Buy Iron Front armor penetration and implement in ArmA3

[ProfTournesol 956]

Correct! I think the major difference between the two which actually seems to have the biggest impact/impression is the detailed damage model and single parts being blown off. I guess it just looks more impressive when you actually see the model getting destroyed :)

Yep, those destruction effects are brilliant and should somehow be introduced in A3 IMHO.

[simon1279 52]

I'm sure BIS will implement destrution and damage system like the one or maybe better than the one we met in Iron Front, and i can't think how much it will be awesome with Physx® :o

Edited April 21, 2013 by Simon1279

[maturin 12]

all what's needed for the IF penetration system is already (since OA 1.6x betas) in engine, configs and scripting ...

As I recall, there's a MP limitation that Nouber has been clamoring for you guys to fix over at devheaven for a year or so.

[Rolling 1]

I don't care if it's necesarily from Iron Front, I would just love a better penetration system regardless. :)

[nodunit 397]

Correct! I think the major difference between the two which actually seems to have the biggest impact/impression is the detailed damage model and single parts being blown off. I guess it just looks more impressive when you actually see the model getting destroyed :)

Visual feedback, it's a much better confirmation to see a change on the vehicle be it bits falling off, smoke, fire or an explosion to let you know it is out of commision than it is to fire at a tank and watch it just sit, wondering if it is about to fire back.

Realism may not be BI's goal but I'm not going to lie, I'm going to be dissapointed if infantry wind up having body armor that can deflect smaller calibers entirerly, and vehicles have varied penetration like OA but tanks have the same system since OFP, seriously why does one class get something but not another, you'll run into far less tanks than you ever will wheeled vehicles or infantry.

The funny thing is that realism is actually an excellent balancing point between parties and in forcing teamwork.

Take armor warfare as it is now...tanks have radar, they can see all threats and infantry can blast them with an anti tank rocket regardless of direction to armor.

Add ballistics to tank armor and remove radar, what happens?

Tank still has immense firepower, infantry must consider angle of engagement to the tank lest they simply ding off the armor or not penetrate and upset the crew.

However the crew also have to scan because they aren't just handed targets via radar, using coordination to keep tabs on targets rather than relying on a radar to track them.

The fact that I as an AAA vehicle can look at a MBT (not APC) and think "dead meat" rather than "running time" is a very bad thing, that I can just fire my guns and chew the armor up and obliterate it is just...

Edited April 21, 2013 by NodUnit

[connorwarman 60]

Please do this BIS.

The current armor penetration system in ArmA 2 is meh. I would love to see it improved in ArmA 3.

[Dwarden 1125]

As I recall, there's a MP limitation that Nouber has been clamoring for you guys to fix over at devheaven for a year or so.

what limitation? ... whatever was added into engine what IF used was part of OA betas too ... if unfixed then IF has that limitation too

[nodunit 397]

Made a ticket...but don't expect anything to come out of it.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view_all_bug_page.php

[Bee8190 10]

I don't care if it's necesarily from Iron Front, I would just love a better penetration system regardless. :)

Completely agree. I haven't played IF (shame on me indeed) but there just has to be better damage model than what we were dealing with in AO, be it in house or else. I'd get why it was so simplified in Arma 2 and AO but lack of at least basic damage would be, IMHO just embarrassing. Some might come about with the ''make all the things''s but arma absolutely should simulate above stuff.

EDIT - ticket up voted

[maturin 12]

what limitation? ... whatever was added into engine what IF used was part of OA betas too ... if unfixed then IF has that limitation too

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/27837#change-139569

NouberNou:

With this ticket fixed we could see mod makers implement a system like this:

[Dwarden 1125]

probably best turn it into separate Arma 3 tracker issue

[nik21 1]

+1, an armor penetration system and vehicle damage model like in IF44 is what Arma 3 really needs.

[Tonci87 163]

Arma really needs a good penetration model.

Imagine this:

You are an AT soldier with the task to defend a street against vehicels. So you are sitting at your corner ready to shoot every vehicle that appears in that street. Suddenly you see a heavy tank coming towards you.

What happens now: You aim and fire, it doesn´t matter where you hit it you will inflict some damage.

What happens with a better penetration system: You get back into cover immediately because you know that your RPG won´t penetrate the front armor. You either wait for the vehicle to advance to your corner to hit it from the side, always afraid of enemy infantry going along the tank, or you try to somehow get behind the tank. Maybe you call in additional AT teams to attack the vehicle from multiple sides. You know that it is not easy to destroy a heavy tank. You are immediatel aware that you are facing a deadly unforgiving killing machine. But that Tank has it´s weak spots and it is your goal to hit them.

[nodunit 397]

My thoughts exactly, plus when you think about the motion...the updates to infantry give them a great advantage over armor, back in flashpoint we could only move veeery slowly and were forced to crouch with an AT launcher whereas now we're able to run and be standing or crouched, giving infantry far more options in where and how to engage the armor.

To be fair though, if such a system exists then tanks need to lose their radar (at least for the player to see) otherwise they will know where that soldier is on the first hit, it should be about confusion and constant scanning for the tank crew..the AI can report positions sure but it shouldn't up on a radar or be perminent...luckily this one is already doable.

Edited April 21, 2013 by NodUnit

[max power 21]

I'm sure BIS will implement destrution and damage system like the one or maybe better than the one we met in Iron Front, and i can't think how much it will be awesome with Physx® :o

I wouldn't really hold my breath for a more detailed vehicle damage system, or one that incorporates physx. AFAIK nothing has been announced about that.

[maturin 12]

Why the hell does a vehicle damage system need Physx? Do people think it's some sort of magic that makes everything better?

And Tonci's post shows just one of the reasons why anyone saying that 'ArmA should focus on infantry,' deserves to be hit over the head with a shovel.

A penetration and vehicle damage system is not an advanced tank sim feature. Not even close. It's as integral to infantry gameplay as anything else in the game.

[Tonci87 163]

Why the hell does a vehicle damage system need Physx? Do people think it's some sort of magic that makes everything better?

And Tonci's post shows just one of the reasons why anyone saying that 'ArmA should focus on infantry,' deserves to be hit over the head with a shovel.

A penetration and vehicle damage system is not an advanced tank sim feature. Not even close. It's as integral to infantry gameplay as anything else in the game.

^this.

What do people think if they play vanilla Arma 2, spot a tank coming at them and have a few spare RPGs? -> Oh look a tank. Let´s blow it up.

What they should think -> Oh shit, a tank. Let´s think about how we can blow it up.

[dmarkwick 261]

We shouldn't forget also that the units inside a tank can easily become infantry very quickly :)

What we need, ideally, is a system like this:

BzpUVtVUBTI

[Dwarden 1125]

would be fine for starter to have just destruction and penetration system like Men of War: Assault Squad or Red Orchestra 2 (for vehicles)

http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/showthread.php?7476-Tank-damage-mechanics-official-guide

but as usually what is nice, takes a lot of time

Edited April 22, 2013 by Dwarden

[Tonci87 163]

would be fine for starter to have just destruction and penetration system like Men of War: Assault Squad or Red Orchestra 2 (for vehicles)

http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/showthread.php?7476-Tank-damage-mechanics-official-guide

but as usually what is nice, takes a lot of time

Exactly :)

I hope someone finds that time.

[simon1279 52]

would be fine for starter to have just destruction and penetration system like Men of War: Assault Squad or Red Orchestra 2 (for vehicles)

http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/showthread.php?7476-Tank-damage-mechanics-official-guide

but as usually what is nice, takes a lot of time

And how much CPU crunch is this, also considering the overall CPU usage on populated envivorment ?

i'm just curious

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

I wouldn't really hold my breath for a more detailed vehicle damage system, or one that incorporates physx. AFAIK nothing has been announced about that.

this is "the skeleton" of a Physx explosion and destruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKo1RKRptkE

Personally i believe this will make breathtaking effects, icluding particles exc.

Disclaimer: This video is intended just for technology show and not for developer advertisment

Imagine a vehicle hit by a rocket, and the impact affects the damaged part using physx for "flying damaged parts", or tracks dismembering

Edited April 22, 2013 by Simon1279
Disclaimer

[Blaf 1]

A penetration and vehicle damage system is not an advanced tank sim feature. Not even close. It's as integral to infantry gameplay as anything else in the game.

Just... this

[maturin 12]

And how much CPU crunch is this, also considering the overall CPU usage on populated envivorment ?

i'm just curious

Personally i believe this will make breathtaking effects, icluding particles exc.

Disclaimer: This video is intended just for technology show and not for developer advertisment

Imagine a vehicle hit by a rocket, and the impact affects the damaged part using physx for "flying damaged parts", or tracks dismembering

Okay, now I'm hitting you over the head with a shovel. Don't you dare bring up the CPU load a damage system accomplished in a low-spec RTS and then post about computer-murdering physics-enabled particle effects.

would be fine for starter to have just destruction and penetration system like Men of War: Assault Squad or Red Orchestra 2 (for vehicles)

http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/sho...official-guide

but as usually what is nice, takes a lot of time

Sorry, but I just don't accept that excuse. Sure, a full system is massive investment of time, research and resources, but ANYTHING is better than what we have now. And it would take all of five seconds to rig up a system for making the front of tanks more resistant to damage than the rear, or add probability-based damage tables for killing crew and achieving firepower kills. It doesn't have to be totally realistic and balanced to begin with, just something to add instant depth to the gameplay, giving valuable tools to the modders, who have all the time in the world. Because what we have now is a system that's more arcade than BF3. Let that sink in.

I mean heck, anyone could script a simplistic, intermediate system, if only the vehicles had properly defined hitboxes for their components. Maybe if we weren't using so many upgraded ArmA 1 models all the time.

My point is, it's understandable that we don't have an Iron Front system, but the UTTER lack of progress on an issue where very incremental improvements could have a big payoff, makes it clear to me that the devs just have no interest in doing anything. Despite the fact that so much of the fanbase has been howling about it for years on end.

Edited April 22, 2013 by maturin

[simon1279 52]

Okay, now I'm hitting you over the head with a shovel. Don't you dare bring up the CPU load a damage system accomplished in a low-spec RTS and then post about computer-murdering physics-enabled particle effects.

Lol, btw if you don't have a pretty good rig, you can have in the options the possibility to disable Physx particle explosion effects ;)

i'm just considering many aspects and related what if, my posts aren't "i want this in my game" and they'll never be, this ain't my stile

EDIT: Btw the showel on da head hurts :D lol

[Smurf 12]

MoW: Assault Squad system...

Just another guide for those that aren't familiar with the game, it has more tactics then game mechanics, but still it is something nice: http://baserespawn.blogspot.com.br/2011/07/mowas-tank-combat-guide.html