Will ARMA3 feature realistic tank armor?

[spandy 1]

I hope that they will have a good armor!

[graill 10]

In iraq we a large number of M1A2 SEP tanks hit with multiple rpgs in both the front facia and side. I have pics of one Abrams with 7 rpg hits. We had many with side penetrations and GD had to fly in and review these as they should not have penetrated the side as they did, one such rpg (sorry guys cant disclose type of rpg) went through the side, missed the gunners face by an inch or so sandblasting him with hot metal (he was fine but toasted a bit) and went through the main sight and stopped in the breech.

Rpgs hit the battery boxes, tracks, engines, etc, at no time did a single rpg stop an ABRAMS it was usally multiples, those firing were usually killed instantly because tankers use thermals at all times. Some tanks after being hit and moving a fair distance with rpgs would break down and need to be brought in by maint, but this is all common combat knowledge from investigations. During the time i was there we only had two heavies destroyed by rpg fire and this was the crew lighting the tank up because a larger force was trying to close in on it and take it, read, another tank (one of ours) lighting it up.

There are a few sites with some data on the push during the first iraq war (i was a lowly sgt at that time) and our tanks taking rounds from enemy main tank fire. Bis should contact Aberdeen to get some info.

[Dingo8 1]

I would be happy with this, enable caption translation.

Wow, something like this combined with PhysX in Arma 3 would be quite awesome! :D

[Dragonshot 1]

I would be happy with this, enable caption translation.

Now that's what we need! good post.

Wow, something like this combined with PhysX in Arma 3 would be quite awesome! :D

Heck yeah, realistic damage modelling + physX would draw armored warfare enthusiasts to Arma3 like a magnetic pole.

[Xtri 10]

Man, it would be so awesome :D

[mr.g-c 6]

Those improvements in Iron Front are superb!

We strongly need this in BIS' 4th Military Simulation finally... I'm sick of Hitpoints and stuff borrowed from dumbed-down corner shooters. Its about time to change this. Seriously.

[Tonci87 163]

I always thought that it is quite strange for a milsim to have a hitpoint system for the tanks. We really need somethingh more realistic, or at least believable.

Vote guys vote!

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/30156#change-131393

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^got my vote, this plus physX plus ragdoll would kick serious but, put grins on a great many folk around here and (in short) maybe let a few modders focus on adding to the game instead of fixing it.

[nodunit 397]

Now that's what we need! good post.

Heck yeah, realistic damage modelling + physX would draw armored warfare enthusiasts to Arma3 like a magnetic pole.

Or armor is hardly the only thing that could benefit from having a system of penetration value based upon armor values of that area if it could be applied to all classes.. Imagine taking down aircraft by killing the pilot, or damaging the engine, or destroying a wing/tail. Imagine bunker busting, armor (the concept, not vehicles) actually mean something along with weapon caliber, with higher caliber needed to get through it, making say a bradley's main gun potentially worthless against even a T-72, or a helicopters main gun tear through a car (not destroy it in a big fireball) and kill the occupants inside, or components to disable it, yet be significantly less useful against a full fledged tank as opposed to it eventually destroying it anyway based on the hit points we have now, making some aircraft a bit more godly than they should be.

Infantry combat could be taken to a new level, trading armor for mobility, same with the caliber to counteract that armor. Hell if they could do that, and physX were also able to incorporate bouncing due to the angle from surface from which the projectile lands, thus making the angle you hit certain things, especially sloped armor, then warfare of all sorts would be taken to an entirerly new level for everything.

Edited May 22, 2012 by NodUnit

[Tonci87 163]

not just armor enthusiasts, if this system were used on all vehicles just imagine the implications. We could have fights with aircraft where the only way to take it out isn't by blowing it up, and armored cockpits would actually mean something as opposed to just giving the aircraft more hit points. Say you hit a helicopter with a stringer missile, it impacts the tail or engine and rather than blow the aircraft up entirerly it instead destroys that component, or simple rounds will do 0 damage to an armored vehicle but armor piercing bullets have a far greater chance of getting in, making the ammo types of all weapons actually mean something in all forms of combat.

^this

[kremator 1065]

Well if Iron Front can do it then it HAS to be part of arma3! Or I shall ragequit! F4 F4 !

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well if Iron Front can do it then it HAS to be part of arma3! Or I shall ragequit! F4 F4 !

I concur with what this gentleman has said: the bar has been raised - ArmA 3 better pull its weight up to proper HE/AT projectile simulation just as well as Iron Front can!

Edit:

Reference -

qsJ6Qgj7Tdc&feature=player_detailpage#t=426s

Starting minute 7:00, you can still see the old hit effects and misc decals, though the whole system had been changed for the betterment of my pleasure-taking activities. :cool:

Edited May 23, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Bee8190 10]

Pretty impressive but I'm not sure if ticket is really needed. I mean BIS implementing java, physX..and they would leave out on something ''so basic'' like penetration system? That would be like kick in teh face after offered a candy??

[ProfTournesol 956]

Pretty impressive but I'm not sure if ticket is really needed. I mean BIS implementing java, physX..and they would leave out on something ''so basic'' like penetration system?

I tend to agree.

Edited May 23, 2012 by ProfTournesol

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Pretty impressive but I'm not sure if ticket is really needed. I mean BIS implementing java, physX..and they would leave out on something ''so basic'' like penetration system? That would be like kick in teh face after offered a candy??

PhysX in itself is pretty substantial and not analogous to candy, there can be a myriad of excuses afterwards as to why ArmA 3 still has the brick hitpoint system. Meanwhile,

XzW6VgVsLEY

English preview of Iron Front: Liberation 1944 armour mechanics.

[zimms 22]

BIS please!

http://i.imgur.com/ed9eB.jpg >100kb!

Seriously, this would be one of the most important things, especially now that we have seen the possibilities even within the ArmA2 engine.

Otherwise everybody would have to wait once again for the ACE guys to jump in.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Alex72
Image size breaking the rule

[saltatormortis 12]

there will be a better/improved armod system..

even the presentation brings the thing about it (destruction of the vehicle engine)

liberation Ironfront uses the existing Arma 2 engine. There is nothing special about it.

this means a search in the BIwiki brings a result:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2:_Event_Handlers#HitPart

[danny96 80]

Realistic armor system will bring a lots of World Of Tanks and other tank games fans into ARMA!!!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

there will be a better/improved armod system..

even the presentation brings the thing about it (destruction of the vehicle engine)

liberation Ironfront uses the existing Arma 2 engine. There is nothing special about it.

this means a search in the BIwiki brings a result:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2:_Event_Handlers#HitPart

Precisely because Iron Front uses ArmA 2 engine we have expanded this topic. Actually, Advanced Combat Environment 2 mod shortly after ArmA 2 original release had better projectile/armour simulation than the both examples combined, but that's another story since I think ACE 2 should have been incorporated into vanilla ArmA 2, and you don't want me going there. ;)

BIS please!

Seriously, this would be one of the most important things, especially now that we have seen the possibilities even within the ArmA2 engine.

Otherwise everybody would have to wait once again for the ACE guys to jump in.

It has always been possible, ACE 2 is a testament to that, it even simulates(-d) ricochets and I remember leee-roying into enemy base in a T-90, all the while keeping up the angular velocity and laughing at all the AT fire.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Tonci87 163]

ACE does this to some extend but they are limited by the engine. The IF Model might be better than the ACE Approach but we cant know that for sure until we really try it. As you can see HitPart is currently malfunctional in MP

[-Coulum- 35]

Although I don’t think that we’ll get a super realistic armour simulation like in other

games, I do think BI is making some steps towards it. That vid of the guy shooting out

the engine block of the car seems like an improvement to me - I don’t think you can do

that in A2 can you? I am sure they won’t stop at engine blocks..

Anyhow, it is very important for the game to include some form of realism on this front.

I don’t fight with many tanks or vehicles, but when I do it is really annoying that I can

basically count how many shot until I am destroyed… “Oh hit by one rpg, now if I get hit

by another Its game overâ€. Its kind of like I am playing some retro arcade game where I

have 3 hearts until I die. Really detracts form realism and the unpredictability of a fight.

On a visual note, it would be nice if damage was portrayed where it has been taken

instead of the whole vehicle just suddenly changing.

[scajolly 14]

Although I don’t think that we’ll get a super realistic armour simulation like in other

games, I do think BI is making some steps towards it. That vid of the guy shooting out

the engine block of the car seems like an improvement to me - I don’t think you can do

that in A2 can you? I am sure they won’t stop at engine blocks..

Anyhow, it is very important for the game to include some form of realism on this front.

I don’t fight with many tanks or vehicles, but when I do it is really annoying that I can

basically count how many shot until I am destroyed… “Oh hit by one rpg, now if I get hit

by another Its game overâ€. Its kind of like I am playing some retro arcade game where I

have 3 hearts until I die. Really detracts form realism and the unpredictability of a fight.

On a visual note, it would be nice if damage was portrayed where it has been taken

instead of the whole vehicle just suddenly changing.

I must echo this.

For Arma to deliver us armour penetration is another step towards approaching the turfs held by simulator hegemons such as Steel Beasts or DCS A-10/Blackshark/etc. These are the skilled and near-fanatic enthusiasts that BIS can reliably siphon from other games to increase the appeal of their Arma brand. Advances on the air (TKOH) must be matched by those on the ground. :)

[max power 21]

Although I don’t think that we’ll get a super realistic armour simulation like in other

games, I do think BI is making some steps towards it. That vid of the guy shooting out

the engine block of the car seems like an improvement to me - I don’t think you can do

that in A2 can you? I am sure they won’t stop at engine blocks..

Yes, you can. I think you can do that in OFP. In ArmA 2 you can also assign different materials and thicknesses to the firegeolod. For instance, I just made some improvements to our CWR2 cessna. The windshield is now made of plexi glass, the engine block is made of cast iron, and the skin is made of certain thickness of steel to approximate aircraft grade aluminum and spars and bulkheads. If I wanted to I could actually research the properties of aircraft grade aluminum and come up with something more accurate. For the trabant, I created a duroplast material that has many of the same properties of plastic but has a density more appropriate for woodchips bonded with epoxy or whatever. This all influences their bullet penetrability based on the material thickness I chose, and its density compared to the density, velocity, and calibre of bullets. In addition, these materials also carry information about the sound and visual effects they produce when shot. And, even further, they have a roughness parameter which I believe influences the glancing angle and frequency of ricochets.

Don't quote me on this but I think the actual meat of the issue when it comes to tanks reacting to cannon shells and missiles is that I do not believe shotshell has the same ballistic simulation as shotbullet.

More information:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Damage#Fire_geometry

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Bullet_penetrability

Edited May 24, 2012 by Max Power

[stealthy_orca 1]

Doubt anything major will be in Arma 3 maybe in the expansions BIS will revamp the damage model for now just make it so RPG-7 can't fuck up my Abrams.

I totally agree, I absolutely hate when 1 RPG fucks up my Abrams tank too.

The armor on the Abrams is almost impervious to RPG's. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003 an Abrams crew was hit by over 10 RPG's in various places and the tank itself was not destroyed and the crew survived.

[maturin 12]

The ACE system is good. The Abrams can take dozens of RPGs to the front, but a hit in the rear will fuck you up. Same with the side, if it's one of the upgraded warheads.