989, Mueller said the AAF Tactical Center was designated earlier on 16 October and that it and the subsequent AAF Center were different commands. For example, he cites AAF School of Applied Tactics, c. Mar 1942 (redesignated AAF Tactical Center, 16 Oct 1942) then AAF Center, 1 June 1945.On 27 October 1942 the established the at, Florida. The next year, it was redesignated as the Army Air Forces Tactical Center, on 16 October 1943. In the last days of the war, it was redesignated the Army Air Forces Center, and documentation of the period appears to indicate that the AAF Proving Ground Command at, Florida and the Army Air Forces Center at Orlando AAB were merged as Army Air Forces Center on 1 June 1945.The Air Force Center was the planned USAF unit for development of tactical policy and procedures. The Air Force Center was to be the succeeding unit to the USAAF Army Air Forces Tactical Center, established on October 28, 1943,: 335 and which had become the Army Air Forces Center on 1 June 1945.
Instead, the AAF Center merged into (PGC) to form a new Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command on 8 March 1946. The AAF PGC was redesignated the on 10 July 1946, and raised to major command status. The APGC was moved to the now renamed, Florida, on 1 July 1948.Testing of weapons. This section includes a, related reading or, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks.
Please help to this section by more precise citations. ( April 2015) APGC conducted realistic testing of new weapons as an independent organization, reporting directly to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and advocating a 'fly-before-buy' approach to acquiring new systems.
Such a shift, however, remained a challenge, for the Air Force continued the 'buy-fly-fix' process that had grown from the demands of the and undervalued the importance of timely independent operational test and evaluation.APGC attempted to simulate combat conditions during its tests. It also grew in size as it acquired the systems it tested. By 1956, Air Force regulations outlined an eight-phase test and evaluation process that did not include the APGC until phase seven.
By that point in the acquisition cycle, the Air Force had often already fielded units with new systems that APGC had not yet tested. Not surprisingly, operators often experienced serious problems with these new, untested systems. This led to a misperception about the value of operational test and evaluation (OT&E) and APGC. Had OT&E taken place before production decisions and fielding new systems, there likely would not have been any question about the added value of independent OT&E.As a result of the doubts about the value of APGC and cuts to the defense budget, in 1957 the Air Force stripped APGC of its major command status, reduced its budget and authorized personnel, and redesignated the Command the Air Proving Ground Center, and assigned it to the Air Research and Development Command. This action meant the Air Force no longer had an independent organization that specialized in impartial operational test and evaluation.Decentralized operational testing at the major commands occurred from 1958 to 1973.
Major command emphasis was often on quick deployment rather than thorough testing and impartial evaluations. Although the Air Force streamlined OT&E from eight to three phases during this period, OT&E still came at the end of the acquisition process. In addition, as systems became more complex, and the Air Force moved to acquire systems quickly, the 'fly-before-buy' approach fell by the wayside. The consequences became clear when a Department of Defense study found that 21 of 22 major weapons systems used in the Vietnam War from 1965-1970 suffered severe operational deficiencies. These results strongly stated the case for independent OT&E in the Air Force.The AAC was a focal point for the acquisition of advanced weapons systems.
The center carried out scientific research, system management, production, operational performance, business management, requirements definition, customer and engineering support, technology planning, materiel identification, and field support activities.While 'fly-before-buy' has repeatedly proven its worth in thorough testing of systems and avoidance of later problems, the Air Force even in the twenty-first century remains severely hampered by a 'buy-fly-fix' approach. Literally billions of dollars have been spent in making weapons systems operational after they have entered squadron service. For example, the suffered repeated such problems. When declared operational, apart from nuclear weapons, the only conventional weapon the B-1 could use were free-fall bombs.Structure through 2010.
This section does not any. Unsourced material may be challenged.
( May 2014) To accomplish its mission the Air Armament Center commanded three wings through 2010. The conducted test and evaluation of all air-delivered weapons, navigation and guidance systems, Command and Control (C2) systems, and systems. The 46th Test Wing was inactivated 18 July 2012. Effectively merged to become. The provided installation support for all tenant units. The 96th Air Base Wing was redesignated 18 July 2012. Effectively merged to become.
Usaf Weapons School Patch
The was responsible for the development, procurement, deployment, and sustainment of air-based weaponry including the (JDAM), (JASSM), (SDB), (SFW), (WCMD), (AMRAAM), (MALD). January 13, 2009, at the. Archived from on 2012-12-12.
Retrieved 2012-12-06. CS1 maint: archived copy as title. The 1944 AAF handbook, p. 357. ^ (June 1944) May 1944. (Special Edition for AAF Organizations).
New York: Pocket Books. AAF Tactical Center established at Orlando, Fla.
Mueller, Robert (1989). (PDF) (Report). Volume I: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History. Retrieved 2013-08-15.
^. 10 January 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
Replaced another AAF Proving Ground Command that was disbandedExternal links.