Realistic Armor Fights and Penetration.

[Bazul14 10]

Well, even if it is so, it still remains important, and I hope the devs will do something about it.

[Bazul14 10]

And if there could be some crew damage,but that might be too much to ask for.

[max power 21]

There is some crew damage. I seem to remember there being much more in OFP. Sometimes you would get out of the tank unaware that you were hurt and you wouldn't be able to walk!

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

Either Ace or something like this mod could help for penetration:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=9651

Although dont think it was designed with realism in mind, more of a need for a longer lasting fight.

As for Tank FCS I think BIS should implement a system into the tanks, I had the Tank FCS by Nowonderdog in my Mod for Arma,

heres a vid of a test mission I recorded in 2009 that somewhat demonstrates this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHJhw7-uRY

the numbers bottem middle were the range, it was a laser designation system where the distance from another tank was displayed,

when the numbers turned 0000 then you had no distance or no lock.

There also was a lead type of designation where if an enemy tank was moving your tank would lase it and then compensate

your sites for the lead so you could hit a tank on the move.

This is basically the mod I am talkign about, has 2 vids to demonstrate, as well as alot of information detailing on how the system worked:

NWD TankFCS

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2217

As for penetration the same modder had a mod for infantry weapon ballisitics and penetration nothing for tanks though:

NWD Ballistics

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1776

Obviously this is all for Arma, but I really do think BIS should really review alot of the mods in the community and implement them,

or maybe upgrade them and integrate them.

Nice post. I didnt know about these as stand alone mods.

How hard is it to adapt these to OA?

Edited March 10, 2011 by JojoTheSlayer

[Inkompetent 0]

Nice post. I didnt know about these as stand alone mods.

How hard is it to adapt these to OA?

Depends. Porting the tanks to a playable state is probably fairly easy (if one doesn't care about the graphical juicyness of ArmA2), but to implement it on existing vehicles is impossible unless the model is available to be edited, because to work properly the tank need to have an accurately modelled gun sight in the actual tank model, not just as a texture (which is how it works per default in the game).

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

Depends. Porting the tanks to a playable state is probably fairly easy (if one doesn't care about the graphical juicyness of ArmA2), but to implement it on existing vehicles is impossible unless the model is available to be edited, because to work properly the tank need to have an accurately modeled gun sight in the actual tank model, not just as a texture (which is how it works per default in the game).

Oh, so the mod isnt "just" the targeting computers, but you have to alter the tank as well to insert the "accurately modeled gun sight"? Still though, it would be cool to try it in A2 even with Lada paint job on the tanks.

I will ask another question while I am at it.

I have probably downloaded all heavy armor mods I have come across, but none of them are OA ready (gun elevation mainly).

Why? Is it that hard to make a A2 MBT mod into OA ready?

[Beagle 684]

There is some crew damage. I seem to remember there being much more in OFP. Sometimes you would get out of the tank unaware that you were hurt and you wouldn't be able to walk!

And sometimes you get killed inside the tank by a fatal hit not killing the tank itself. Happens in T-72, T-55 and T-34 a lot.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

There is some crew damage. I seem to remember there being much more in OFP. Sometimes you would get out of the tank unaware that you were hurt and you wouldn't be able to walk!

Yea but this is also extremely simplified. Crew damage is essentially equal to the damage taken by the vehicle (only always slightly less). So unless you start off wounded or you repair your tank, you will never die before the tank does.

[wolfbite 8]

Does the game have just hitpoints? SUrely a basic penetration system could be made by giving each round an AP value and when a round hits the vehicle only rounds with a high enough value wil count as damaging....

Because I shot a blackhawk with the SMAW and it took 2 or 3 shots before it was destroyed.... making the blackhawk some kind of flying tank....

Yeah so an AP value and Damage value should be on each round... Just my Idea

[max power 21]

It boils down to just hitpoints but there are a number of factors determining damage to vehicles.

There's the hitpoints of the over all structure. Once those are depleted, the vehicle is destroyed.

There's armor, which is the all up strength of the vehicle. This number is compared to the vehicle's physical size to give a measure of how hard it is to damage.

There's a minimalHit statistic that is like a high pass filter for damage. Nothing lower than a certain percentage of the vehicle's damage gets through.

There's armourStructural which governs how much damage the vehicle's totalDamage gets from other components that are set to have hits passThrough.

There's hit zones with hit points around the vehicle. Stuff like tracks, engines, tail rotors, glass, fuel tanks, what have you. Depleting those hitpoints have special effects. Each different hit location has a trait called passThrough which tells the computer whether or not to pass this damage on to the vehicles' structure. The engine compares the volumes of these hit zones to the total volume of the model so that it can't pass on more structural damage than its share.

Each of these hitpoints are defined as 3d volumes in the hitpoint LOD of the model. Each of these 3d volumes can have a .bisurf file defined in an rvmat. These files define what effects the surface uses once hit, and also the density of the material. So, the 3d shape defines the armour thickness and the bisurf file defines the density per component. There's a thickness parameter too which defines the thickness of the walls of hollow shapes.

Penetration of these components is solved by Newton's impact depth formula for bullet class simulations. This forumula compares the dimensions and density of the projectile to the density of the component that was hit.

Where it gets a little shaky for me is how shotShell simulations are handled. Dwarden told me that the simulations in Operation Arrowhead might be a little more complicated or advanced than what I have written here.

[Beagle 684]

The reason helos have such high amounts of hitpoints is to make crash landings possible and lead to crash landings rather than blowing up in the air when hit by MANPADS. This is exploited in player vs. player games by using the arcade repair function of Trucks and egineers. The same goes for APCs. It is well know that sabots and HEAT don't necessarily detroy APCs simply because the armour is to thin to have an effect. Thats why APCs have been given enough Hitpoits to survive the first hit and let the survivign crew bail out while the vehicle itself is out of function

Thisis called a "kill" in the real world. A defeated target does not have to explode in a fireball chalking one up in the scoreboard, that's arcade thinking and belongs into the realm of online multiplayer matches on arcade level liek Domination warfare etc.

This gamemodes are no real military procedure simulations as this wold only frustrate players (remember OFP missions where you turned into a seagull for the resmaining time after being killed)

ArmA II is much more a game with arcade elements compared to how OFP was played.

It's still my favorite arcade game but it teaches to use wrong tactics just because this wrong tactics do work in the game.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Beagle

[savagegoose 10]

thanks for the info max power.

my attraction to this thread is my love of an old game M1 tank platoon.

in that game a hit could bounce, cause a mobility or firepower kill or a total kill.

i see the FCS mods for tanks, and wondered if a more realistic component hit system would ever come about.

but then id like a ww2 version also. at least there armour and penetration performance is not all secret and restricted info

[max power 21]

In ArmA you can have mobility, firepower, or catastrophic kills as well. If you destroy the tracks or much of the engine, the tank is not easily movable. If you hit the cannon, it becomes inoperable. If you hit it hard enough or enough times, it will explode.

[Bazul14 10]

I seriously don't get what you are talking about. Please, stick to the subject of this topic.

[max power 21]

I seriously don't get what you are talking about. Please, stick to the subject of this topic.

What don't you understand? This is the subject of the topic.

[kireta21 13]

In ArmA you can have mobility, firepower, or catastrophic kills as well. If you destroy the tracks or much of the engine, the tank is not easily movable. If you hit the cannon, it becomes inoperable. If you hit it hard enough or enough times, it will explode.

Inoperable cannon: yes. Mobility kill: Only in PvP.

Unfortunaltely AI escapes from immobilized vehicles. While IRL you may just turn tank into heavy armored pillbox in ArmA2 mobillity kill is no different from "regular" kill.

Edited March 14, 2011 by boota

[savagegoose 10]

i imagine of a round penetrated and destroyed some stuff maybe killed a crew member. there would be an instinctive urge to bug out before the next round hit. and maybe killed you.

ie sometimes a mob kill might cause crew to abandon the tank but yeah not all the time.

and maybe based on moral or training levels crew is supposed to have

[Ollie1983 10]

It is well known APCs are not.... because their armour is too thin....etc etc....

Yeah, whatever....:D

If you are hit I guess the first priority is to avoid a fire breaking out or rounds cooking off, you will also try to move the tank and get it out of the line of fire. Possibly while returning fire, because you can be sure they are going to fire at you some more or at least machinegun you if you bail out.

Being hit by modern ammo is not a good day out. Explosions in confined spaces, red hot shrapnel pining around at high speed...

Edited March 16, 2011 by Ollie1983

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Each of these hitpoints are defined as 3d volumes in the hitpoint LOD of the model. Each of these 3d volumes can have a .bisurf file defined in an rvmat. These files define what effects the surface uses once hit, and also the density of the material. So, the 3d shape defines the armour thickness and the bisurf file defines the density per component. There's a thickness parameter too which defines the thickness of the walls of hollow shapes.

I have not seen any ArmA 2 MLODs (nobody except BI should have) but on the ArmA models, the so called hitpoint volumes appeared just to be approximations; just a named selection of vertecies equally spaced around the geometry. I assumed then it was based on distance, since these vertecies didn't explicitly reference any specific geometry components. Is there more to it? Can the engine determine precisely which discrete component geometry was hit and not just approximate how to distribute the resulting damage?

During some tests I performed, the biggest problem seemed to me that the damage is distributed to nearby components based on proximity. For example, a Sabot to the side turret armor of a T55 often resulted in heavy damage to the track on that side (even though the track was not directly hit). I ultimately figured that it was because BI set the Sabot rounds to be explosive, and that it didn't really matter what the indirect hit damage was, that it still distributed the damage when the round had explosive = 1.

Still, in the end it's still only using hitpoints. IMO with some use of crew proxies it may be possible to create an addon that uses the game's penetration (which IMO seems adequate) model to add more complexity to the damage model. It would also be interesting to try editing the passthrough setting for all of the hitpoints so that the vehicle doesn't completely explode when a component is destroyed. Then you could just add better looking damage textures so the destroyed components don't instantly turn black when they're hit, and IMO it would probably look and feel right for the most part.

[max power 21]

I have not seen any ArmA 2 MLODs (nobody except BI should have) but on the ArmA models, the so called hitpoint volumes appeared just to be approximations; just a named selection of vertecies equally spaced around the geometry. I assumed then it was based on distance, since these vertecies didn't explicitly reference any specific geometry components. Is there more to it? Can the engine determine precisely which discrete component geometry was hit and not just approximate how to distribute the resulting damage?

I'm not privy to any information you aren't, but my understanding is that for the firegeoLOD is a simple representation of the visual model, but it is what is actually being hit. Nothing that isn't on the firegeoLOD has anything to do with 'getting hit'. I think that the damage sharing between components was OFP's simulation for effects like spalling and damage to components behind the armour hit. They have a more complicated system now with the ability to make armour plates. That code would still be useful for handling damage to the crew in the case of a penetrating hit, but it seems a little counter-intuitive for damage spilling out to the tracks. I think of the tracks hit zone as incorporating the road wheels, suspension, and drive train on that side of the tank. If you think of it that way, it seems slightly less ridiculous.

Still, in the end it's still only using hitpoints. IMO with some use of crew proxies it may be possible to create an addon that uses the game's penetration (which IMO seems adequate) model to add more complexity to the damage model. It would also be interesting to try editing the passthrough setting for all of the hitpoints so that the vehicle doesn't completely explode when a component is destroyed. Then you could just add better looking damage textures so the destroyed components don't instantly turn black when they're hit, and IMO it would probably look and feel right for the most part.

In the end, I think every conceivable system uses hitpoints. More complex systems just generalize on the number and function of the components with hitpoints less. Even if something is either damaged or it's not, this is a system using only 1 hit point.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

In the end, I think every conceivable system uses hitpoints. More complex systems just generalize on the number and function of the components with hitpoints less. Even if something is either damaged or it's not, this is a system using only 1 hit point.

It all depends on the use though. It would seem that, with the vanilla damage model, even though there is appropriate material penetration and different components in the hitpoint LOD, there is a very poor mapping of these factors to actual damage (hitpoints). Because of this, it really doesn't matter where you hit a tank. I mean, even if you hit just a wheel, it the engine still applies significant damage to the rest of the tank.

Your statement makes me believe that you completely missed the point of my post. It doesn't matter what technically is or isn't a hitpoint. The point here is that the granularity of the system is too simple. Currently, there is still only one overall hitpoint value that makes all the difference. And while there are some individual components that can be damaged and effect the vehicle in different ways, it is masked by the fact that a single hit to any location can potentially destroy/damage a completely unrelated component, and they all essentially chip away at the same set of hitpoints.

The only way to significantly improve it IMO is to increase the granularity of damage model, whether it is based on hitpoints or probability or whatever. And when I mention probability, I imagine some sort of state-based damage (ex: working, damaged, or destroyed) system that uses a random chance (perhaps which itself can be based on hitpoints) to determine if a component should change states. IMO, such a system could potentially be better than just hitpoints.

[maturin 12]

It doesn't matter what technically is or isn't a hitpoint. The point here is that the granularity of the system is too simple. Currently, there is still only one overall hitpoint value that makes all the difference. And while there are some individual components that can be damaged and effect the vehicle in different ways, it is masked by the fact that a single hit to any location can potentially destroy/damage a completely unrelated component, and they all essentially chip away at the same set of hitpoints.

In other words, exactly how human bodies take damage in the game.

[max power 21]

Your statement makes me believe that you completely missed the point of my post.

No, actually I was responding to a statement you made directly saying it was 'only hitpoits' as if there was a better system that doesn't use them. How could I possibly miss the point of your post? Did you think I was saying that there is no better hitpoints sim than the way ArmA does it? I was talking about the same 'granularity' you were talking about in the same paragraph you quoted.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

No, actually I was responding to a statement you made directly saying it was 'only hitpoits' as if there was a better system that doesn't use them. How could I possibly miss the point of your post? Did you think I was saying that there is no better hitpoints sim than the way ArmA does it? I was talking about the same 'granularity' you were talking about in the same paragraph you quoted.

When I said "only hitpoints", I meant that in the end, that's all that it uses, not that the use of hitpoints in a system is inappropriate. Maybe it was a little ambiguis. Still, there are ways to avoid directly using hitpoints.

[max power 21]

When I said "only hitpoints", I meant that in the end, that's all that it uses

That's not true. It uses everything I described.