How will body armour be implemented in ArmA III?

[walker 0]

Hi all

How will body armour be implemented in ArmA III?

Any Devs care to comment?

At the moment in all previous versions of the RV engine body armour is shown as a visual image but with no real simulation other than perhaps a degree of higher resistance to damage in a soldier entities config. I am not even sure that exists.

As it stands ArmA does a fairly good job of differentiating damaged areas on entities bodies; shots to the head and chest tend to be straight kill, shots to the legs cripple you, shots to the arms make your aim shake.

It would be nice to also include things like visual degradation and blindness for head wounds, blood pouring into your eyes from a head wound will blind you.

A Valhalla style body dammage image would also be useful.

As the RV engine already has such a high degree of entity damage modeling, far better than any other FPS, and as ArmA will have improved inventory factors it would be nice to see a body armour inventory class implemented in ArmA III.

Such a body armour inventory class should have a modifying effect on shots to the relevant area.

EG a helmet should cause a head hit by a pistol to the rear and upper head to be at most a stun or slight wound, ditto for a subsonic suppressed round from say an M4. A rond to the base of the neck/base of skull should be a kill shot. Similarly for body armour but it would be nice to separately model upper arm hits to be potential killers, ditto wounds to the thigh

Armour piercing rounds should be a straight kill but other rounds should wound not kill but the key factor should be whether you have this in your inventory. It should also reduce your mobility, both in terms of stamina and in terms of speed of reaction, and cause a general clumsiness.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 22, 2011 by walker
spelling and grammar (Plus butterfingered typo so "shots" not "hots" at one point)

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm in favour of accurate hit effects :) IMO, body armour could be most easily and intuitively implemented by having config multipliers that change the effect of hits on the unit in that area, so a vest would have a config modifier of say 0.3 to the torso, meaning incoming rounds to the torso would have one third of it's previous effect. As a pure hypothetical example.

It might not be a 100% simulation of ballistic interference, but we should simplify for pragmatism wherever possible IMO without losing the ingame effect of armour advantages.

Edited for clarity.

Edited June 22, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Perforator 10]

I'm in favour of accurate hit effects

I'm tipping that if someone were to conduct a poll 100 percent of the Arma community would be in favour of accurate hit effects, it would really raise the ArmA experience to a whole new level.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm tipping that if someone were to conduct a poll 100 percent of the Arma community would be in favour of accurate hit effects, it would really raise the ArmA experience to a whole new level.

Heh, yeah I'm just obliquely referring to the component-driven damage system thread I started :) in my mind, this is more or less the same topic, but for unit loadout modification.

[walker 0]

Hi DMarkwick

I agree that Component driven dammage modeling is the way to go but as you point out here we are talking about the move to a simulated object model. We already had this with weapons offering some protection to an entity if they were hit rather than the human simulant entity. So clearly the option is there.

And with the move to giving players/entities a sight and supressor etc. modifiable weapon it would seem reasonable to make Armour a fourth class of weapon loadout.

We already have primary, rocket and pistol so Armour would be the fourth. Idealy helmet and body armour would be seperate classes though linked.

By making the armour config variable, and giving it a model geometry we would be able to describe a range of armour types even right up to EOD suits. I dare say the VBS customers would also apreciate this too.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 22, 2011 by walker

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I'm tipping that if someone were to conduct a poll 100 percent of the Arma community would be in favour of accurate hit effects, it would really raise the ArmA experience to a whole new level.

It would be nice to see players, AI and humans alike, suffer a bit more realistically than they do at the moment... I refer, of course, to the teeny flinch that goes on when shot in A2. :D

[Flock 10]

It would be nice to see players, AI and humans alike, suffer a bit more realistically than they do at the moment... I refer, of course, to the teeny flinch that goes on when shot in A2. :D

Hey but on myth busters i saw... ohh wait nevermind.

[ubermachtig 0]

I remember we've had this subject during mathematics; I propose the following system:

For example, the soldier can pick 3 armor types:

Light (Weight: 5kg, Penetration in 80% of the cases)

Medium (Weight: 10kg, penetration in 50% of the cases)

Heavy (Weight: 15kg, Penetration in 20% of the cases)

The calculation is based on assault rifle bullets. Penetration can be changed in accordance with the weapon with which the bullet is fired. For example, when shooting with an M24, for example, percentages could be 95, 60, 40%, and when shooting with a 9mm pistol the percentages will, of course, be lower (like 60, 30, 10). Furthermore, penetration possibility can be adjusted taking stuff like range into account (Penetration from 10 meter is more likely than penetration from 1000 meter).

Weight can be calculated into character movement speed, sprint distance and so fort.

(Note that I don't claim any of these percentages are real and represent reality, and should only be seen as an example. I do know, however, that such measurement system exist for modern B-armor types)

(You can change L, M and H with "more suitable" names like Kevlar)

When using real-life tables for penetration possibility and integrating it into the game, a highly realistic system can be integrated into the game, which, however, shouldn't be that difficult to integrate, nor should take many recourses.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ubermachtig

[rye1 21]

The weapon with the round is fired from = penetration? This is not good. The ammunition is key. Penetration multiplyers!

[Tobie 10]

yeah i fully agree! that would be great too see this in arma 3. and i dont think that it would be that difficult for the devs.

[ubermachtig 0]

The weapon with the round is fired from = penetration? This is not good. The ammunition is key. Penetration multiplyers!

Of course, the system should contain a few parameters, like muzzle velocity, the kind of round and its purpose, the distance and the weapon itself, so it should be something like:

Weapon x Bullet x Distance x Purpose/ Armor type = Chance of penetration

(Of course the x's representing an insane mathematical formula rather than just multiplying them:)). Still, nothing a Pentium 3 couldn't handle:D

[mahuja 12]

Penetration value of the bullet, velocity at which it hits the target (which basically accounts for weapon and distance) and armor type.

Anyway, can anyone clarify exactly what we have today in arma2?

In particular, take the ACE USP. The round fired has a lot of stopping power but little penetration. Shoot anyone without armor, and they die. Pour a magazine into the armor of one of the soldiers that have it, and they're still able to shoot back. (Haven't done the proper test, but the armored guy just wouldn't die until I hit his face.) I also know that (some) soldier model(s) with helmets have been "fixed" at one point.

Or was this purely the ace system taking care of that?

[rye1 21]

.45? They are a slower and larger a projectile than the 9mm therefore less pen on body armour.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Rye
I meant on body armour... this is what this topic is about!

[Kieran 11]

.45? They are a slower and larger a projectile than the 9mm therefore less pen.

It has more force, think of a scalpal, stabbing somone, then the other person drops a sharp sword onto someone, the sword would have more stopping power and penetration

[rye1 21]

It's affect on body armour is nothing. It may have more sectional density but it would not penetrate as much as a 9mm.

".45 ACP is much easier to stop with armor than the smaller, faster 9mm. On the other hand, the larger mass of .45 ACP allows it to do much better against windshields than 9mm. What is optimal all depends on your likely engagement scenarios..." - Doctor Gary K. Roberts.

[Kieran 11]

It's affect on body armour is nothing. It may have more sectional density but it would not penetrate as much as a 9mm.

".45 ACP is much easier to stop with armor than the smaller, faster 9mm. On the other hand, the larger mass of .45 ACP allows it to do much better against windshields than 9mm. What is optimal all depends on your likely engagement scenarios..." - Doctor Gary K. Roberts.

So what your saying is a 9mm bullet will have the upperhand vs a guy in body armour?

rather than someone with .45 rifle rounds?

lol wut

[Steakslim 1]

So what your saying is a 9mm bullet will have the upperhand vs a guy in body armour?

rather than someone with .45 rifle rounds ?

lol wut

lulwut indeed son.

But no Rye is correct 9mm is more effective against body armor, for some of the same reasons back in the olden days swords with tapered ends were more effective against armor than ones with flatter broader blades. Of course there's also the whole velocity difference as well but I just wanted to keep the example simple.

[rye1 21]

So what your saying is a 9mm bullet will have the upperhand vs a guy in body armour?

I wouldn't say the upperhand but it would perform better against body armour than the .45. It wouldn't cause tissue wounds quite like the .45, nor have the adequate barrier penetration needed in some scenarios.

Most soft and hard armours can stop a few or even all 9mm rounds so having the upperhand is out of the question, to have the upperhand you would either 1) Use a projectile and weapon that can be used to penetrate body armour and/or 2) Depend entirely on shot placement.

There are many pro's for using 9mm or .45 though, don't get me wrong.

[rangerpl 13]

rather than someone with .45 rifle rounds?

There's no .45 rifles, at least not in ArmA.

[derrickkolba 0]

yes there needs to be some kind of body armor system in arma 3 is just hast to have one.

[Tand3rsson 10]

A bullet hitting you in the chest, must have a effect even if it dosent penetrated. Saw a video of a US soldier who got shot in the chest by an

Insurgent sniper. He fell to the ground, but then got up and ran to cover. The bullet was stoped by his armor, but still knocked him to the ground.

By the way, anyone seen that "dragon skin" they are making? Saw a video were it stopped a 7.62 AP round:-O. What kind of armor will the future hold?

[onlyrazor 11]

A bullet hitting you in the chest, must have a effect even if it dosent penetrated. Saw a video of a US soldier who got shot in the chest by an

Insurgent sniper. He fell to the ground, but then got up and ran to cover. The bullet was stoped by his armor, but still knocked him to the ground.

By the way, anyone seen that "dragon skin" they are making? Saw a video were it stopped a 7.62 AP round:-O. What kind of armor will the future hold?

I think this has been discussed already, if not on this topic, then on another one about armour. The problem is, Dragon skin isn't reliable. In high temperatures (think Iraq high), the adhesive between the individual armour plates started to let loose and the armour basically fell apart

[Tand3rsson 10]

I think this has been discussed already, if not on this topic, then on another one about armour. The problem is, Dragon skin isn't reliable. In high temperatures (think Iraq high), the adhesive between the individual armour plates started to let loose and the armour basically fell apart

F*ck! That would suck, if your body armor fell apart :-P

[solidsnake2384 10]

I think this has been discussed already, if not on this topic, then on another one about armour. The problem is, Dragon skin isn't reliable. In high temperatures (think Iraq high), the adhesive between the individual armour plates started to let loose and the armour basically fell apart

I read somewhere that at a University (dont remember where) that they tested to see if that was true. It stood up to even higher temperatures for long periods of time. Theres alot of controversy on why the US wont use it but it is very expensive.

[bradp191 10]

I heard that diesel fuel and JP8 would dissolve something in it, causing it to fall apart. I'm not sure how true that is. That's just the rumor that went around.