Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Qosmius

Infantry and apc armor have been improved

Recommended Posts

hello, i noticed today that the apc armor and infantry armor has been improved :) this pleases me very much. i love how the apc can take a missile to the front and actually not explode now instantly (titan at missile) took about 5-6 missiles to completely wreck it

but it could also survive a missile to the side and back which is odd for me. actually it took same amount of missiles to kill the apc from the side and back, as it took in the front

also now when you get shoot by bullets in your body armor you can hear some sound like it hits a metall wall which is awesome.. i tested on some ai in the editor and the could take 11 hits with the pistol in body armor and 6 by the mxm 6.5mm rifle..

compared to 5 shoots in the legs..

also now helmets work too, but not perfectly.. ai can take 4 shoots to the helmet before they die and 2 shoots to the face? which is weird. they can survive 2 bullets to the helmet with the mxm 6.5mm but also 2 to the face which is also weird..

LOVE the improvements :) but keep on tweaking a bit :)

DEV version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the two APC's they put in the game are not your usual APC's: Both of these are considered to be in the APC-H (Armoured Personel Carrier - Heavy) class, which are based off of MBT hulls. In the Panthers case, the Merkava which has a reputation of having - if anything - far far too much armour. The BTR-K appears to be based off of a Stock Russian Style hull: in the real world, the BTR-T's that the K is based off of, are built up on old T55 and T62 hulls, which while not in the same class as the Merkava armour wise, is a hell of a lot better than anything you will see on a stock APC like the Brad or Bimp.

*edit*

Of course, that really doesn't address the armour protection of these. I would say they got it pretty good, but not perfect. I think they both are still a little two strong armour wise, less for the Panther and more so for the BTR. A side shot from a good sized ATGM should kill the BTR from the side, and have a decent, but not a sure thing, chance of doing the same to the Panther. This is assuming that all the ATGM's we have in game so far are direct line of attack missiles. If they introduce the Jav (Which would be, as a former cav tanker looking forward to amoured action, a serious badness thing) they need to ensure the Top Attack nature of the Jav, and missiles like it, bypass the thick sides and eat AFV's for breakfast.

Edited by PantherAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the two APC's they put in the game are not your usual APC's: Both of these are considered to be in the APC-H (Armoured Personel Carrier - Heavy) class, which are based off of MBT hulls. In the Panthers case, the Merkava which has a reputation of having - if anything - too much armour. The BTR-K appears to be based off of a Stock Russian Style hull: in the real world, the BTR-T's that the K is based off of, are built up on old T55 and T62 hulls, which while not in the same class as the Merkava armour wise, is a hell of a lot better than anything you will see on a stock APC like the Brad or Bimp.

The chassis used for the BTR-K is not based off the BTR-T, but off the Tunguska running gear. The real life vehicle is a reconaissance Vehicle (T2 Stalker, built in Belarus.), not an IFV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is, but I still stand by they based the -K off of, in a more general sense, the BTR-T, even if its a recce and not IFV. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually no, they still dont have any armor and body armor doesnt work either. i was just playing in extended armor difficulty. so yeah...every apc still gets 1 shotted by 1 missile to the front still and body armor still have no effect at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry , but I tested the body armor like you said ,and it's true that it's not perfect , but it works, I even heard the sound of metal on the body armor !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sofia, you have to turn off extended armor.. and test again..extended armor is more like a "beginner" mode for players while turning that off would be more like real life damage system.

so if you turn that off again you will die from 4 shoots from a pistol to the stomach with or without body armor..apcs die from 1 missile to wherever you shoot them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know modern body armors are made out of kevlar or twaron and ceramic plates. So there shouldnt be a metalic noise when you hit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, there I thought for a while that A3 had taken the step towards realism, instead of arcade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fennecus, well you can hear a ceramic sound then, happy?

well yeah i was really excited to at first but then i found out it was just arcade mode on :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hello, i noticed today that the apc armor and infantry armor has been improved :) this pleases me very much. i love how the apc can take a missile to the front and actually not explode now instantly (titan at missile) took about 5-6 missiles to completely wreck it

but it could also survive a missile to the side and back which is odd for me. actually it took same amount of missiles to kill the apc from the side and back, as it took in the front

Well i cant sign that,because i make some practice tests with all APCs in the game,and my results are different then yours.

First of all i shot the normal BLUEFOR MARSHAL APC with RPG-32 Rockets and also NPC´l he only survive 1 rocket in the front,and does not explode,so the crew still can get out of it.

In the back he can explode with 1 rocket,so the crew chance to escape is pretty low.

The i tested the Titan on the MARSHAL and he was a 1 hit with the AT rocket.

Same results with the Russian APC.

The i try out the new Armored Support Vehicles,and they survive up to 2 Rockets in the front with RPG-32.

Also with the Titan 1 Rocket in the front armor hull but he survive,also the crew can leave it without that the vehicle Explodes.

They survive 1 rocket of a Titan,but not 2 i also try out the Armor Piercing (AP) Rockets of the Titan,and the new APCs take 3-5 Hits with AP rounds,thats kinda bullshit.

I dont know but somehow the Armor Piercing (AP) Rockets have no Punch,at the first i thought these would be Anti Personal rockets,with alot of shrapnel when they explode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP = anti personel?

In this case: confirmed !!!

Titan AP

--------------------

hit = 70;

indirectHit = 50;

indirectHitRange = 8;

Titan AT

--------------------

hit = 800;

indirectHit = 20;

indirectHitRange = 2;

Edited by V-zwo_Null

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V-zwo null

are those stats for how much damage the missiles does? are you kidding with me...are they still using the hp system for apcs and tanks..god what is wrong with bis

i thought they had implemented some new armor stats but no..they still stick to the same things

The namer apc uses the SAME hull as a merkava tank..THAT means that the merkava tank will be 1 shotted by the titan missile too...so much for realism. let everyone run around with pwnhammers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May i ask what the hell are the developers doing all these years? Its been 3 GAMES ALREADY OVER 7 YEARS. And its getting worse than Operation Flashpoint itself! Im just wondering if developers even wanted to actually develop this game or make it even arcade to sell it more folks? I mean where is the realism here? Tanks based on HP points, worse "lock-on, missile" features even than Battlefield series which actually not aim the realism(!) i wonder whats next. All these changeable helmets and weapon customisation is something that even can modders do. Do we have to wait some realism modders to handle these stuff for the developers all these years? Im really having a hard time to see what improvements they did on ARMA 3 over ARMA 1 and ARMA 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May i ask what the hell are the developers doing all these years? Its been 3 GAMES ALREADY OVER 7 YEARS. And its getting worse than Operation Flashpoint itself! Im just wondering if developers even wanted to actually develop this game or make it even arcade to sell it more folks? I mean where is the realism here? Tanks based on HP points, worse "lock-on, missile" features even than Battlefield series which actually not aim the realism(!) i wonder whats next. All these changeable helmets and weapon customisation is something that even can modders do. Do we have to wait some realism modders to handle these stuff for the developers all these years? Im really having a hard time to see what improvements they did on ARMA 3 over ARMA 1 and ARMA 2.

I feel that animations were one of the biggest step forward and are well done, a definite step up. I appreciate the water element added to the game as well other things like the fog, volumetric sky, and ragdoll. It is obvious nearly everything still has to go through some tweaks here and there, but here is where I agree, I can't shake off the feeling that there is a lot to be desired. We are still unable to walk on moving objects, vehicle & terrain interaction is too basic and the mentioned hit points is nothing short of disgrace if I am honest, no weapon resting and I am not delighted with the menu interaction either and that is not to mention AI. As your post suggests, I don't think that devs are unwilling to go deeper, to me, it looks like there is simply not enough man power to work on all of the features and the massive time pressure is fairly noticeable as in ever present compromise - features / stuff is added but is left with not enough attention, only basic implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing is that ArmA3 is still preaty much WIP. Do not make final conclusions before final release.

Second thing is that creating realistic armor-projectile interaction system is not easy. Actually making it realistic is near immposible unless you want to run a PC game on a supercomputer.

There is nececity to make some compromise. Even very realistic simulators like SB Pro PE do not have 100% realistic armor simulation, it is not even 50% realistic.

The fact is that when it comes to compromise, for example ACE2 system was good compromise.

Problem lies elsewhere, it is to make damage in places where actually projectiles hits, so if it hits side armor, side armor is damaged, if it hits front, thenf ront is damaged. The problem with ArmA hit points system is that sometimes front hit may cause damage to the sides or rear, I suppose it is nature of that indirectHit parameter.

And there is even closer to realism system, which should be simple.

First each vehicle surface should have it's own armor value, now each of these surfaces have in it's armor value coded two numbers, these numbers are responsible for protection calculation against kinetic energy and chemical energy projectiles.

Something like ArmorHullFront = 700/1000. Now, if a projectile, let's say it is AT missile for Titan launcher, have a penetration value of 800, and we know it use HEAT warhead which is chemical energy type projectile, it should be absolutely incapable to defeat armor, no matters how many times we fire it in to vehicle.

But if vehicle have for example for side hull, such parameter ArmorHullSideLeft = 400/700, then Titan AT missile, should be capable to defeat armor.

It is relatively simple system, and closer to reality.

But now the problem is that not every penetration, means destroyed vehicle, it might be just disable, crew might wounded or dead + there should be such parameter as ammunition cook off probability, so sometimes vehicle will be just disabled, sometimes ammo will cook off and vehicle will be permamently lost.

However I do not know if such armor system can be implemented in to ArmA3, and perhaps BIS is making such or similiar armor system for the final game release.

It is also possible that more features will be added in form of patches after game release, when developers will have time and manpower to work on them, and implement them in to a stable platform. In such case developers focusing on more important aspects, like overall game performance and other stuff is fully understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First thing is that ArmA3 is still preaty much WIP. Do not make final conclusions before final release.

There is no way that more realistic damage modelling or significantly better AI than Arma 2 is going to be in the final release. I think that much is now apparent.

I suppose it is nature of that indirectHit parameter.

No, that parameter defines the projectile's splash damage.

The I44 mod had a good damage modelling system. ACE 2 was decent too. However BIS seem myopic about what really needs fixed, and about what modders have done to fix issues. I think, for example, that if there is no suppression in Arma3 when it is released, despite there being a very well known mod that introduced it to Arma2 in a very effective manner, that will set the tone - another product that needs fixed by the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that more realistic damage modelling or significantly better AI than Arma 2 is going to be in the final release. I think that much is now apparent.

Maybe, or maybe not, i will not make any definitive conclusions before release.

There is no way that more realistic damage modelling or significantly better AI than Arma 2 is going to be in the final release. I think that much is now apparent.

Which may affect also armored vehicles when their armor is directly hit.

I remember even in OFP days, RHS T-80UM-1 with Arena active protection system, was also affected even when projectile exploded several meters away from tank.

The I44 mod had a good damage modelling system. ACE 2 was decent too. However BIS seem myopic about what really needs fixed, and about what modders have done to fix issues. I think, for example, that if there is no suppression in Arma3 when it is released, despite there being a very well known mod that introduced it to Arma2 in a very effective manner, that will set the tone - another product that needs fixed by the community.

Hey, at least be thankfull that BIS base their product around community that is free to mod it, and are not dicks like EA or similiar companys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finnaly people agree and see that stuff like this needs to be fixed...It is about time that bis opens theyr eyes and look at the important things. improved animations doesnt mean anything when the rest of the game stinks..sure they added 3d scopes, but does it really matter when every other aspect of the game is very bad?

Yes also the community can add in mods, but it is just cheaply done to let the community fix the flaws of the game.

we had ace mod since arma 1 and yet they still refuse to take some content from those mods and put it into arma 3 really. it makes me sad.

There has been a ton of features and they never even get looked at by bis, if they asked if they could use the mod in the game im sure modders would allow it to make a better game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does it really matter when every other aspect of the game is very bad?

Yes also the community can add in mods, but it is just cheaply done to let the community fix the flaws of the game.

we had ace mod since arma 1 and yet they still refuse to take some content from those mods and put it into arma 3 really. it makes me sad.

ACE had some very cool features, and some not so cool. I44 had some very cool features, and some not so cool.

Same goes with the ton of features of other mods, addons, scripts and tweaks. With their own bugs, too.

Some have decided to use the mod, some do not want to use it. We have a freedom to choose.

Everyone has their own opinion about The Most Important Features. Some are so eager to have Their MIF as the number one priority for the game developers, that they seem to ignore improvements on any other aspect of the game. That is just not fair.

No need for that "devs ar lazy/stupid/blind/arrogant" stuff.

There is always a reason why a feature is missing or delayed. And the devs Have explained the reasons pretty well in other threads already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First thing is that ArmA3 is still preaty much WIP. Do not make final conclusions before final release.

Second thing is that creating realistic armor-projectile interaction system is not easy. Actually making it realistic is near immposible unless you want to run a PC game on a supercomputer.

Red Orchestra Ostfront and WW2 online had good armor penetration systems, and they most certainly did not require supercomputers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

world of tanks has armor system too, men of war, steel beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Orchestra Ostfront and WW2 online had good armor penetration systems, and they most certainly did not require supercomputers.

You are definetely not a type of guy, that have a lot of literature about AFV's, and actually seen how military software to calculate such things works? To put it simple, it is a very simple 3d model, which takes 1FPS to graphically shown how penetration process goes, this is how much PC needs to calculate, that a simple graphic motion takes approx 1FPS, perhaps some more. ;)

I tell you, Red Orchestra is a joke when it comes to armor-projectile interaction simulation. Actually every game is, simply because penetration process is incredibly complex, especially when it comes to modern projectiles against modern armor.

I could probably wrote about this subject one huge page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×