Detailed component-driven damage modeling.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

It already has been thanks to the handleDamage event handler. ACE has used this to create a more realistic damage system that does away with hitpoints.

HandleDamage goes around the default system for applying damage; it is still based on hitpoints, the component detection is still only a close estimate, and you still can't compute stuff like penetration this way.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[Scubbo 10]

definitely what should be implemented! ww2OL has changed so much since I played it--- looks really good.

[maturin 12]

Would be great but I don't want to think of the CPU hit :(

Why should there be a CPU hit? The system is entirely passive until a tank takes a hit. After that, the calculations could get a low priority, meaning that on a struggling machine, the crew bursts into flames a second or so after impact. That's not necessarily unrealistic. This is what happens to me in the ACE armor system, which was just tacked on with scripting. A BIS system could be optimized from the get-go.

[froggyluv 2135]

Would love this! Just seeing that big hunka tank all compartmentalized into real penetrable regions .........

Aww shucks, I need a smoke :o

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

Would be awesome! Anti material sniper rifles would all of a sudden fullfill their design prophecy. If this was also applied for organ mapping or at least troop body armor as well my head would explode from awesome.

[celery 8]

Would be awesome! Anti material sniper rifles would all of a sudden fullfill their design prophecy.

You can already destroy tanks with a few .50 rounds if you hit them in the right spot.

[Haystack15 10]

This is a feature that I always wanted to see. Adding this into A3 will make armored warfare much more interesting. This could be possible to put into A3, it might extend the release of A3 to a different quarter. But, I sure wouldn't mind waiting longer just for this feature. :)

You can already destroy tanks with a few .50 rounds if you hit them in the right spot.

Do you know how funny it is to hear from a person who just started ArmA says "My tank was owned by 5 HMG's"

[maturin 12]

You can already destroy tanks with a few .50 rounds if you hit them in the right spot.

I'm pretty sure that was just scripted in PMC.

Tank crew can die from a hail of 12.7mm rounds, but that's from glitchy damage transferal.

[5LEvEN 11]

I agree completely with the OP. It would be a little harder to simulate current armor on tanks though. Since the armor is comprised of different layers of different materials, different projectiles will react differently. An RPG with a 100% kill rate on a steel armored m1a1 for example would be more like a 0.0000001% kill rate with the actual armor. The only difference between the two m1a1's is the armor make up. Please note the numbers were made up....

[maturin 12]

That's what RHA equivalencies are for. If people come up with estimates that are confident enough to base an entire game like Steel Beasts around, BIS can do it too.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Yes, yes, yes.

This is suposed to be a simulator after all.

PS. Could this mean deliberately targeting those Trophy systems?

Edited June 17, 2011 by Pathetic_Berserker

[5LEvEN 11]

Oh how I wish arma had what steelbeast has in armored vehicle simulation though...

[Perforator 10]

Oh how I wish arma had what steelbeast has in armored vehicle simulation though...

That would be heaven. Steel Beasts Pro PE is fantastic but lacks decent infantry simulation. If BIS incorporated the best features of Steel Beasts Pro playing ARMA 3 would be better than an erotic massage.

[celery 8]

Do you know how funny it is to hear from a person who just started ArmA says "My tank was owned by 5 HMG's"

I'm pretty sure that was just scripted in PMC.

Tank crew can die from a hail of 12.7mm rounds, but that's from glitchy damage transferal.

PMC showed the possibility in an official mission, but the feature is there nevertheless. Why should a single .50 cal round fired from a semiautomatic rifle damage a tank all the while a hail of .50 cal rounds fired from a heavy machine gun shouldn't?

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

You can already destroy tanks with a few .50 rounds if you hit them in the right spot.

Right but not for all vehicles (at least I think). And in anycase, not to the most realistic extent. I think you cant even kill the crew in a light apc with .50

This is something that seems remarkably uncontroversial (relative to other suggestions) and feasibly implementable. We should really push for it, and I hope Bohemia is reading this thread. Would singlehandedly bring vehicles in Arma to a whole new level.

[rye1 21]

Light APC, some APC's are just welded steel with a minimal amount of thickness, some as little as 7mm in places. A SLAP or MK211 (or MK300 tracer variant) from a .50 will go through and easily injure or take out crewmen on the other side.

Tank's on the other hand, will not be penetrated by a .50. It doesn't make sense...

[.Taffy 10]

We might have to wait for Take On Tanks for this to be realised....

[max power 21]

Right but not for all vehicles (at least I think). And in anycase, not to the most realistic extent. I think you cant even kill the crew in a light apc with .50

This is something that seems remarkably uncontroversial (relative to other suggestions) and feasibly implementable. We should really push for it, and I hope Bohemia is reading this thread. Would singlehandedly bring vehicles in Arma to a whole new level.

In ArmA 2, those 14.5 mm armour piercing rounds would go through a BMP 2 like shit through a goose. I had to reload more than once (read: embarrassingly large number of times) because of a member of team razor getting gacked inside my bmp.

[Primarch 10]

PMC showed the possibility in an official mission, but the feature is there nevertheless. Why should a single .50 cal round fired from a semiautomatic rifle damage a tank all the while a hail of .50 cal rounds fired from a heavy machine gun shouldn't?

Because the HMG rounds are different shape, weight and speed.

[Hakka 10]

Perfect, more ways to die.

[maturin 12]

PMC showed the possibility in an official mission, but the feature is there nevertheless. Why should a single .50 cal round fired from a semiautomatic rifle damage a tank all the while a hail of .50 cal rounds fired from a heavy machine gun shouldn't?

Have you recreated it? On anything other than a shitty old T-55?

The entire tank blew up from .50 hits. That shouldn't happen.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I've played numerous updates of World War II Online / Battleground Europe.

I have long been of the opinion that B.I. and the Cornered Rats should join forces.

Every OFP/ArmA player should give WW2OL/BE a try. Some of my greatest gaming memories have come from shooting a .50 Boys rifle at German soldiers and their armored 232's during the earlier days of a campaign.

[celery 8]

Have you recreated it? On anything other than a shitty old T-55?

I have succeeded in destroying the engine block of pretty much every land vehicle and helicopter in the game with a .50 cal rifle.

[maturin 12]

I have succeeded in destroying the engine block of pretty much every land vehicle and helicopter in the game with a .50 cal rifle.

Which tanks? And did they blow up? Because I'm pretty sure ArmA lacks the functionality to destroy engines. My point is that this isn't realistic.

Even T-72s have more than 25mm RHA in the back.

Edited June 17, 2011 by maturin

[celery 8]

Which tanks? And did they blow up? Because I'm pretty sure ArmA lacks the functionality to destroy engines.

No, it doesn't lack the functionality. Go to the editor, give yourself a thermal .50 cal and shoot at the bright spot in a running vehicle.