General Discussion (dev branch)

[gliptal 25]

I know I'm probably repeating myself, but if you play Single Player try TPW MODS (TPW FALL to be exact).

Yay!

[katipo66 94]

Yeah that would make it interesting with a 85% chance of being knocked down and a 30% chance of getting up again, after some time.. In similar vein to TPWs mod, the beauty of that mod is you always need to make sure they are dead, SLX had something similar I think frm memory or GL4?

[gliptal 25]

Yeah that would make it interesting with a 85% chance of being knocked down and a 30% chance of getting up again, after some time.. In similar vein to TPWs mod, the beauty of that mod is you always need to make sure they are dead, SLX had something similar I think frm memory or GL4?

It completely changes firefights.

Yay!

[xendance 3]

I know I'm probably repeating myself, but if you play Single Player try TPW MODS (TPW FALL to be exact).

Yea, it does that. What I want is proper animations for falling and getting up.

[dmarkwick 261]

That video shows exactly what should happen in ArmA when people get hit in the torso. Even though there are armor plates in the vest, the hit still should be like a really strong kick to the chest.

I note that, even with armour (and thus no penetration) even a stopped bullet does not throw the soldier, rather he collapses straight down, which is something I've read over & over from first-hand experiences, that they just feel a "whump" and they just go to the ground, knowing nothing other than they've been hit. Not even where they've been hit, just that they've been hit.

[tachi 10]

Interesting video about disabling armored vehicles just with rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_OgrHbvnUY

[lordprimate 159]

Yeah that would make it interesting with a 85% chance of being knocked down and a 30% chance of getting up again, after some time.. In similar vein to TPWs mod, the beauty of that mod is you always need to make sure they are dead, SLX had something similar I think frm memory or GL4?

GL4 - AI simulate dead. until your close then they go crouch and launch a volly of hot led at your face... AHHH its a beautiful thing..

[pils 49]

Interesting video about disabling armored vehicles just with rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_OgrHbvnUY

I hope this is an older version .. at least some of that shouldn't work in reality. If it still works, please fix it ..

[nabbl 10]

I hope this is an older version .. at least some of that shouldn't work in reality. If it still works, please fix it ..

Why should it not work seriously?

Every armored vehicle has a weakness. It is like in real life. You can damage an armored vehicle with a rifle when you are able to for example destroy the weak parts of it.

Hunter, Iffrith and Strider have fuel tanks which you can damage. APCs and so on have louvers which are needed to properly shoot. With this component damaged you cant shoot anymore. simple as that.

I knew that before ...

But ingame you first have to be able to shoot a magazin onto a vehicles cannon and hit every time. And most of the time you are plain dead (even more when third person is allowed...). I sometimes managed to kill vehicle with a GM6 Lynx and 7.62 mm ZAFIR, when you know where the weak spot is.

Same with helicopters btw. Aim for the rotor, and it will go down. You can even shoot with an MX to achieve that.

[maturin 12]

Link in studios, please. Even if it is not fake, Type III (NIJ Standard-0101.06) armor required to stop a bullet like that is much heavier than what we have in the game.

It's not fake.

I know that people usually jerk and fall over when hit by bullets. But the point is, the physical force of the impact is not enough to cause this. If you were not emotionally affected by the shot, and did not feel pain, you would not fall over. The force just isn't enough. This is mathematics and it is not arguable.

Which basically, in game terms, means there should be some randomness.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

My internet is too slow to watch the video. Which weak points shouldn't exist, exactly?

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

I hope this is an older version .. at least some of that shouldn't work in reality. If it still works, please fix it ..

My internet is too slow to watch the video. Which weak points shouldn't exist, exactly?

[CaptainObvious 95]

Why should it not work seriously?

Because shooting at the fuel tanks doesn't make the vehicle go boom, and shooting at the differentials even less.

Disabling the turrets RCWSs is fine tho, without the servos it obviously isn't able to operate, and judging by the in-game models, those aren't very much if at all armored.

Edited November 13, 2013 by CaptainObvious
Not turrets, the RCWSs

[pils 49]

Why should it not work seriously?

Every armored vehicle has a weakness. It is like in real life. You can damage an armored vehicle with a rifle when you are able to for example destroy the weak parts of it.

Hunter, Iffrith and Strider have fuel tanks which you can damage. APCs and so on have louvers which are needed to properly shoot. With this component damaged you cant shoot anymore. simple as that.

I knew that before ...

But ingame you first have to be able to shoot a magazin onto a vehicles cannon and hit every time. And most of the time you are plain dead (even more when third person is allowed...). I sometimes managed to kill vehicle with a GM6 Lynx and 7.62 mm ZAFIR, when you know where the weak spot is.

Same with helicopters btw. Aim for the rotor, and it will go down. You can even shoot with an MX to achieve that.

1:15

I'm sure no 6,5mm can penetrate that main side plate.

1:30

No way any small arms can penetrate the main front plate and destroy the engine.

2:09

No idea what he was shooting at. But shooting at the frame/suspension shouldn't let the vehicle blow up.

2:30

Ok I guess you can disable a vehicle by doing that, but not blow it up.

2:45

Main front plate, side plates. Penetration on these should be impossible with small arms.

3:40

Same as above. No way you can penetrate this spot with that rifle.

4:10

Ok this is ridiculous. He is not even shooting the sights or something, but the main armor plate of the tower.

4:40

A weak spot, but I guess it's at least enough protected small arms can't penetrate that easily.

5:05

This is legit, but as you can see bugged. He can't damage the gun of the Marid but with the same method the gun of the Panther.

6:10

Legit, he is hitting the optics.

6:30

May be legit, but the optics may be protected from behind. But no prob, that is getting too much into detail anyway.

7:20

No way. You can see the Marshall is getting damaged. No way you can penetrate that spot with small arms. The engineers of those vehicles aren't retarded.

8:20 and all other rear hits

Getting to the tanks it's speculations as the armors are classified. You may be able to disable the engine with those rear hits, but it shouldn't damage the tank that bad it blows up. There is a disabled engine feature, so use it in this case. But not let it blow up with a single hit.

9:50 and all other front tower hits

Speculation as above, but this is probably the best armored spot of the whole tank. The front tower armor. I don't think you should be able to blow up a tank with 2 hits on the best armored part. I guess the Top 5 MBT could be able to sustain hits at the best armored parts even with a modern 120mm gun. Anyway at least in a game like Arma 3 the best armored parts should protect you against a few hits in my opinion.

Addition:

You can see the back and sides of the optics (and other sensible parts like the rear compartments of the 35mm AA the russian guy is shooting in his vid) are usually protected with plates thick enough to at least negate small arms fire. The people developing this stuff know what they're doing.

Edited November 13, 2013 by pils

[progamer 14]

I hope this is an older version .. at least some of that shouldn't work in reality. If it still works, please fix it ..

Wow, probably a product of the horrible hp system. Needs to be fixed as its insanely unrealistic.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

1:15

I'm sure no 6,5mm can penetrate that main side plate.

1:30

No way any small arms can penetrate the main front plate and destroy the engine.

2:09

No idea what he was shooting at. But shooting at the frame/suspension shouldn't let the vehicle blow up.

2:30

Ok I guess you can disable a vehicle by doing that, but not blow it up.

2:45

Main front plate, side plates. Penetration on these should be impossible with small arms.

3:40

Same as above. No way you can penetrate this spot with that rifle.

4:10

Ok this is ridiculous. He is not even shooting the sights or something, but the main armor plate of the tower.

4:40

A weak spot, but I guess it's at least enough protected small arms can't penetrate that easily.

5:05

This is legit, but as you can see bugged. He can't damage the gun of the Marid but with the same method the gun of the Panther.

6:10

Legit, he is hitting the optics.

6:30

May be legit, but the optics may be protected from behind. But no prob, that is getting too much into detail anyway.

7:20

No way. You can see the Marshall is getting damaged. No way you can penetrate that spot with small arms. The engineers of those vehicles aren't retarded.

8:20 and all other rear hits

Getting to the tanks it's speculations as the armors are classified. You may be able to disable the engine with those rear hits, but it shouldn't damage the tank that bad it blows up. There is a disabled engine feature, so use it in this case. But not let it blow up with a single hit.

9:50 and all other front tower hits

Speculation as above, but this is probably the best armored spot of the whole tank. The front tower armor. I don't think you should be able to blow up a tank with 2 hits on the best armored part. I guess the Top 5 MBT could be able to sustain hits at the best armored parts even with a modern 120mm gun. Anyway at least in a game like Arma 3 the best armored parts should protect you against a few hits in my opinion.

Addition:

You can see the back and sides of the optics (and other sensible parts like the rear compartments of the 35mm AA the russian guy is shooting in his vid) are usually protected with plates thick enough to at least negate small arms fire. The people developing this stuff know what they're doing.

This^

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------

Was this:

Minor balance of OPFOR equipment:

Decreased weight of pilot uniform

Decreased capacity of standard uniforms

Increased weight of standard uniforms

Increased capacity of harnesses vests

Try to make Opfor more balanced with Blufor or making the loadouts fit more with the fatigue changes? If its trying to balance the two side, please stop.

[pils 49]

Wow, probably a product of the horrible hp system. Needs to be fixed as its insanely unrealistic.

Yea I think you're right.

Oh man .. and I wondered why some people are able to blow me up in my armored Strider by just shooting at it with 5,56mm. And at the same time I'm shooting at people with the 120mm AP and HE tank cannon several times in their Hummingbirds ands Orcas and other Choppers and they just keep on flying like why in the world would they care about tank shells hitting them.

[John Kozak 14]

The force just isn't enough. This is mathematics and it is not arguable.

O RLY? I see you're a great mathematician. Tell me then, what is the impulse that gets transferred to the body upon such shot?

[CaptainObvious 95]

O RLY? I see you're a great mathematician. Tell me then, what is the impulse that gets transferred to the body upon such shot?

Not greater than the force kicking the shooter in the shoulder.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

4:40

A weak spot, but I guess it's at least enough protected small arms can't penetrate that easily.

Depends

You can see in this pic roughly how thick the plate protecting the APU on the back of the Vickers Marksman turret is (the SPAAG turret in Arma 3 is based on this real world one). On the left side of the APU you can see a hole where the plate is cut out - I'd say it's no thicker than about 3/4 inch of mild steel.

This vid gives examples of the sort of damage that 5.56mm (.223) and 7.62mm (.308) FMJ (soft lead core in a copper jacket) will do to a roughly equivalent steel plate. A steel-cored AP round would go through quite easily I think, even from a rifle - at one point in the vid they mention that even FMJ might go through at point-blank range.

[John Kozak 14]

Not greater than the force kicking the shooter in the shoulder.

I'm not arguing with the point, I want to see a "not arguable" mathematical proof, according to that post ;-)

[blu3sman 11]

I'm not arguing with the point, I want to see a "not arguable" mathematical proof, according to that post ;-)

The law of conservation of energy:rolleyes:

[danny96 80]

Removed: Chair on top of building in Showcase Armed Assault (would float after building destruction)

Why the chair isn't affected by physx?

[instagoat 133]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16024

Purely visual, but I am happy enough with the game as it is developing at this point to make requests for minor visual tweaks. It would be really great to have vests that actually carry the correct pouches for the weapons their bearers are supposed to carry.

[Greenfist 1863]

Oh god please don't start a discussion on the effects of kinetic energies of impacting bullets here. There's no such feature in the current development branch which is this thread's topic. Go resurrect some old thread discussing that.

But yes, the kinetic force of a rifle caliber bullet is negligible, while the shock effect is not. It would be cool feature though.

[-Coulum- 35]

Regarding knockdown due to bullets, momentum of a bullet is around that of a baseball thrown by a pro. It'll hurt like a bitch but its not going to physically knock you off your feet.

How you react to the impact is another matter entirely.

You don't need a mathematical proof to prove that it's basic physics. The mass of the bullet is simply to small relative to the mass of a human to knock them over.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

Yeah sorry for offtopic

[pils 49]

Depends

You can see in this pic roughly how thick the plate protecting the APU on the back of the Vickers Marksman turret is (the SPAAG turret in Arma 3 is based on this real world one). On the left side of the APU you can see a hole where the plate is cut out - I'd say it's no thicker than about 3/4 inch of mild steel.

This vid gives examples of the sort of damage that 5.56mm (.223) and 7.62mm (.308) FMJ (soft lead core in a copper jacket) will do to a roughly equivalent steel plate. A steel-cored AP round would go through quite easily I think, even from a rifle - at one point in the vid they mention that even FMJ might go through at point-blank range.

3/4 inch might be a good guess, but I'm pretty sure they use hardened steel only on the outer surface of any armored vehicle. Why would they use mild steel on an armored vehicle, especially on a steelplate protecting such an important part? Why would they use some steel plate anyway if it's not enough to withstand small arms fire? In this case they just could use simple thin metal like for cars.

I'm pretty sure all important parts are at least protected against anything up to 7,62mm. In that case, a rather thin plate of hardened steel for armor purposes would be enough.

Wikipedia says the Marksman anti-aircraft-system has ballistic immunity up to 14,5mm heavy machine guns - what makes sense in my opinion.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

3/4 inch might be a good guess, but I'm pretty sure they use hardened steel only on the outer surface of any armored vehicle.

It's not unusual to use mild steel on parts of vehicles that aren't protecting crew members - it's much cheaper and easier to work with mild steel than hardened steel, especially when you have to cut a load of holes in it for ventilation on things like APUs. In the long term, low-carbon steels are also less prone to cracking and the effects of thermal shock - something which would be desirable on a part of the vehicle likely to be exposed to large temperature gradients. Automotive and weapon systems functions are pretty sacrificial compared to crew protection anyway.

Vickers used 17mm (0.66 in) hardened steel on the AS90 Howitzer for crew protection. I imagine they would have considered that level of protection for the APU on their Marksman turret to be excessive, when you consider that the likely threats facing SPH and SPAAG vehicles are probably the same, considering their employment on the battlefield is generally a few km away from the front line.