ATF Power Tool Kit Questions

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
First question on my attempts to make a Stryker unit database.

When I open up the ATF Power Toolkit program and open the Database. I see three data files. First one is Database1, which is the main data for ATF. The second one is labeled Infatry_Database which is from the scenario Basra Attack. And the third one is labeled Kbdatamodern which I also know is from Kbluck.

When I open the database1 to add the Stryker vehicles data I must save it as a different file, ie Strykerdata. Why?

Why can’t all the new data that is added by the players be saved in the main database file? Sometimes it is a hassle going from one database to another.
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
That was done for multiplayer. We have protected all of the ATF files to prevent anyone from "cheating" by changing vehicle stats.

In retrospect, it was probably a poor decision, since no-one PLAYS multiplayer. The only issue that remains is that if everyone saves their database with the default name, some scenarios will work with one version of the database, while others work with others. You might never know what database you have or if it will run with a given scenario.

It really is a "best design practice" to rename your database so it can be distinguished from others.
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Pat Proctor said:
In retrospect, it was probably a poor decision, since no-one PLAYS multiplayer.
I have to say I play multiplayer in fact I owe NORAD a game. I'm ready whenever he is ready to try it again :D

---John
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Second questions on Power Tool kit :D

When I add new pieces to the database. I added the ICV and the MGS chassis and named the new vehicles and the tile size. Do I need to add the turret for the ICV and the MGS like I did for the chassis. Or does that come later when I create a vehicle?

Flash Graphics, is it necessary to do it? And if yes, how for a turret?

Also, when I'm adding the MGS to the database under the BIOS Flags. Should I check mark the Artillery and Attack?

---John

Forgot I had another question :nuts: I take it that there will be a need to make a destroyed stryker vehicle image?
 
Last edited:

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I would add the turrets to the piece list BEFORE I add the vehicle. Otherwise, you will have to stop editing the vehicle, add the graphic, and then go back to editing the vehicle (*waste of time*).

The flash graphic entry anticipates future implementations which may or may not happen. If you add the data, then, should the feature be implemented later, you will not have to go back and change your database. Right now, however, the entry does nothing.

The BOS flag for MGS should just be attack. As far as I know (in fact, I am damn near certain) the MGS has no indirect fire capability. The gun, though 105mm, is the same that used to be on the original M1, not the 105 for the M102 or M119 howitzer.

In ATF, all of the vehicles use the same destroyed vehicle marker (I think it is "destroyed_M113"). You can certainly add additional graphics for the destroyed strykers, but you can also just use the same one all of the other graphics use.
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Pat Proctor said:
I would add the turrets to the piece list BEFORE I add the vehicle. Otherwise, you will have to stop editing the vehicle, add the graphic, and then go back to editing the vehicle (*waste of time*).
Ok, so let me get this stright :D I should add the turret first as a new piece to the database and name the new vehicle as Stryker ICV. Then add the chassis next as a new piece to the database and name it also as Stryker ICV? Is that correct?

I'm not that hard to make understand what your saying :nuts: I just want to do it right the first time.

---John
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
It doesn't matter what order you add the PIECES. However, you SHOULD add all of the pieces before you add the vehicle DATA to the database.

It won't hurt anything if you do it out of order. It will just take more time because you will have to stop adding data for the vehicle, add the piece, then go back to adding the data.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
You know,...it sure would be cool if the program could use .gif images so we could animate things like burning vehicle hulks and moving track and...


Never mind - I was hallucinating again!
 

KG_Norad

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
972
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
My Ears Were Burning...

John Osborne said:
I have to say I play multiplayer in fact I owe NORAD a game. I'm ready whenever he is ready to try it again :D

---John
Was not quite sure you were ready. Let me check my schedule and I will drop you an email soon. :devil:

Michael:ar15:
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Some more questions. :D

Again on the Bios Flag for the ICV I would check off troop carrier and dismount. What about Towed? Does it mean that the vehicle can towed another vehicle or that it can be towed?

Smoke Attribute: What are Burst Release and Number of Smoke mean?

What would the NATO Piece be? Infantry?

What is the purpose of a Hit Graphic and a Help Picture for?

What determines the View Range? By the equipment on the vehicle or by the naked eye?

What about Percent Infa-Red and Percent Night-Vision is it used in the game? And how and where can I find the info for this vehicle?

Turret Attribute. The Stryker ICV as a mount that is a RWS. To me that is not like a turret but to show that it can turn without the vehicle having to turn to fire the weapon. I must show it as a turret. My question is where can I find the height, length, width and turn speed for it. Plus what is a View Direction?

Well that is enough questions for now. I hope I didn't get you or anybody else mad. I just need to ask these.

I will start tomorrow to add the ICV, and MGS to the Stryker Database. As soon as I get the rest of the vehicles from Deltapooh, I will add the rest of them and start to work on the scenario.


---John :cool:
 

Ivan Rapkinov

Harpoon Forum Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
I'll give it a whirl :)

John Osborne said:
Some more questions. :D

Again on the Bios Flag for the ICV I would check off troop carrier and dismount. What about Towed? Does it mean that the vehicle can towed another vehicle or that it can be towed?
dismount means the unit IS a dismount, not can dismount. Towed means is towed.

Smoke Attribute: What are Burst Release and Number of Smoke mean?
Number means the amount of times it can be used
Burst (I think) means its fires multiple rounds - not sure if the Number = number of rounds, or number of bursts in this case.

ie 8 smoke = 8 fires, but 8 smoke w/ burst = 2 fires?

What would the NATO Piece be? Infantry?
Friendly Mech for ICV

What is the purpose of a Hit Graphic and a Help Picture for?
aesthetics :D wasn't implemented afaict, and isn't particularly necessary in this least cosmetic of games :)

What determines the View Range? By the equipment on the vehicle or by the naked eye?
for the ADF vehicles, I assumed the the optics in the vehicle for view range - if it's naked eye, why is it different for vehicles of the same type, but with different equipment?

What about Percent Infa-Red and Percent Night-Vision is it used in the game? And how and where can I find the info for this vehicle?
same as above, but I got my info from various manufacturers brochures and websites - if I can do it for obscure aussie equipment, then you can sure as hell do it for the Stryker :D just google for Stryker, optics, etc

Turret Attribute. The Stryker ICV as a mount that is a RWS. To me that is not like a turret but to show that it can turn without the vehicle having to turn to fire the weapon. I must show it as a turret. My question is where can I find the height, length, width and turn speed for it. Plus what is a View Direction?
Maunfacturer's website, probably even Us army docs, given they write everything down.

as a fudge, I'd say the RWS would be 0.4m tall, 0.2m wide, and maybe 0.2m long (without weapon) it's not exactly huge.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
What about Towed? Does it mean that the vehicle can towed another vehicle or that it can be towed?
Checking the Towed box has no effect in the game. The ATF engine was designed with a number of features. Not all these are available in the current game.

Instead, we switch between showing the piece with towing vehicle, and just the piece by using the "Emplace" attribute and adding the piece without the towing vehicle to the Emplace graphics.

John Osborne said:
What would the NATO Piece be? Infantry?
If you are using Kbluck's database, you can use the Friendly Wheeled Infantry Piece.

John Osborne said:
What determines the View Range? By the equipment on the vehicle or by the naked eye?
Use both. If it just the necked eye, keep range low. If you have radar, like the AH-64D, you should increase visual range. It's not a precise science. You have to do some guessing, and try to balance those figures with average combat conditions.

John Osborne said:
What about Percent Infa-Red and Percent Night-Vision is it used in the game? And how and where can I find the info for this vehicle?
As Ivan pointed out, alot of the information is available on the Internet. You can also gain this information by reviewing Field Manuals. They usually discuss vehicle specifications as well as how battlefield conditions might effect these numbers. Just because the manufacturer say a vehicle can see 5,000yds (Example), doesn't mean that it can in combat. Poor conditions, the enemy shooting at you, etc, can truly degrade the effectiveness of equipment.

On the other hand, it can improve it as well. Example: During the Battle for 73 Easting, E/2-2 ACR tank crews fired at a rates above Army standards. All they needed was the motivation of impending doom!

John Osborne said:
Turret Attribute. The Stryker ICV as a mount that is a RWS. To me that is not like a turret but to show that it can turn without the vehicle having to turn to fire the weapon. I must show it as a turret. My question is where can I find the height, length, width and turn speed for it. Plus what is a View Direction?
Ivan is likely accurate on the measurements. It is very, very small. I blew it up to 1600% in photoshop to draw and paint. That's double for my standard paint zoom scale for vehicles.

I'll be sending more vehicles real soon. I got side-tracked by an experiment that didn't work. :mad:
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
Turret Attribute. The Stryker ICV as a mount that is a RWS. To me that is not like a turret but to show that it can turn without the vehicle having to turn to fire the weapon. I must show it as a turret. My question is where can I find the height, length, width and turn speed for it. Plus what is a View Direction?
Actually, independent movement is not a function of the turret attribute. Any weapon not marked coaxial can traverse independently of the vehicle.

The major issue with turrets or no turrets is twofold:

1. Does the assembly contain the vehicle's primary vision devices? In other words, will the vehicle be most likely to spot enemy in the direction the hull is facing, or the direction the weapon is facing?

2. Is the assembly large enough to justify separate resolution of damage? Turrets may have independent pKs, for example.

Positive answers to one or both of these questions would justify the addition of a turret. A weapon that is merely pintle-mounted would not.

In the case of Stryker ICV, the RWS does include vision devices, and arguably that is how the vehicle commander is likely to observe the battlefield. So, yes, I'd say it should be a turret for that reason.

What is the purpose of a Hit Graphic and a Help Picture for?
I think neither works at the moment. Hit Graphic is not implemented to my knowledge, and I think Help Picture is implemented but broken.

Smoke Attribute: What are Burst Release and Number of Smoke mean?
Burst release means it issues a single smoke "cloud" and then stops until ordered to smoke again. Otherwise, it will continue emitting clouds at the rate specified by "time to release" until ordered to stop smoking or it has exhausted its supply. "Number of smoke" indicates how many clouds it can generate. "Opacity" indicates how well thermal viewers can see through it. Chemical type smoke like hexachloroethane or ammonium perchlorate is fairly transparent to thermal, but inciendary smoke like white phosphorous blocks thermals pretty well, because the smoke particles are "hot". The downside of WP is that it is usually of shorter duration than chemical smoke, the fairly modern US M825 155mm round being a notable exception thanks to its advanced design. Most vehicle grenade systems are WP.

What determines the View Range? By the equipment on the vehicle or by the naked eye?
This is largely a matter of opinion, heavily colored by game play. A number of factors are involved.

1. How many eyes are searching? Most tanks have terrible visibility, mainly because there are a very limited number of eyes able to devote to searching, and even those are frequently distracted. The gunner has great optics, but a very restricted field of view. Real world, most spotting is done by the commander, most frequently by sticking his head out the hatch and using binoculars. Targets are identified using optics, but usually spotted by naked eye or binocular. The exception, of course, is very poor visibility, when optics are usually your only real option, but this invariably results in greatly reduced spotting rates, even when advanced devices like thermal viewers are available.

2. A related question --- are the crew likely to be looking? For artillery pieces, for example, they tend to be focused on their crew task. So, I'd give howitzers and mortars greatly restricted view ranges, not because they can't see farther, but because they usually just aren't paying attention. Conversely, recon units are likely to have a larger view range than their equipment might indicate, because their primary mission is to look for things, and they are carefully trained how to do it properly.

3. Game considerations. The spotting engine is a major sink for processing power. Expanding view ranges requires an exponential expansion in processor time to service it. So, in general, you want to give as many units as possible the least possible range you can justify. If they are not big "spotters", rachet them down --- why use up extra cycles needlessly?

Note that view range is not limited to the stated value. Actual view range varies based on terrain and visibility. The database value is just a "base" for the engine to determine relative spotting capability. In general, here are my recommendations:

1. Recon/radar units: 5000 meters (overrides type below).
2. Dismounts, attack helos: 3000 meters.
3. Tanks, APCs: 2500 meters.
4. Artillery, engineers, lift helos, other support: 1000 meters.
5. Fixed-wing air: 500 meters.

This is based on some playtesting. My database does not yet reflect these values, so don't be surprised.


If you are using Kbluck's database, you can use the Friendly Wheeled Infantry Piece.
No, use "wheeled mech infantry", the same as used by the BTR. Stryker is really nothing more than a fancied-up BTR, after all.

******

On a side editorial note, I am still mystified as to why the Army went to so much expense and trouble to produce an APC that has few if any advantages over a modernized version of the proven M113 design, and quite a few significant disadvantages. The only explanations I can come up with is that the Piranha chassis looks "sexier", and perhaps MOWAG has better lobbyists than FMC.

At least I know why the USMC preferred the LAV-25; it had better amphibious performance. I'm sure the Army has largely obliterated that advantage in the process of "decorating" the Stryker vehicles.

--- Kevin
 
Last edited:

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Thanks to everyone who replyed back to my questions :D I hope I didn't get anybody upset with these questions. I will probably have more in the future

Alot of the specs for the Stryker our classifed so some of the info that I ask is not easy to get for this vehicle.

Kbluck, said that the Stryker isn't nothing more then a fanced-up BTR.

So should the pK be the same then?

I got this protection levels for a Stryker vehicle.

Integral
  • All Around 14.5mm
Applique
  • RPG-7
Overhead
  • 152mm HE Airburst

---John
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
Kbluck, said that the Stryker isn't nothing more then a fanced-up BTR.
It is actually fairly comparable to a BTR-90, but that's not in the DB.

In game terms, its slightly better than the M113A3, but definitely worse than the M2 Bradley. Adding the bolt-on would bring it more or less to parity with the Bradley, in weight as well as protection.

Those "protection levels" you mention are, of course, valid only in the best of all possible laboratory conditions. It should in no way be taken to mean that a Stryker is "immune" to 14.5mm MG fire, just that a catastrophic kill will be relatively low odds. Given the highly vulnerable tires with questionable run-flat capabilities, I am dubious about Stryker's ability to operate effectively in the face of even 7.62mm MG fire. The Marines' experience with the LAV-25 under fire in Kuwait is not encouraging. This is unfortunately the sort of "real world" issue that MILES just can't simulate --- or rather, it could, but the stakeholders don't want it to.

Actually, a considerable number of Stryker ceramic armor plates recently failed even optimistic laboratory tests against 14.5mm fire. The manufacturer is hurriedly adding plain old steel plates to beef them up before shipping them out.

--- Kevin
 
Last edited:

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
kbluck said:
It is actually fairly comparable to a BTR-90, but that's not in the DB.

In game terms, its slightly better than the M113A3, but definitely worse than the M2 Bradley. Adding the bolt-on would bring it more or less to parity with the Bradley, in weight as well as protection.

Those "protection levels" you mention are, of course, valid only in the best of all possible laboratory conditions. It should in no way be taken to mean that a Stryker is "immune" to 14.5mm MG fire, just that a catastrophic kill will be relatively low odds. Given the highly vulnerable tires with questionable run-flat capabilities, I am dubious about Stryker's ability to operate effectively in the face of even 7.62mm MG fire. The Marines' experience with the LAV-25 under fire in Kuwait is not encouraging. This is unfortunately the sort of "real world" issue that MILES just can't simulate --- or rather, it could, but the stakeholders don't want it to.

Actually, a considerable number of Stryker ceramic armor plates recently failed even laboratory tests against 14.5mm fire. The manufacturer is hurriedly adding plain old steel plates to beef them up before shipping them out.

--- Kevin
Hi Kevin,

My next question would be is that I'm having a hard time trying to fiqure out what the pk would be for the Stryker.

---John
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
My next question would be is that I'm having a hard time trying to fiqure out what the pk would be for the Stryker.
Like I said, slightly better than the M113A3, but definitely worse than the Bradley in the default armor configuration. Comparable to the Bradley when supplemental armor is bolted on.

--- Kevin
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Well,

I was going to answer some of these, but everybody seems to have the questions under control ;)

One thing I would say about Stryker and "applique" armor is that the Stryker can not be airlifted in a C-130 with the armor because it is too heavy. So, if you are doing any kind of "initial entry" scenario, the Strykers should be sans applique armor.

You can bet your tail that the Strykers going to Iraq will have applique armor. It isn't very good press for the contract manufacturer OR the "Objective Force Army" advocates for CNN to be filled with pictures of burning Strykers ;)

I guess it might be worth it to do several Stryker variants for your database (the graphics can all be the same)- (i.e. stryker w or w/o armor, Mk-19, M2 .50 cal, etc.).
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
One thing I would say about Stryker and "applique" armor is that the Stryker can not be airlifted in a C-130 with the armor because it is too heavy. So, if you are doing any kind of "initial entry" scenario, the Strykers should be sans applique armor.
You're not kidding. In fact, they barely fit without it, if you dismount everything external and deflate the tires. The Air Force has to issue special safety waivers to fly them in C-130s, because they exceed long-established load safety requirements. Nor can the entire crew ride on the same plane with the vehicle. It can't be airdropped, either, because it won't fit in the rails. Helicopter lift is out of the question. The MGS as presently designed won't fit in a C-130 at all.

The M-113, on the other hand, fits without any problems whatsoever, crew and all. You can airdrop it, too. If you stuck the MGS turret on top, it would still fit. If you designed bolt-on armor for it (oh, wait, several countries already did), the C-130 could carry that on the same plane, too. You can even sling-load it under a Chinook. Don't try that with a LAVIII.

You can bet your tail that the Strykers going to Iraq will have applique armor. It isn't very good press for the contract manufacturer OR the "Objective Force Army" advocates for CNN to be filled with pictures of burning Strykers
They might as well, since the only way they can deploy a brigade for the forseeable future is by ship. Airlift is completely impractical given current stocks of the necessary C-5s and C-17s. I hope they don't have to get off the hardtop roads much, either, because with that supplemental armor bolted on, the ground pressure on the wheels becomes ridiculously high, and they'll bog down whenever the ground gets even slightly soft. So, remind me --- if we still have to use ships, what was the point of this Stryker thing again?

***********************

If the Army was supposed to be developing an organization that was supposed to maximize deployability while retaining armor and heavy weapons, I just can't figure any logical reason to select an out-of-inventory vehicle family that will take considerably more sorties to deploy, requires maximum use of scarce heavy-lift transports like C-5 rather than the relatively numerous mediums like C-130, won't ride in the CRAF 747s at all, has poor intra-theatre redeployability, and which becomes practically road-bound whenever it rains. I have to conclude there were other considerations thought to be more important than providing our troops with the best solution for the least cost. I'd just like to know what they were.

Oh well.

--- Kevin
 
Last edited:

Ivan Rapkinov

Harpoon Forum Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Kevin, I take it you're one those who think the US should have stuck with the M113, and upgraded the armour and fire systems?

here's a link to the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) that are obsessed frankly w/ the M113A3 "Gavin" as they call it after Gen. James M. Gavin - they're against the Stryker, and have a published a book on their concept of Air-Mech Strike.

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/index.htm

if you can get past some of the M113 propaganda, they have some good points.

On a similar note - the ADFs new M113AS4s (with 12 road wheels instead of ten, fully enclosed turret, applique armour etc etc) are fully transportable by air, yet our ASLAVs aren't :D
 
Top