Realistic Armor Fights and Penetration.

[maturin 12]

HEATs don't ricochet a lot unless at a very low incidence angle, probably under 30. Their blast might be more ineffective at a low angle, but they won't ricochet IRL.

Yeah, but HEAT hitting at a 45 degree angle effectively makes the armor thicker by the square root off two times the actual thickness. There's just more to chew through.

And I would speculate that on the particle level of the penetrating jet, hitting at an angle will cause all sorts of irregularities and nonconformities in the jet itself, further reducing effectiveness.

[Bazul14 10]

Yeah, but HEAT hitting at a 45 degree angle effectively makes the armor thicker by the square root off two times the actual thickness. There's just more to chew through.

And I would speculate that on the particle level of the penetrating jet, hitting at an angle will cause all sorts of irregularities and nonconformities in the jet itself, further reducing effectiveness.

I know, and the performance of the jet itself will be decreased because it hits at an angle and some of the jet might end up remaining on the impact surface or what not. However, I did not say that it would not happen, just that HEAT shells don't bounce like the old, WW2 AP shells. Even a modern AP(APDS) shell will not bounce because of its shape. It is made to penetrate even at a fairly big incidence angle.

Anyways, this topic is more focused on on the damage to the major tank parts(turret&hull) from small caliber and HE rounds. HEATs can be modified too, I'm fine with that, but lets remain on the main topic of the thread.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Most of the armor penetration components are in ArmA 2 as of OA (which significantly improved it), the problem is not the armor penetration but oversimplified damage model. There are still only a few different components that can be damaged/destroyed, and while they have other sideffects (such as tracks moving slower, turret not traversing) the vehicles just ultimately blow up when they take enough damage.

The game also seems to use a primitive method for determining how to distribute damage to components (essentially proximity of the the impact point to a rough approximation of the component's location, with some armor multipliers for each component), at least that's what I have observed (there's no way to know exactly what happens under the hood). This means that even components that are not directly hit can still be damaged.

Because we have better penetration modelled in OA however, it could be feasible to actually define hit geometries for each of the components so that damage could actually be determined based on penetration and not just hitpoints. I know from the tests I've done that crew proxies can be killed by rounds that penetrate the vehicle's armor (and the penetration effects the damage they recieve), so it seems probable that a similar system could be used for vital vehicle components (engine, ammo stores, etc..).

Finally, the components themselves could have more meaningful effects on the vehicle when damaged. For example, currently destroying the engine component just causes the whole vehicle to explode. IMO, it should instead just render the engine unusable (no movement, and on some vehicles slow/disable the turret traversal).

It is currently possible to script some of these things, but in the end it still has to be based on hitpoints since if you completely throw out the engine damage handling you also throw out the effects of penetration, range, and angle of impact (which are essentially impossible to practically implement through scripting).

[Bazul14 10]

Neah, that is getting too much in depth. Engine damage and its impact on the driving and vehicle should not be something that is a main concern. And to think of, if the engine is hit, then fuel lines are hit too, and then...boom. Anyways, I was more concerned on the small caliber and HE rounds destroying tank hulls and so on.

[maturin 12]

Neah, that is getting too much in depth. Engine damage and its impact on the driving and vehicle should not be something that is a main concern. And to think of, if the engine is hit, then fuel lines are hit too, and then...boom. Anyways, I was more concerned on the small caliber and HE rounds destroying tank hulls and so on.

Uh, losing an engine is too much depth? You're shitting me.

Engine failure is an everyday occurrence with choppers in this game. Popped tires disable car. It should be the same for tanks and planes.

Mobility kill, firepower kill, crew kill and catastrophic kill should all be results that are very common.

And if you think that this is boring, or less Hollywood and exciting, you A) should be playing another game and B) have never played ACE 2.

You haven't ever killed a tank if you haven't sent its turret hurtling twenty meters into the air. And I've never laughed harder than when I've set a tank's engine on fire and had a had for the hills, careening all over the place and trailing an inferno. Default behavior manages to be boring, gamey and unrealistic all at the same time.

[Beagle 684]

Neah, that is getting too much in depth. Engine damage and its impact on the driving and vehicle should not be something that is a main concern. And to think of, if the engine is hit, then fuel lines are hit too, and then...boom. Anyways, I was more concerned on the small caliber and HE rounds destroying tank hulls and so on.

Diesel fuel does not explode easily and there are automatic shutoff valves. The statement that a destroyed engine makes a tank explode is not true...also keep in mind that a 47L engine block that is the size of a compact class car will stop any projectile.

Mobility kills are much more frequent than total destruction and mobility kill to modern MBT is possible to do with a high power 20mm autocannon Rh202 MK20

from rear or side impact...but total destruction is a fully different thing.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Beagle

[maturin 12]

Mobility kills are much more frequent than total destruction.

And they make for much better and more dramatic gameplay. Imagine, a tank gets one lucky rear hit with a rocket and is stranded in the middle of the battlefield as infantry start to swarm in the for kill, trying to stay out of the way of its still functional guns.

[Beagle 684]

And they make for much better and more dramatic gameplay. Imagine, a tank gets one lucky rear hit with a rocket and is stranded in the middle of the battlefield as infantry start to swarm in the for kill, trying to stay out of the way of its still functional guns.

exactly

[helo 10]

I would also welcome a more realistic damage system, like AC projectiles and AT missiles deal very little damage at the front part of a tank, but will have a certain % chance to deal much more damage at the flanks or at the rear of a tank in shape of a penetration chance. However that might eat up additional CPU power:( .

[maturin 12]

However that might eat up additional CPU power.

Everything eats CPU power. But unless you have the game trying to do calculations for a torrent of armor-piercing rounds, I don't think it's going to lower you framerate. (And rapid fire weapons can be optimized with a dedicated simplified system.)

Rather, if your CPU is over-committed, there will simply be at worst an interval of several seconds between the time the missile strikes and when your turret stops working. This is what very rarely happens on my sub-par PC with ACE's system.

[Bazul14 10]

Well, in that case, mobility kills would be welcome too, but they might require more coding. However, the increase in the front armor's resistance to low caliber and HE rounds will require some coding too. I think that we should try to settle for a minimum in order for the DEVs to implement them into ARMA2. Otherwise, this will end up like the other 9000 suggestion threads....

[maturin 12]

Well, in that case, mobility kills would be welcome too, but they might require more coding. However, the increase in the front armor's resistance to low caliber and HE rounds will require some coding too. I think that we should try to settle for a minimum in order for the DEVs to implement them into ARMA2. Otherwise, this will end up like the other 9000 suggestion threads....

I think the best way to get BIS to implement changes is to have the ACE team do it, thus shaming them into replicating it in the next expansion.

OA was essentially ACE Lite. ACE developed variable grenade throwing, FLIR, crew damage, sight adjusting, etc, then BI made simplified versions of all those systems.

[johncage 30]

Ace made horrible versions of what BI was going to do anyway.

[Beagle 684]

Ace made horrible versions of what BI was going to do anyway.

Yes. the ACE guys somtimes do forget that we have to play the GAME with a mouse and a keyboard on a monitor.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I think the best way to get BIS to implement changes is to have the ACE team do it, thus shaming them into replicating it in the next expansion.

OA was essentially ACE Lite. ACE developed variable grenade throwing, FLIR, crew damage, sight adjusting, etc, then BI made simplified versions of all those systems.

Sorry but that is a complete load. The way a mod team implements things compared to how BIS does usually are completely different (BI can make changes to the engine, mods cannot). These features were probably implemented because of popular demand, whether or not ACE already provided them.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[Bazul14 10]

Exactly, it is the popular demand, not a bunch of guys that release mods. Mods are fine too, but the actual release by ARMA2 would be infinitely better.

[maturin 12]

Sorry but that is a complete load. The way a mod team implements things compared to how BIS does usually are completely different (BI can make changes to the engine, mods cannot). These features were probably implemented because of popular demand, whether or not ACE already provided them.

Half the community sneers at the game without those improvements.

Everything under the sun is in popular demand. Go look at all the ridiculous feature requests on devheaven. How are they supposed to sort through all that?

Don't underestimate ACE's capability to demonstrate what features are truly popular, not to mention possible. It's like a giant testbed for new features.

BIS will always do it their way (and thank god that ACE grenade system is gone), but wildly popular mods are crystal clear indications of what the community wants and what pays off.

[Bazul14 10]

Wait, devheaven is community made or ARMA2 made? I mean, does BIS rule it or the modders?

[maturin 12]

The Arma 2 Devheaven is BIS-controlled.

And did anyone notice how the OA credits were chock full of easter egg references to popular mods? They even said Mando Missiles would be adopted by the U.S.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Don't underestimate ACE's capability to demonstrate what features are truly popular, not to mention possible. It's like a giant testbed for new features.

Fair enough, but this is only valid to a certain extent. In this situation, the implementations would probably differ so significantly that IMO ACE should not be considered at all. I can see using popular mods like ACE to guage the community's reaction to possible new features, but it's still important to consider the implementation. For example, poor implementation of a feature by a mod (resulting in poor popualrity) should not be an indication of an unwanted feature. It is also important to consider that those who like certain features in mods don't necessarily represent the rest of the community. Personally, I really don't like ACE, and I would be disappointed if the next iteration of ArmA featured most of the features from ACE. Chances are, the people who like those features form the majority of community members that actually give feedback; people who don't like particular mods typically don't voice their opinions as much. Thus, using a mod to judge community reaction can be quite biased, so I would warn BIS to be careful if this is infact a strategy they use.

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

The Arma 2 Devheaven is BIS-controlled.

And did anyone notice how the OA credits were chock full of easter egg references to popular mods? They even said Mando Missiles would be adopted by the U.S.

Last time I checked dev-heaven is community-run, so it is not an official part of BIS. It's certainly helpful for them, but it's not under their control. Also, references to the community are simply that (many games have these); I doubt that has any reflection on their design decisions.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[johncage 30]

Half the community sneers at the game without those improvements.

Everything under the sun is in popular demand. Go look at all the ridiculous feature requests on devheaven. How are they supposed to sort through all that?

Don't underestimate ACE's capability to demonstrate what features are truly popular, not to mention possible. It's like a giant testbed for new features.

BIS will always do it their way (and thank god that ACE grenade system is gone), but wildly popular mods are crystal clear indications of what the community wants and what pays off.

The Ace situation is an abortion. Until BI fixes the way multiplayer mod compatibility works, Ace is more of an inconvenience then an asset.

[maturin 12]

Fair enough, but this is only valid to a certain extent. In this situation, the implementations would probably differ so significantly that IMO ACE should not be considered at all. I can see using popular mods like ACE to guage the community's reaction to possible new features, but it's still important to consider the implementation. For example, poor implementation of a feature by a mod (resulting in poor popualrity) should not be an indication of an unwanted feature. It is also important to consider that those who like certain features in mods don't necessarily represent the rest of the community. Personally, I really don't like ACE, and I would be disappointed if the next iteration of ArmA featured most of the features from ACE. Chances are, the people who like those features form the majority of community members that actually give feedback; people who don't like particular mods typically don't voice their opinions as much. Thus, using a mod to judge community reaction can be quite biased, so I would warn BIS to be careful if this is infact a strategy they use.

My initial post was, by the way, hyperbole. But it is true that OA is like ACE Lite.

Last time I checked dev-heaven is community-run, so it is not an official part of BIS. It's certainly helpful for them, but it's not under their control. Also, references to the community are simply that (many games have these); I doubt that has any reflection on their design decisions.

Who pays the bills for the domain doesn't matter. BIS devs have control over accepting and rejecting the tickets. It's a vital tool in development and they make decisions based on it.

And what the community thinks matters far more with this series than with other games. You should see what things are like on the beta patch forums. These people have enormous amounts of influence simply by participating. I've seen devs respond to personal requests for scripting abilities to help individual people with their missions. BIS has no method short of divination of gauging what the rest of their customers think, so unless they want to invest in some in-depth market research the noisy win.

[Bazul14 10]

So wait, will I need to make a ticket there or this thread is just fine?

[maturin 12]

If you want anyone to notice, best make it a ticket.

But I really don't know why you'd bother. BIS knows full well that their hitpoint system is pathetic and that everyone hates it. They know how to do a better one, but it's not going to come in any old patch. It's hugely complex and worth another expansion.

[Beagle 684]

So wait, will I need to make a ticket there or this thread is just fine?

If you want to make sure the issue is aknnowledged, make a ticket at DevHeaven. But I have to inform you that the issue is known to BIS for ten years now.