1. Post #2321
    Kardel's Avatar
    January 2014
    199 Posts
    A little while ago I was working a bit on my m1 abrams and what not and I noticed that eh, the breeches on the regular cannons are pretty huge. I mean, my M1 is slightly scaled down but a 120mm shouldn't take the whole length of the turret to contain. Especially compared to the SBCs which have tiny breeches in addition to tiny barrel lengths. If anything it would seem like the SBCs need larger breeches and vice versa.



    Guide:
    Red = regular cannon/short barreled cannon
    Green = approximate end of the main gun inside an m1 abrams.

    Sorry if what I'm trying to get across is eh, a bit jumbled. Also, someone on GGG (can't remember who) told me that cannon breeches in ACF are over sized. Any confirmation on this?

    edit:
    \/ Sorry that I don't feel like reading the entire thread from page 1.
    Currently, Regular cannons have a retardedly long breech, to like fit rounds only stupid cannons that uses 2-piece propellant ammunitions (Possibily, Challenger 2's ammunition, useless shit that only brits would use), while Short cannons have a pretty close to an accurate breech of most of current MBT's (I prefer to call them current or modern, i know they come from CW era) guns.
    I dont think it fits so good on the balance thing as its damn nosense getting more depression and elevation on a shortgun then a regular gun of the same caliber, just with the long barrel. You dont get any extra muzzle velocity neither (Except Short cannons got limited propellant for some stupid reason, even if it basically loads the same ammo)

    Also Challenger 2's ammo is loaded part by part, due to being 2 piece propellant, making it too long to draw it directly from the rack

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Argentina Show Events

  2. Post #2322

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    wonder if it'd be cool to make a checkbox for ammo to set it as single cartridge or two piece, maybe two peice ammo could get a boost in ammo capacity at the cost of rate of fire or something. 2 part ammo might be easier to cram into a box than single ammunition.

    Also, we're testing the heat buff (higher penetrator caliber increases damage to acf components, and muzzle velocity is calculated into the penetration output in the menu.) and a global prop health nerf to give AP more punch (1.5x less hp), and HE is dialed back to compensate. Ferv's also worked out an approximation of penetration ability over range in the menu (0/300/800m)! :D

    If you wish to see the upcoming changes, my server the Dong Den is usually the dev server. 70.42.74.15:27015
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #2323
    Gold Member
    TestECull's Avatar
    July 2007
    9,776 Posts
    HEAT's penetration is totally independent of shell velocity so long as the shell's moving fast enough to trigger the fuse. AP, APHE, APBC, APCBC, SABOT rounds are the ones that have penetration and velocity tied, since thye use kinetic energy to do their work,

    Regarding two-piece ammo: The Russians found it to just in general not be worth it. They tried it in the KV-2(Reload time: >30 seconds), IS-2(Reload time varied between 15 and 45 seconds depending on whether the turret's ready racks were full). It was found to be unsatisfactory, the ability to mix-and-match propellant charges and shell types didn't really make up for the downsides. Idunno how close to reality we should go if we introduce such ammunition to ACF. In the name of fun we may have to do something wildly unrealistic with it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  4. Post #2324
    Gold Member
    MrWhite's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,422 Posts
    I think it'd be neat if (since it sounds like HEAT is actually going to be a threat to ammo crates now) 2-piece ammo were introduced as a way to boost health of ammo racks, at the cost of reload speed and the actual number of rounds you can fit in the case itself.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  5. Post #2325

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    ^ that idea sounds a lot better. wet ammo racks or two piece ammo for stronger ammo crates at the cost of weight or reload speed
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #2326
    Gold Member
    Splambob's Avatar
    January 2005
    1,311 Posts
    If wet racks become a thing and if HEAT is getting a buff because it wasn't a threat to ammo racks, I don't think adding wet racks would help, they'd instead add the side effect that (against tanks that use them) now all shells are a little bit worse vs ammo than before.
    I think competitive tanks are already hard enough to pierce into so if you do manage to dig a hole through a tank and into an ammo box then regardless of what shell you use you should be rewarded with a nice big boom.
    I don't like shitting on useful ideas but I'm saying this because apart from a driver kill (which some people don't even acknowledge as long as the seat's still there), ammo detonation is the marker of a dead tank so the only place where I'd ask for wet racks is within a meta where frontal armour isn't more than 1 meter of eRHA as a standard measure.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  7. Post #2327
    Gold Member
    MrBob1337's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,862 Posts
    a meta where frontal armour isn't more than 1 meter of eRHA as a standard measure.
    What do you mean by that? Are you including the effects of using multiple plates over one big plate and spacing, or is that 1000+ mm of actual "adding up the value of each plate" thickness? If it's the latter, what weight class are these things at?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  8. Post #2328
    Gold Member
    lintz's Avatar
    May 2006
    10,000 Posts
    1kmm+ of effective.

    aka angling your armour at values of like, 20 degrees from the ground.

    pancake tanks.

    speaking of armour though, i heard that different material types were considered. why hasn't that been implemented?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  9. Post #2329
    Gold Member
    Splambob's Avatar
    January 2005
    1,311 Posts
    Yeah I'm talking about effective RHA, taking angle etc into account. For example, here's my 30t:



    It's got angle for sure but I don't consider it to be incredibly pancakey - it's tall, got 60 degrees on the top glacis and there's another 5 degs on the middle applique slats (which people always aim for?!). I'd rather have less angle so I can fit more ammo in but from what I've seen if I don't put at least 60 degs on the front, it just can't compete in a straight slug-fest. I'd love to see some normalizing rounds (applied like the tracer option) to make pancakes less coercive upon the meta.
    btw I'm not suggesting we nerf armour or buff penetration because I think longer fights are more fun and thicker armour leads to that. I'm just saying that once you finally get through the armour you've earned a nice big boom.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  10. Post #2330
    Uberdude9001's Avatar
    March 2011
    223 Posts
    Armor thickness is irrelevant beyond around 650mm(the maximum penetration of very low velocity 203mm HEAT that no one uses). Once you have that you should aim instead for high ductility.

    A tank being a pancake has nothing to do with its slope, there are many real tanks with slopes far in excess of 70 degrees. The slope of the Abrams' upper plate is in excess of 80, and it is a relatively tall tank. You can tell a tank is a pancake solely by its height relative to players, or if its width or length appears ridiculously stretched relative to its height. If the height from the bottom of the hull to the top of the turret plus the 18 inches of ground clearance that most tanks have is shorter than a player, chances are it's a pancake.

    Example:


    And yes, that's a real tank.

    Also, while we're on the subject of pancakes I might as well redpill you guys on several myths that have been spread about them. No, you cannot kill pancakes by using low velocity HEAT to negate their slope. The majority of them have enough nominal armor to prevent this and even with the drop a well designed pancake will still autobonce HEAT. No, they do not rely on slope, although it does help. They achieve most of their weight savings simply by having lower frontal profile. Most importantly, no, they do not have lower side armor than regular tanks. The weight saved on frontal armor can be moved to other parts of the tank.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  11. Post #2331

    October 2011
    445 Posts
    TLDR;

    don't build stupidly short shit
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #2332

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    Yeah I'm talking about effective RHA, taking angle etc into account. For example, here's my 30t:



    It's got angle for sure but I don't consider it to be incredibly pancakey - it's tall, got 60 degrees on the top glacis and there's another 5 degs on the middle applique slats (which people always aim for?!). I'd rather have less angle so I can fit more ammo in but from what I've seen if I don't put at least 60 degs on the front, it just can't compete in a straight slug-fest. I'd love to see some normalizing rounds (applied like the tracer option) to make pancakes less coercive upon the meta.
    btw I'm not suggesting we nerf armour or buff penetration because I think longer fights are more fun and thicker armour leads to that. I'm just saying that once you finally get through the armour you've earned a nice big boom.
    The HP nerf is going to make AP a lot more deadly- it's going to cost a lot more weight to keep your health the same as it was before. Also, you may have all that line of sight protection,, but durability is key. ERA i've found is really good at plate preservation... mitigate as much damage from the main armor as you can.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  13. Post #2333
    Damnation's Avatar
    April 2010
    245 Posts
    ACF r533
    -Added _Beckett's updated V engine models with bodygrouped airfilters and exhaust
    -Added _Beckett's updated howitzer models with bodygrouped recoil and muzzles
    -Added _Beckett's new RAC and HMG models
    -New 2x3x6 and 2x3x8 ammo crate sizes, model courtesy of _Beckett
    -New thin clutch "gearbox", model courtesy of gamerpaddy
    -Fixed standalone electric driveshaft attach point, courtesy of gamerpaddy
    -Added I2 and V4 special
    -1.0L I4 special flywheel mass reduced
    -Large I3 petrol torque lowered slightly
    -Drag halved in ballistic calculations, making long range combat more viable
    -In ACF menu tool, HEAT penetration now accounts for muzzle vel
    -In ACF menu tool, added velocity / penetration estimates at 300m and 800m for AP, APHE, HEAT, HP, and FL
    -HEAT damage increased 25% against engines, fuel, and ammo
    -MGs can no longer fire HE rounds
    -Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 6Agree Agree x 2Artistic Artistic x 1 (list)

  14. Post #2334
    Kardel's Avatar
    January 2014
    199 Posts
    ACF r533
    -Added _Beckett's updated V engine models with bodygrouped airfilters and exhaust
    -Added _Beckett's updated howitzer models with bodygrouped recoil and muzzles
    -Added _Beckett's new RAC and HMG models
    -New 2x3x6 and 2x3x8 ammo crate sizes, model courtesy of _Beckett
    -New thin clutch "gearbox", model courtesy of gamerpaddy
    -Fixed standalone electric driveshaft attach point, courtesy of gamerpaddy
    -Added I2 and V4 special
    -1.0L I4 special flywheel mass reduced
    -Large I3 petrol torque lowered slightly
    -Drag halved in ballistic calculations, making long range combat more viable
    -In ACF menu tool, HEAT penetration now accounts for muzzle vel
    -In ACF menu tool, added velocity / penetration estimates at 300m and 800m for AP, APHE, HEAT, HP, and FL
    -HEAT damage increased 25% against engines, fuel, and ammo
    -MGs can no longer fire HE rounds
    -Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage
    Fuck yes at these
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Argentina Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  15. Post #2335
    Gold Member
    Splambob's Avatar
    January 2005
    1,311 Posts
    -Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage
    Goodnight sweet prince :'(
    (totally adding this back into acf-sweps because it's hilarious)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Show Events

  16. Post #2336
    Oldrid's Avatar
    December 2013
    606 Posts
    -Added I2
    Please make an I1 now too
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  17. Post #2337
    Gold Member
    MrWhite's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,422 Posts
    Please make an I1 now too
    What do you even mean.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  18. Post #2338
    Oldrid's Avatar
    December 2013
    606 Posts
    What do you even mean.
    Literally an Inline 1 engine with perhaps half the power of that I2 which got added. Because, well.
    There's I2, I3, I4, I5, I6. Where's the I1?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  19. Post #2339
    gamerpaddy's Avatar
    March 2009
    579 Posts
    Single = I1

    Hmm, i didnt see my "modified" Inline 3 4 5 and 6 engines in the list, i added bodygroups to remove the exhaust.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events

  20. Post #2340
    Kardel's Avatar
    January 2014
    199 Posts
    Literally an Inline 1 engine with perhaps half the power of that I2 which got added. Because, well.
    There's I2, I3, I4, I5, I6. Where's the I1?
    Holy shit dude, thats a great idea, specially if it looks something like the model we already have of the engine we already have!

    Seriously, do you even know what an I1 is? It has been on ACF for long already, its called Single. You should try it out
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Argentina Show Events Funny Funny x 3Zing Zing x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  21. Post #2341
    Uberdude9001's Avatar
    March 2011
    223 Posts
    While we're at it we could add breeches! For when mortars aren't short enough.



    edit: Maybe, could we get like double or triple V2s too?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Funny Funny x 7Dumb Dumb x 3Useful Useful x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  22. Post #2342

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    needs to be complete with the shell's nose sticking out of it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  23. Post #2343
    Kardel's Avatar
    January 2014
    199 Posts
    While we're at it we could add breeches! For when mortars aren't short enough.



    edit: Maybe, could we get like double or triple V2s too?
    lol'd at the people that rated dumb over an obvious joke
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Argentina Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  24. Post #2344
    Gold Member
    TestECull's Avatar
    July 2007
    9,776 Posts
    lol'd at the people that rated dumb over an obvious joke
    Maybe they thought the joke was dumb? Certainly possible.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  25. Post #2345

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    HMG/RAC models are kind of really terrible, no offense.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  26. Post #2346
    Gold Member
    lintz's Avatar
    May 2006
    10,000 Posts
    i like the HMG models but the RACs could do with a bit of work.

    Edited:

    okay but what the fuck is that muzzlebrake on the HMG?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  27. Post #2347
    Uberdude9001's Avatar
    March 2011
    223 Posts
    HMG/RAC models are kind of really terrible, no offense.
    Yeah, the old-new HMG models were better. Sure, they were just scaled up new mgs but they weren't these box abominations. They also had firing animations, making them higher quality than their replacements.

    There's also the fact that the shells originate 1 foot in front of the muzzle on the new RACs. The model might be ugly, but at least it's better than the last one we had, so I can't complain about that.

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  28. Post #2348

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    i'd be okay with the HMGs if the new models were a bodygroup of the older models. Also, HMGs should probably be more like this, minus the drum

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  29. Post #2349
    _Beckett's Avatar
    June 2012
    372 Posts
    ok here we go...

    Hmm, i didnt see my "modified" Inline 3 4 5 and 6 engines in the list, i added bodygroups to remove the exhaust.
    i think you modify engine origns and after create dupes there were moved a bit - ferv ask me to fix V6 cause i done same thing

    HMG/RAC models are kind of really terrible, no offense.
    well blender is for free - install make new models, send to ferv and if there were be ok - you will have models you want


    okay but what the fuck is that muzzlebrake on the HMG?
    its somehow early mk103 muzzle i find somewhere, didnt liked it aswell but we had bigger problems so i abandon that.. mb in next update i will add more and change that one

    Yeah, the old-new HMG models were better. Sure, they were just scaled up new mgs but they weren't these box abominations. They also had firing animations, making them higher quality than their replacements.

    There's also the fact that the shells originate 1 foot in front of the muzzle on the new RACs. The model might be ugly, but at least it's better than the last one we had, so I can't complain about that.
    again - get blender and make your models - btw you saw that before and even ask me to share it if we dont put it to acf... so really
    that muzzle issue - i think ferv forget to update models i sent him cause i have that ok

    with RACs there is long story anyway...

    i'd be okay with the HMGs if the new models were a bodygroup of the older models. Also, HMGs should probably be more like this, minus the drum
    i make similar model to that one (search on this forum if you want) noone say to set it as regular one so dont blame
    and ye i can make 30000 poly model but i think source will not carry that


    guys nothing personal but... some of you just complaing

    dumb me/disagre me - i dont really care... G night
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Poland Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  30. Post #2350

    June 2014
    90 Posts
    i mean no offense, you are a good modeller, just your choice in design isn't the best suited for legacy purposes of the HMG. The rac is a bit too comical.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  31. Post #2351
    Uberdude9001's Avatar
    March 2011
    223 Posts
    My complaint was mainly directed at the HMG model being changed from a perfectly good one to a funny box thing.

    The RACs aren't too bad, anything is better than what we had before. They do have some scale issues people could exploit. Not only weight, but also size needs to be taken into account when balancing ACF. The new RACs are too small. The receivers on both RACs are much smaller than equivalent autocannons, and the barrels for the 20mm are too short. Elongating them to be roughly the same size as an equivalent autocannon would fix this. I think that's what beatriz means when he says they look comical. If it isn't I don't know what is. They look a lot like an M61 when given more barrels.


    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  32. Post #2352
    Gold Member
    MrWhite's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,422 Posts
    I think the HMG model could be improved by scaling them down and elongating the barrel. I think that the model itself is fantastic in that it's both based on a real gun and that it differentiates HMGs from regular MGs, which is great because they are suited for different applications.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  33. Post #2353
    Gold Member
    TheMrFailz's Avatar
    July 2012
    2,988 Posts
    (Download is taking forever, could someone please post pictures of the new HMG/RAC models?)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  34. Post #2354
    Damnation's Avatar
    April 2010
    245 Posts
    Imo the HMG model is better fitting to the characteristics of the ACF weapon (inaccurate, so stubby barrel, etc). Lazers HMG models are too small, if you compare barrel diameter to AC or other weapons. Maybe I'll have _Beckett replace HMG model with the one beatriz suggested a few posts up, maybe add the boxy one as a bodygroup if it would work. I rather like the boxy model, and to be honest, half the time it's used it's going to be buried in armor such that only the barrel pokes out.

    And that's my bad for not catching the offset muzzle attach point on RAC.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  35. Post #2355
    Uberdude9001's Avatar
    March 2011
    223 Posts
    Imo the HMG model is better fitting to the characteristics of the ACF weapon.
    Relative to the other ACF guns they perform like generic aircraft autocannons (higher rate of fire and lower velocity than their ground based cousins) that have been common from WWII through the Cold War. Basing their model off a very unique example like the Mk. 108 isn't good for people who want to build other aircraft. It doesn't even make sense considering the HMGs can get higher optimal muzzle velocity than the Mk. 108, despite EVERY other weapon type getting less.

    The Mk. 108 was an exotic weapon designed for destroying allied bombers. It is to my knowledge the only weapon of its kind. Basing all the HMGs off it is like basing all the mortars off the Sturmtiger's gun. Beatriz' picture is far more representative of the type of cannons that are common on aircraft(although I wouldn't approve of the huge ammo drum being on our model for the same reason I don't approve of the current ones.).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Winner Winner x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  36. Post #2356
    Gold Member
    MrWhite's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,422 Posts
    The only reason I said that the barrel on the HMG should be lengthened was because the model of cannon it's modeled after (Rhm.B. MK 103/108) is a design based off the MK 101, which was a far heavier autocannon, which has a longer barrel. The ingame model looks sort of squat due to this, however it makes sense from a ballistic standpoint. See, these are autocannons, not HMGs, though the distinct advantages autocannons have were sort of negated with the 103 and 108, which had shorter barrels to reduce the stress on the lower areas of the cannon that had been lightened for fighter aircraft use.



    That is a picture of the MK 101, probably where Beckett got the idea for the muzzlebrake on the ingame model. As you can see, it looks a lot more like our ingame autocannon than a machinegun.

    I still think that, if the barrel were lengthened and the model's size scaled down, the model would be perfectly fine for an HMG. It looks different from the regular MG by quite a ways, which I think is needed to better differentiate them.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  37. Post #2357
    Damnation's Avatar
    April 2010
    245 Posts
    You make a fair point Uberdude, the model could be made more generic to fit a wider variety of contraptions.

    MrWhite, I agree for the most part, but I think scaling the entire model down is not the right way to go, as the barrel is the correct diameter already. Lengthening barrel and shortening/shrinking the box frame, would be better.

    Maybe remodelling it to be similar to Ho-155


    or MG FF (also shown above in Beatriz' post with the drum)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #2358
    withbob's Avatar
    November 2014
    78 Posts
    You make a fair point Uberdude, the model could be made more generic to fit a wider variety of contraptions.

    MrWhite, I agree for the most part, but I think scaling the entire model down is not the right way to go, as the barrel is the correct diameter already. Lengthening barrel and shortening/shrinking the box frame, would be better.

    Maybe remodelling it to be similar to Ho-155


    or MG FF (also shown above in Beatriz' post with the drum)
    Please keep the MK-108 style as a bodygroup. I beg you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Late Late x 1 (list)

  39. Post #2359
    _Beckett's Avatar
    June 2012
    372 Posts
    ferv say - beckett do :V
    just tell what exacly model you want and i will be happy (usually client dont know what he really want:C)

    BTW 2 tasks - one i heard that someone make bomb/rocket addon to acf (cause XCF is almost dead) - i want to support that

    2nd my idea is to create some kind of test server with beta acf pack - like week before release - i know that karbine had last week some kind of that but im not sure did he use new models - after that ppl will not complain about "no I1 engines" anymore :V

    that can make complications but if you really want to see whats new i think you gona download that anyway

    Edit:

    about that hmg model i made in same time as that mk108 (and i post it 3 times here):

    Its in Vray renderer so it will looks worse in gmod for sure
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Poland Show Events Winner Winner x 4Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  40. Post #2360
    Damnation's Avatar
    April 2010
    245 Posts
    Yeah, if possible I plan to keep the mk108 as a bodygroup option, though I'm going to have _Beckett refine it a bit. Currently what I'm thinking is MG FF as main model, with bodygroup option for Ho-155 and MK108. Barrel tips would be matched so that muzzle brake bodygroups would work for all variants. The downside is that the physbox wouldn't match the Ho-155 or MK108, but that's fairly minor.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)