General Discussion (dev branch)

[scavenjer 112]

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

This is a difficult thing. Tzhe problem is, HEAT charges tend to work on a point, not with a hughe explosion and a large kil radius. Also...an An explosively formed penetrator (EFP) does not work very well to kill occupants if it does not hit anything like ammunition or fuel, it just blows a hole and when the hatches are open, no overpressure can form inside. It not easy to make that into a game mechanic....An ATGM s not a bomb. Since WW2 a lot if developemt went into crew protection meinign that after a hot the vehicle is totally out of action, but all or most of the crew are alive. Even the russian developemt prioritized crew proctection now, seeT-14, T-15. Main point is, damage dealt will always be an abstraction inside such a game. For full realtime simulation you would need a whole processor for that task alone.

 

Not at all, HEAT is still an explosive and therefore will definitely act as HE (DM12 120mm HEAT-MP was specifically designed to be good against vehicles and infantry).

Even after penetration they are deadly, without spall liner crew inside tanks will be shred to pieces by spalling and fragments of the EFP.

With spall liner the EFP itself will still generate fragments and a blastwave, contrary to popular belief there's no "overpressure" generated that would be harmful, however the shockwave will incapacitate any crew (unconscious).

 

the US did some testing with sheep inside a tank, they put 1lb of explosives inside it with no frag, no sheep were killed however they were all unconscious from the shockwave.

Something very similar is seen with EFPs.

[dragon01 903]

HEAT penetrates with armor with a hot jet of molten metal. On the other side of the armor, you've got a bunch of very hot plasma in a small enclosure. This will likely kill anyone inside a compartment that was hit. Less so with EFPs and sabot, which are much more likely to just knock the crew unconscious from the impact.

 

As for the "HE" part of HEAT doing damage, it does, but it's a purely concussive explosion that is not actually that powerful. Unless you're using a dedicated HEAT-MP round (which tend to have added fragmentation feautres), then the kill radius is gonna be pretty small.

[Strike_NOR 898]

@Beagle I have rigged 2.75'' rocket shaped charge warheads for demonstrational purposes IRL. If that TITAN-AT missile from my screenshot had ANY form of similar warhead, both guys would be dead from the pressure. It's like a HE grenade goes off 1 m from your head. Even without fragmentation, you are dead. Besides, my point is even if you dropped a 500lbs bomb 5 meters from the tank, the turned-out crew will not die in ArmA. Which is inaccurate. I think turned out crew are handled the same way as turned in crew when it comes to explosives. Only projectile hits will "directly" kill them. 

 

@dragon01 The molten metal jet has been debunked here as a myth already. Also my local EOD specialist confirmed. The liner (usually copper) is deformed by the explosive, but not molten. It does not melt any armor. However, the focused blast will force the steel armor to "give way". This deforms the steel so rapidly that the steel armor heats up and sends some steel sparks flying. 

The impact of HEAT looks like it makes the armor melt, but it's just being forced away by a focused jet of extremely high pressure.

Yes, this creates high pressure and very hot steel spalling/fragments, which are likely to kill crew, destroy equipment and ignite ammunition.

 

As for the HE potential, it's still enough to kill you at close range, but in no way a "general purpose" weapon. In my screenshot, the two tankers should be dead.

[Tankbuster 1747]

18 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

@Beagle I have rigged 2.75'' rocket shaped charge warheads for demonstrational purposes IRL. If that TITAN-AT missile from my screenshot had ANY form of similar warhead, both guys would be dead from the pressure. It's like a HE grenade goes off 1 m from your head. Even without fragmentation, you are dead. Besides, my point is even if you dropped a 500lbs bomb 5 meters from the tank, the turned-out crew will not die in ArmA. Which is inaccurate. I think turned out crew are handled the same way as turned in crew when it comes to explosives. Only projectile hits will "directly" kill them. 

 

@dragon01 The molten metal jet has been debunked here as a myth already. Also my local EOD specialist confirmed. The liner (usually copper) is deformed by the explosive, but not molten. It does not melt any armor. However, the focused blast will force the steel armor to "give way". This deforms the steel so rapidly that the steel armor heats up and sends some steel sparks flying. 

The impact of HEAT looks like it makes the armor melt, but it's just being forced away by a focused jet of extremely high pressure.

Yes, this creates high pressure and very hot steel spalling/fragments, which are likely to kill crew, destroy equipment and ignite ammunition.

 

As for the HE potential, it's still enough to kill you at close range, but in no way a "general purpose" weapon. In my screenshot, the two tankers should be dead.

Am I the only one who can't understand why this debate is going on? These two guys are fucked. End of.

[lex__1 422]

Tell me at what stage the decision of this ticket

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82570

If the ticket is difficult to solve, it is possible to open this ticket

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120265

The problem in the first ticket is to stop the rotation of the UAV - it forces you to use offline mode. But the offline mode turns off the camera lock and there is no target tracking in the PIP window.
As a result, the problem with UAV is wider than could be.

[goko-- 147]

7 hours ago, Beagle said:

This is a difficult thing. Tzhe problem is, HEAT charges tend to work on a point, not with a hughe explosion and a large kil radius. Also...an An explosively formed penetrator (EFP) does not work very well to kill occupants if it does not hit anything like ammunition or fuel, it just blows a hole and when the hatches are open, no overpressure can form inside. It not easy to make that into a game mechanic....An ATGM s not a bomb. Since WW2 a lot if developemt went into crew protection meinign that after a hot the vehicle is totally out of action, but all or most of the crew are alive. Even the russian developemt prioritized crew proctection now, seeT-14, T-15. Main point is, damage dealt will always be an abstraction inside such a game. For full realtime simulation you would need a whole processor for that task alone.

 

It would be great if crew catch fire though. Catch fire and jump out of the vehicle.

[x3kj 1247]

Passengers or crew do not exist for explosive damage calculation. Explosive damage to passengers (of any kind) is the value of explosive damage to the vehicle multiplied with crewExplosionProtection config property - no matter if turned in or out. And it doesnt matter if it's a battleship or a motorcycle - every crewmember will receive that damage. Has been like this for eons.

[Strike_NOR 898]

6 hours ago, x3kj said:

Passengers or crew do not exist for explosive damage calculation.

Thanks for verifying. I had this suspicion for ages.

[bars91 956]

8 hours ago, x3kj said:

Passengers or crew do not exist for explosive damage calculation.

 

Well, that's surprisingly shitty. For 2013... it's 2018 now.

[Grumpy Old Man 3550]

20 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

About 0.1 ms after this screenshot was taken, neither of the homies were killed. The tank was damaged, but no crew killed.

 

This is another gripe. Explosive weapons do not seem to damage turned-out crew. Neither do they really damage internal crew, even in cars, where a 40mm grenade to the drivers window "should" kill the guy(s) inside.

Will this be tweaked for tanks DLC? :)

 

 

Another thing that grinds my gears:

 

 

When I fired the shot the camera switches to unit next to the vehicle.

setAccTime set to 0.075 so at 60fps one frame will take roughly 1ms.

 

Notice how within 1ms after the projectile hit the vehicle the first unit is suddenly turned in...

The hint displays time, video has a resolution of ~1ms in game time per frame.

 

 

Now imagine you got 2 snipers coordinating their attacks to take out both targets at once, this would fail if the guy in the front will be hit first, since the guy in the rear turns in within a millisecond.

Considering bullet positions are only updated every frame and one frame at 60fps takes 16.67ms this could get really frustrating...

 

Cheers

 

[Dedmen 2726]

On 18.2.2018 at 12:18 AM, d3nn16 said:

I installed the dev build version of the Linux server using steamcmd and 'app_update 233780 -beta development validate'.

And installed dev build version of the Windows client using steamcmd and 'app_update 107410 -beta development validate.

 

When I start the dev build client on my Windows machine I see correct version 'Development Build version 1.81.144316'. But when I go to the server list I see my server with a red cross and its info card shows 'version: 1.80'. I disabled addon check in server config file (verifySignatures=0, onDifferentData = "", onUnsignedData = "", onHackedData = "", BattlEye = 0). In the server logs I see incorrect version 'Arma 3 Console version 1.80.143869 x86'.

 

Does this mean it is not always possible to test the latest dev build on a Linux server? Do I need to wait until the Linux Server Dev Build 1.81.144136 is released?

AFAIK there are no dev branch builds for linux server.

1.81 will never be released. Next release version is 1.82

[x3kj 1247]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Notice how within 1ms after the projectile hit the vehicle the first unit is suddenly turned in...

The hint displays time, video has a resolution of ~1ms in game time per frame.

This immediate "pop" to inside could be due to animation states switching from turned outside to dead state animation (which may just exist for inside). So when he died, he immediately popped to another animation. Its a possibility. Reaction time is way too crazy nevertheless.

In general, the AI seems to have issues with beeing too precise and immediate in things that shouldn't be.

Example 1: Crew disembarking when vehicle is rendered immobile or in the condition to explode. It takes 1 frame for them to recognize this and jump out (and start shooting anyone who stands near with their personal weapons).

Example 2: Someone on discord this weekend showed a video where he thought AI can see through walls. It seemed to me however, like the AI only heard the sound of a weapon, but immediately and with 100% accuracy pinpointed the source of origin and then turned in precisely this direction to start searching visually - it didnt find anything of course, because the sound source was obstructed by the wall.

[.kju 3245]

Quote

In general, the AI seems to have issues with being too precise and immediate in things that shouldn't be.

 

another example is awareness of death/kill/destruction

 

unfortunately it seems BI programmers didnt consider to introduce some (random) delay into AI awareness and perception (at least in many areas)

[Strike_NOR 898]

@x3kj @.kju

 

Would make sense to make this into an AI skill slider parameter. "Reaction time". Could be the same parameter that influences aim time etc. 

Make that a base value, the eject time could be a coefficient of that base value. So for instance, reacting to enemies in CQB is generally fast, but as crew reacting to tank damage it gets an increased reaction time based on the initial level.

[dragon01 903]

Guess so. They're probably working on finishing the new tanks, and any new features that'll follow will likely be implemented on them first. I just hope it's not too far away...

[Sgt. Strongest Military Ever 19]

I think we'll be seeing something new this week:

 

[lex__1 422]

27 minutes ago, Sgt. Strongest Military Ever said:

I think we'll be seeing something new this week:

Now, only February ends, and DLC promised at the end of 1Q

Quote

Tanks DLC on the way, we have yet to complete our current roadmap (Tanks DLC is on track to be released towards the end of Q1 2018).

https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00209

 

[lexx 1412]

Yup. Also:

Over the course of the next few weeks, we plan to introduce more interior-supported vehicles to Dev-Branch

Which hasn't happened yet, nearly 6 weeks later.

[SuicideKing 233]

 

So...this has been a problem for us for a long time. Vehicle gunners have this tendency to know about enemies that should be outside their vision cone, abruptly and suddenly turn and snipe them with one burst and then snap back to the original direction they were facing. It's really annoying when playing against them, and really jarring when inside vics with the new interiors (since this sudden motion is really noticeable). They also seem to be really good at turning and focusing on targets while in motion. As a player this is really difficult unless the target is far away. I think the main turret gunner behaves too much like the commander turret in general. Needs to be slower and more deliberate.

 

As a player in a vehicle your awareness is quite limited (even with the new interiors), and I think the AI should better reflect that. Maybe some (slow) scanning behaviour needs to be incorporated too, so that players know the AI is going to turn towards them.

 

(this is less of a problem with open turrets, but with CROWS...)

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I noticed the FV-720 Mora has some new sounds, specifically for wheels and tracks. So squeaky! It makes me genuinely happy coupled with the bouncy suspension. :P

 

Speaking of the Mora, would it ever be possible to combine the detail proxy into the model?

 

 

It ruins perfectly good retextures. :(

[Sgt. Strongest Military Ever 19]

I figure they'll put the DLC on dev branch sometime this week, then release it at the end of March.

[Strike_NOR 898]

Sounds about right.

 

I hope we get to see some cfgarmorsimulation snacks soon :D

 

Edit:

 

Regarding today's devbranch update. What could possibly be the difference between " " and ' '   :)

 

Maybe an indication of how serious these logistical issues are?

I have yet to witness a case of '''logistical issues''' . I've been told those are a nightmare.

 

 

[goko-- 147]

7 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Sounds about right.

 

I hope we get to see some cfgarmorsimulation snacks soon :D

 

Edit:

 

Regarding today's devbranch update. What could possibly be the difference between " " and ' '   :)

 

Maybe an indication of how serious these logistical issues are?

I have yet to witness a case of '''logistical issues''' . I've been told those are a nightmare.

them logistical issues must be top secret classified logistical issues

[Callsign 128]

Hmmm, I think BIS should probably state what the logistical issues are, in case the community starts building it up to be something it's not.

[en3x 209]

On 2/10/2018 at 11:49 AM, bis_iceman said:

 

Sometimes we indeed are preparing some package to hit the Dev-Branch, but most of the time it’s an issue caused by internal circumstances. For example, yesterday our data packing server woke up to a not so splendid morning and decided to pack vehicle data without any collisions applied. Due to this, QA spent the day testing a fix deployed by our mastering heroes, but unfortunately still found some cases of corrupted data. QA applied a red flag on the build and we did not release it.

 

Pure example of technical issues, without quotation marks.