General Discussion (dev branch)

[maturin 12]

Most of the MRAP stuff is bullshit, though. A gas tank mounted on the belly of the vehicle, so EVERY mine the MINE-PROTECTED vehicle drives over results in fiery death for the crew? This is balance bullshit that no one thought through.

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

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

For fuck's sake, I didn't do the math. I just listened to the people who did. Are you going to go jump off a cliff if I don't show you the equations proving it's impossible to fly by flapping your arms?

[pils 49]

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.

You may be right in case of this kind of vehicle because of it's purpose. But in the end we can't be sure. In case of an IFV I'd be sure, like the protective cases for the optics of the Puma. But BI seems to have only one parameter for the whole AA turret anyway, because in the vid the russian guy is shooting the front armor the same way and it's happening the same thing -> gun is disabled.

And that's only one wierd issue, there are much more to see in that vid :/

[blu3sman 11]

Just did a few tests.

Strider fueltank + 9mm (<25 rounds) = fireball

AA turret frontal armor + 6.5mm (exactly 9 rounds) = guns disabled

Yeah, also shooting Ifrit in rear differential = fireball

FPDR

[pils 49]

Just did a few tests.

Strider fueltank + 9mm (<25 rounds) = fireball

AA turret frontal armor + 6.5mm (exactly 9 rounds) = guns disabled

Yeah, also shooting Ifrit in rear differential = fireball

FPDR

Thanks for that!

Please Devs, we need a fix here.

[progamer 14]

Thanks for that!

Please Devs, we need a fix here.

Why were at it, could we get some proper bullet proof glass and armor on these vehicles? They have lighter armor than heavier vehicles but they are not unarmored vehicles. Modern militeries use them because they survive mines and IEDs and are armored with bullet proof glass.

---------- Post added at 01:11 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ----------

You may be right in case of this kind of vehicle because of it's purpose. But in the end we can't be sure. In case of an IFV I'd be sure, like the protective cases for the optics of the Puma. But BI seems to have only one parameter for the whole AA turret anyway, because in the vid the russian guy is shooting the front armor the same way and it's happening the same thing -> gun is disabled.

And that's only one wierd issue, there are much more to see in that vid :/

If we had important locations like the sights as a hit point, then we could more realistically disable the turret. Or have the hp system work location wise, so shooting one side doesn't make the entire vehicle explode Hollywood style.

---------- Post added at 01:13 ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 ----------

MRAP stands for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. They are armored vehicles and considered Armored personal carriers. This is how they should be in game and not the current state.

Edited November 13, 2013 by ProGamer

[tachi 10]

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.

I made a ticket, lets hope BIS will do something about it.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16049

[progamer 14]

I made a ticket, lets hope BIS will do something about it.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16049

That's not really the issue. It's more a result of the hp armor system. They are not too weak. They have incorrect armor and hit points.

Though: MRAP stands for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. They are considered Armored personal carriers.

The MRAPS in game aren't very ambush protected at the moment with lack of proper bullet proof glass and lack of proper armor. This needs to be fixed, they are not light vehicles and should not be represented as light vehicles in game.

Edited November 14, 2013 by ProGamer

[tachi 10]

That's not really the issue. It's more a result of the hp rumor system.

Lets hope for the best, I think if devs will want to fix it, they will be able to do so :)

At least I don't remember such things in ArmA 2

[John Kozak 14]

For fuck's sake, I didn't do the math. I just listened to the people who did. Are you going to go jump off a cliff if I don't show you the equations proving it's impossible to fly by flapping your arms?

No, I'm just gonna call bullshit on people who talk about math yet don't know a freck about it.

[pils 49]

I made a ticket, lets hope BIS will do something about it.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16049

Thanks, voted!

[becubed 24]

No, I'm just gonna call bullshit on people who talk about math yet don't know a freck about it.

Call it an inelastic collision, the bullet hits the vest and comes to a total stop being deformed in the process. Conservation of Momentum says that the momentum (mass * velocity) of the system remains the same.

Momentum before the impact

Bullet ( 5.56mm NATO ) 4 grams @ 925 m/s = 3.7 kg m/s

Person standing 120 kg loaded with gear @ 0 m/s

Total Momentum = 3.7 kg m/s

After Impact

Combined mass 120kg (Not worth adding bullet)

So 3.7 = 120 * x where x is the final velocity in m/s

Gives x = 3.7/120 = 0.03 m/s or 3 cm in one second

Put your finger on a ruler and move it at a speed that it travells 3cm in a second and you can get the idea how little effect the bullet will have.

[Greenfist 1863]

And in case math and physics isn't your thing, here's the collision in practise http://youtu.be/vRNMjkGTHPw?t=6m54s (Mythbusters episode)

[james2464 176]

David Foltyn @FoltynD

Follow

in progress ... Arma 3 Tools package & Arma 3 Dedicated Server Data package small scale tests ... #arma3

Pettka â€@Lathspel 1m

As @FoltynD has already announced, we are in some small scale external testing of new #Arma3 tools for community. Wait for it ;)

[John Kozak 14]

Call it an inelastic collision, the bullet hits the vest and comes to a total stop being deformed in the process. Conservation of Momentum says that the momentum (mass * velocity) of the system remains the same.

Momentum before the impact

Bullet ( 5.56mm NATO ) 4 grams @ 925 m/s = 3.7 kg m/s

Person standing 120 kg loaded with gear @ 0 m/s

Total Momentum = 3.7 kg m/s

After Impact

Combined mass 120kg (Not worth adding bullet)

So 3.7 = 120 * x where x is the final velocity in m/s

Gives x = 3.7/120 = 0.03 m/s or 3 cm in one second

Put your finger on a ruler and move it at a speed that it travells 3cm in a second and you can get the idea how little effect the bullet will have.

I know that. You know that. But 95% of people who flail around with words like "It's physics!!!"/"It's mathematics" don't - that's the point.

P.S. Just for clarity - I was referring to 7.62x51, with 8 kg*m/s (10g @ 800 m/s). Equivalent of a soccer ball (400g) moving at 20 m/s - and that's a pretty mild strike.

That's the best illustrating analogy I've found so far.

Edited November 14, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[CaptainObvious 95]

I know that. You know that. But 95% of people who flail around with words like "It's physics!!!"/"It's mathematics" don't - that's the point.

That's a bit of a silly point, don't you think? :o

It's almost the same that no one would be eliglible to talk about the pain aspect of such shot unless they've been shot in battle.

[gammadust 12]

^^ while at the same time agreeing with the guy saying he's certain it hurts like hell...

[CaptainObvious 95]

^^ while at the same time agreeing with the guy saying he's certain it hurts like hell...

Hm, good point that is.

[NeuroFunker 11]

ADDED: New parameter drawLightSize for simple point light. - does that mean, car lights can cast light more further? When driving faster then like 100km\h at night, you can't see a shit beyond 2 meters infront of you, and everytime crash in to something

[pawelkpl 29]

bug, AFV-4 Gorgon driver turn out view:

http://postimg.org/image/6pqrgmr8t/

:/

[NeuroFunker 11]

about slowed down some anims, i hav't noticed what has been redone in latest dev branch from today, but what has not been done, is transition between side lean and "buttcrawl" animations. Pressing CTRL+A or D staning when or crouching , animation plays way to fast, i would it to have slowed down to like at least 25%. Same with sitting on the butt, i would like to see it at least 10-15% slower, unrealistic fast.

[pils 49]

I know that. You know that. But 95% of people who flail around with words like "It's physics!!!"/"It's mathematics" don't - that's the point.

P.S. Just for clarity - I was referring to 7.62x51, with 8 kg*m/s (10g @ 800 m/s). Equivalent of a soccer ball (400g) moving at 20 m/s - and that's a pretty mild strike.

That's the best illustrating analogy I've found so far.

Hmm that's 72 km/h. A lot of professional soccer players are below 100 km/h when striking with full force. A few top professional soccer players can when striking with full force reach something around 130-140 km/h at the max on a good day.

So I would guess some non-pro dude like you and I would be able to reach about 70 km/h when striking with full force.

And now imagine getting hit by a soccer ball being stroken with full force from only few meters away, hitting you in the middle of the chest and you don't expect it.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I've been playing football for quite long, i had a strong kick, was doing penalities whole time for that :P. Some people were shaking their hands, after blocking my kick, saying: ow, don't shoot hard like that! So yeah, i don't want to get hit by pro-socker kicker at all^^

[das attorney 858]

AI divers move very slowly and exhibit bad pathfinding underwater in "combat" behaviour.

Ticket and repro:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16058

(Ignore my last rant on nearTargets) - it was 4am and I was drunk.

[chrys45 1]

I have above 55 fps (by ultra) but the player camera is still shaking. I change all my setups to very low (what the hell) and nevertheless the game (only player camera) is shaking. This problem is annoying me since the today's update. Maybe this problem existing since yesterday. But before there it dosen't exist.

I know it's "dev" therefore i hope BIS will find a solution for this problem.

Edited November 14, 2013 by chrys45

[John Kozak 14]

That's a bit of a silly point, don't you think? :o

It's almost the same that no one would be eliglible to talk about the pain aspect of such shot unless they've been shot in battle.

Imagine a person who never touched physics saying "Substances can be in form other than gas, solid or liquid, that's physics". While he accidentally is spot on - he is still not an authority, unless he actually provides formulae/proof describing that fourth state (plasma, in this case). Why? Because next time he may claim "Moon is made of cheese, that's physics" - with same credibility.

The thing about science is that you don't need to possess a degree - you can be a janitor, yet give out formally correct calculations which can survive peer review by corresponding professionals. And if they are correct, they will be correct regardless of author's social status, combat experience and socks color.

Hmm that's 72 km/h. A lot of professional soccer players are below 100 km/h when striking with full force. A few top professional soccer players can when striking with full force reach something around 130-140 km/h at the max on a good day.

So I would guess some non-pro dude like you and I would be able to reach about 70 km/h when striking with full force.

And now imagine getting hit by a soccer ball being stroken with full force from only few meters away, hitting you in the middle of the chest and you don't expect it.

Yes, that's IMHO the best analogy here... I believe the actual discussion should be continued elsewhere, though. Enough of the OT.

Notice, however, when someone does an actual physics calculation instead of saying "its mathematics and its not arguable" - things start to make sense, don't they? :P

Edited November 15, 2013 by DarkWanderer