C-4

Petey · Post by **Petey** » 2007-10-22 14:14

I noticed that the engineer's C-4 is way weaker than the insurgents c-4,
is it possible to make it stronger?

Cp · Post by Cp » 2007-10-22 14:44

Now, im no coder but I do have the awesome ability to open .tweak files with my notepad and I cant see much difference between the insurgent IED and the normal C4

these lines are copied from:
insrg_ied.tweak

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionMaterial 80
ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionForce 25
ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionDamage 3000
ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionRadius 12

c4_large.tweak

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionMaterial 80
ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionForce 25
ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionDamage 3000

I cant find any "ObjectTemplate.detonation.explosionRadius" in the c4_large.tweak for some reason. I dont know what it does but it dosent seem to effect the C4 in its absence.

either the problem lies in that non existing line or its just that the ambushers IED feels more powerful due to him getting two IEDs while the engineer only gets one charge of C4.

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-10-22 14:56

Petey wrote:I noticed that the engineer's C-4 is way weaker than the insurgents c-4,
is it possible to make it stronger?

Why you think that engineers C-4 is weaker? Maybe Warrior IFV is weaker than other APCs?

ryan d ale · Post by **ryan d ale** » 2007-10-22 15:33

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't LAV's tend to have lighter armour hence the L. IFV's are usually NOT amphibious (unless it's Russian....because everything Russia floats, to some extent) therefore they can have more armor because it is a fighting vehicle rather than an armored carrier.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-10-22 15:46

ryan d ale wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but don't LAV's tend to have lighter armour hence the L. IFV's are usually NOT amphibious (unless it's Russian....because everything Russia floats, to some extent) therefore they can have more armor because it is a fighting vehicle rather than an armored carrier.

Dude I hate to take a thread off-topic but I can't help but wonder about everything Russian floating? Is that seriously true?

On topic:

Can't say I've ever noticed any difference, in-game... both C4s generally seem like they're too strong to detonate with ANY friendlies within 200m (due to the high level of idiot-magnetism attraction between C4 and blueys) yet too weakly to ever really kill whatever it is you slap it onto the side of.

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-10-22 16:12

ryan d ale wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but don't LAV's tend to have lighter armour hence the L. IFV's are usually NOT amphibious (unless it's Russian....because everything Russia floats, to some extent) therefore they can have more armor because it is a fighting vehicle rather than an armored carrier.

It is all about the laws of physics. You can have the same armour protection and maintain floating ability by increasing size of the vehicle without drastically increasing its weight. Notice that Warrior IFV is smaller than LAV or other APCs.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-10-22 21:36

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:Dude I hate to take a thread off-topic but I can't help but wonder about everything Russian floating? Is that seriously true?

Well it seems like the Russians have a amphib in very vehicle class. Amphib tank (PT-76), amphib APC (BTR-60PB), Amphib car (vodnick, BRDM), even airborne Amphib IFVs (BMD).

ryan d ale · Post by **ryan d ale** » 2007-10-22 22:59

Thanks for answering for me Teek

Don't know if Russian rifles float though rofl

and thanks Ragni... I think I learnt something today!

zardez · Post by **zardez** » 2007-10-23 01:20

its not about the weight of the vehicle that makes it float... its about how much water it takes on with it compared to how much air is trapped inside. but i think one c4 charge should blow the sh*t out of anything tank apc whatever

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-10-23 08:50

zardez wrote:its not about the weight of the vehicle that makes it float... its about how much water it takes on with it compared to how much air is trapped inside.

Air trapped inside? Simple wooden boat have no air trapped inside and it floats

Here read something about Archimedes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

Archimedes' Principle (try to understand it):
"A body immersed in a fluid experiences a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid".

As you can see it's all about volume and weight.

PS. Sorry for offtop.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-10-23 11:12

Teek wrote:Well it seems like the Russians have a amphib in very vehicle class. Amphib tank (PT-76), amphib APC (BTR-60PB), Amphib car (vodnick, BRDM), even airborne Amphib IFVs (BMD).

But do they have floating cows, houses, rocks, potatos and cheeses?

Actually, does cheese float naturally? I haven't got a clue.

*Wanders off to find an unsuspecting cheese*

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-10-23 11:19

ryan d ale wrote: Don't know if Russian rifles float though rofl

*cough*

The APS Underwater Assault Rifle is a derivative of the AK47, designed in the Soviet Union in the early 1970s for use underwater by frogmen or combat swimmers. Underwater, ordinary-shaped bullets are inaccurate and very short-range. As a result, this rifle fires a steel bolt caliber 5.66 mm (especially designed for this rifle and is often mistaken as 5.56 mm) and 120 mm (4.75 in) long. Its magazine holds 26 cartridges.

Doc_Frank · Post by **Doc_Frank** » 2007-10-24 10:41

Petey wrote:I noticed that the engineer's C-4 is way weaker than the insurgents c-4,
is it possible to make it stronger?

Jonny mentioned it before, it's not a C4.

"The ambusher carries the Saiga-12 shotgun which can be loaded slugs or buckshot. He also carries 2 improvised explosive devices (IEDs). One of them is proximity triggered while the other one is remotely detonated (currently represented by a mine and C4)." RTFM

The explosives they use IRL can blow huge craters in the concrete, I suppose it's alright if these IEDs are stronger then a C4 charge.

Slightly off: if the IEDs would be modeled in .7 the remote bomb could be a backpack, which would drop like a stone (or an ammo pack), while the proximity bomb should have better concealment as compensation. (Since the real ones are usually dug under the ground or a small device triggers the bomb next to the road, the bomb could be even a small rock in PR.)

Post by **OkitaMakoto** » 2007-10-24 16:22

Exactly. His c4 is not really just regular c4, its a placeholder for an IED. Therfore, its different anyway. And just going by the coding someone posted, its explosion radius is tweaked (unless you didnt copy the c4's and they are, in fact similar) so it does damage to a greater area, meaning more chances of getting more vehicles/people.

So, IED does not = c4, in short.

agent · Post by **agent** » 2007-10-24 18:08

i have noticed that the apc's and land rovers are much stronger than the toyota pick -ups and the subaru grocery getters..... wtf make their c4 stronger? get real dude

Petey · Post by **Petey** » 2007-10-25 13:37

agent wrote:wtf make their c4 stronger? get real dude

whoa whoa have u not seen a real video of an IED explosion???
shits huge!!!!

Doc_Frank · Post by **Doc_Frank** » 2007-10-25 13:44

Petey wrote:I noticed that the engineer's C-4 is way weaker than the insurgents c-4,
is it possible to make it stronger?

^ That was your post.

agent wrote:i have noticed that the apc's and land rovers are much stronger than the toyota pick -ups and the subaru grocery getters..... wtf make their c4 stronger? get real dude

^ That was agent's post.

I think you need your sarcasm detector updated.