• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fandango831

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

274 profile views
  1. Being that I've been inside of an Iraqi T-72 which are pretty similar to their Syrian counterparts, and seen how easy it is to set off the autoloader from simple shaped charge munitions I'd definitely hedge my bets that that RPG-29 penned the reactive armor just above the rounded magazine burning into the autoloader which set off the round set to be racked on the reload cycle. This would explain the billowing out of the barrel and then the catastrophic internal detonation blowing out of the crew hatch ala the "flame out". So yes it was ammunition that went off but it wasn't the whole rack which makes sense as the soviet autoloading spiraling racks are designed to protect in one-third portions in the case of a catastrophic penetration to prevent the turret from blowing off or worse becoming a bomb amongst friendly supporting troops. Instead it would have been the preset rounds charge going off along with a few of the powder charges in the rack. Also agreeing with SpecialAgentJohnson no one uses gasoline in tanks anymore. Maybe some third world countries might and even militia forces who can't afford large stores of diesel, or have pre-cold war tanks. But almost every nation uses diesel in their tanks including the Syrians. So that burn was most definitely not related to a gasoline explosion. Also that RPG-29 hit the hull on the reactive armor just above the ammo rack on the autoloader not on the external fuel stores or primary fuel tank. On top of that if the fuel stores did burn out it would have either resulted in an external burn, complete vaporization of the external fuel store on impact, or the internal tank on modernized Iraqi and Syrian T-72s blowing out of the engine compartment, not out of the upper crew hatch thanks to the modified venting systems used on board those tanks to protect crew from fuel fires.
  2. I'd just love to see vehicles not exploding anymore on "mission kills". Sure maybe ammunition cooking off if a vehicle has ammo to burn off in the first place but no more of the vehicle boom effect. I'd rather just see the explosion from the round or rocket impacting if the vehicle even gets killed by an HE weapon, vehicles burning up (HE) or remaining mostly intact minus a riddled hull(AP), tires popping or melting if the vehicle does burn up, and that really be all. Sure it won't be as Hollywood-esque but man would it look and feel better. To the OP no one in that T-72 survived. Pretty sure the guy running was in cover behind that tank and is lucky the concussion from that blast didn't kill him. As for the crew they all roasted alive or just died from the RPG penning the reactive armor and setting off the ammunition. Gunner and Commander died on the rocket penning and the driver probably cooked after the autoloader went up, but yes I'd love to see ammo loads going up as long as it is appropriate. Most tank kills are crew kills with usually a fairly intact exterior.
  3. As Dubs said most of the effects have been toned back for optimization reasons. I wouldn't sweat it. Using some logic here but if V10 can reduce enough of the stress that is pulled from the currect physics and animation system then maybe just maybe some of these visual effects can be turned back up and or have new details added to them. Only time and patience will tell.
  4. Jumped in for a couple of matches and until they fix incoming bullets sounds I'm not diving back into RS2. I don't get why one of the most critical audio pieces to any tactical shooter is missing in this game. Was fine in Beta Wave 5 and 6, but since that interim build it's been all sorts of bad (missing). Aside from that it's clearly no RO2 or HoTW, but it's fun to play. If you enjoy a more run and gun experience frosting on top of your tac shooter cake then I guess this could be the game for you. Hopefully they present more patch work in the coming days.
  5. Someone is working on a mod for introducing the Canadian Armed Forces. As an American who's worked hand in hand with the PPCLI hopefully we'll see the Canadians sooner than later.
  6. I like that also. Then you get into the idea of jamming nets at FOBs. I'm sure signal corps personnel would be thrilled at the idea of electronic technical systems being brought into play hahaha. Either way distance, tracking, signal strength, and accuracy all have to be taken into account if this "GPS" effect is going to be left in the game for the long haul. Otherwise just chop it out.
  7. To add to a point in my earlier post if the "GPS" effect is to be left in for the IED then a counter should be available for the system. I would propose signal strength. The further from the user the less accurate the signal until it exceeds tracking range which could be made a short distance of 150m. This would in theory "replicate" cellphone signal tracking and hence could potentially fill in that gap also without making the "GPS" effect an overpowered system used to track things across the entire battle map. I however would still prefer to see the system removed entirely, and use other systems down the road for actual Intel gathering and reconnoitering.
  8. Last I checked in life and I could be totally mistaken considering I love to eat crayons but IED stood for Improvised Explosive Device not Improvised Tracking Device. In all seriousness towards the topic that sounds like a bug that needs to be removed. I can see the point some players would have of "I took the time to sneak the IED on so I should reap the reward of doing so", but if that is the case then how does that bode for balancing purposes especially in the INS game mode? Unless other factions have a similar tracking methodology then it would be an easy call but they don't. Most IEDs are either line of sight command detonated or they are rigged to a timer hoping for a set result but they are not GPS guidance devices. Hopefully it's a simple fix to remove traceable marker and nullify any unbalanced advantage that could be used from the placement system. I would also assume that any placeable not just IEDs can result in the same tracking effect.
  9. Not that I could see. Spent 15 minutes switching back and forth and didn't really see a difference in the in-game effects.
  10. My guessing list for new AT down the road: 9K115-2 Metis-M (Militia) 9M133 Konkurs (Insurgents) BGM-71 TOW (USA/British FOB deployable) NLAW (British) FGM-148 Javelin (USA) 9K133 Kornet (Russia) TBG-7V warhead or the addition of the PGO-7 optic I'd guess that the addition of hardware and ATGMs following the implementation of heavy armor. New LATs may also come too depending on balance and the like. If there are new LATs i'd guess those to be things like the AT4 or the M2 Carl Gustav, but that's major speculation on my part.
  11. I will definitely give that a try. Crayola salad here I come.
  12. Haven't munched on enough of them yet. I'm a fan of how the blue ones taste though.
  13. I'd guess sarcasm?
  14. I gotcha. Then yes to your last point it's all a matter of patience friend. Also I'm unsure if we'll ever see optics for the RPG. I'd love to see the PGO in game however not until the US and future British units receives a more balanced LAT that makes up for the ranging advantage of optic assisted AT.