Vehicles don't explode. STOP THIS

[mindstorm 8]

Suggestion:

• Vehicles explode when being shot with a missile.
  
• Vehicles without ammo do not explode when damage = 1
  
• Vehicles with ammo have a possibility to catch fire and eventually explode when hit damage = 1
  
• Vehicles with and without ammo DO NOT explode when you receive damage from any source other then ammo/missiles. E.g. walls, trees, and god knows what.
  

Arma explosions should be more like this first 2 explosions in this video. Currently they are more like the last one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JeHWs16ybnA

Edited August 6, 2013 by mindstorm

[fragmachine 12]

The explosion most of the time it as the missile, not the vehicle it hits. A vehicle doesn't generally explode unless fuel or ammunition (pending type) is hit. It's the penetrating warhead, steal rod and molten steel and other shrapnel, as well as the shockwave that "kill" the tank..taking out the crew not so much the vehicle.

The cases of the tank turrets blowing off in desert storm was a design flaw, a fuel line that ran around the turret ring that when hit would create a violent explosion and send the turret skyward.

Old T-72 had a design flaw - ammunition belt surrounding the turret from the inside. Basically, if hitted well the whole turret became space shuttle.

Generally I agree on the topic. ArmA III effects are really vintage and even game journalists starts to notice it because the game is close to the finish line.

There should be different type of effects (or none) depending on where projectile hit and what was penetrated.

Ignition of fuel would led to fire and smoke getting out of the vehicle (depending on where the fire could left - cracks, holes etc) and if there would be low to no ammo just fire, smoke and couple ammo cook-offs. If there would be some ammo left, along with rockets outside the vehicle (like in kamysh) then fire, smoke, cook-offs and 1-2 explosions outside the vehicle caused by the fire on rockets. If there would be full ammo, depending on the place the vehicle been hit and what it penetrated, what was damaged - if it would cause ignition of the fuel and it could reach the ammo - it should give us first some nice fire effects and then explode violently - but again not all cases are right. It depends how well ammunition is separated from the rest of the crew and the vehicle.

It really depends on the type of the vehicle, we can't compare old BMP with the new Kamysh which is BIS product. Modern vehicles gets more complicated when it goes about armour penetration, crew protection. Basically - it would be easier to simulate the effects on old BMPs and other lightly- armoured vehicles than on more complex ones like APCs and MTBs. Anyway would like to see effort being put by BIS in implementing this as salute towards modding community and players. Modders could go down easier with their mid 1970, 1980, 1990 projects when they would have such advanced base to work with. And it would definitely enhance not only realism part - but something BIS is looking towards - immersion.

Suggestion:

[*]Vehicles explode when being shot with a missile.

Well, that is not entirely right. Missile is not what cause vehicle to explode. I may agree on light to no armoured vehicles but MTBs are much more resistant. And what cause vehicle to explode is always a vehicle itself - and it's guts - not the projectile.

I could agree with it as facilitation but only on lighter vehicles, even APCs should be more resistant to explosions. Could make it hitbox and penetration dependant.

Edited August 6, 2013 by fragmachine
typo's

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

I liked the way Iron Front handled damaged vehicles. Quite often it was hard to tell if a tank was knocked out from a distance, especially as they did not always explode. Also the ability to "knock" parts off added to the believability.

Rgds

LoK

[noubernou 77]

:j:

It can be done. BIS has bigger and better things to worry about. They should be giving the community the tools to do what we do best, which is make their games better/more realistic.

Also lol @ VBS2 being a simulator. VBS2 has really no more realistic a damage modeling system than vanilla Arma, but thats a discussion about VBS not Arma, so save it for someplace else. :)

[maturin 12]

NouberNou, ACE can't fix everything. Or at least, it didn't.

I can't imagine playing without your cook-offs anymore, but it lamentably applies to thin-skinned vehicles now, even civilian sedans. That means that a few bullets causes a massive fireball, almost the size of a 500kg bomb explosion. Thin-skinned vehicle damage is now even more arcade than CoD, sorry to say.

I'm not going to complain much about tanks and IFVs exploding, but the spontaneous detonation of simple cars and trucks is a MAJOR irritant, not only to realistic sensibilities but basic gameplay. We should not have to treat harmless transports like potential VBIEDs. It causes irrational gameplay.

Furthermore, the instant death of everyone in a vehicle hit by an RPG (or any small-caliber shaped charge) needs to stop. Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers in Iraq have survived such hits to their humvees, and the entire ingenious modding community has been helpless to repair this defect because of the superficial hitpoint system.

[fragmachine 12]

I tend to agree with maturin. But that is how the engine is written. It is really showing it's age and drawback possibilities and features. Without complete rewrite of this engine (which is impossible at the current state and very hard and money/time consuming task to do after release of ArmA 3) most of the flaws still will be present in the game. And game probably had to be almost twice the price (which I don't personally care but overall sellings could hurt - fanbase would buy the game anyway).

I can't seem BiS developers to be happy with the whole idea of rewriting the engine completely - from scratch to develop ArmA 4 in next 12-15 years. Maybe I overused the numbers but I can see devs jumping off the window if working for a such long time on the engine. But if decided to do then better to aim high or better completely not touching the code.

[noubernou 77]

There is a lot we can do, and you will never, ever see BIS do what the community can do. It is not in their best interests to implement a lot of the stuff the community ultimately will implement.

They should be willing to give us the tools and be more timely on fixes for things that'd help.

For example, the intersect command, a command that'd be incredibly useful for simulating much more realistic vehicle damage systems has been broken for 4 years now. It is still broken in A3. We, as a community have made multiple attempts to have this command fixed and they have basically gone unheard, or humored at best.

[das attorney 858]

For example, the intersect command, a command that'd be incredibly useful for simulating much more realistic vehicle damage systems has been broken for 4 years now. It is still broken in A3. We, as a community have made multiple attempts to have this command fixed and they have basically gone unheard, or humored at best.

Nou - this is slightly offtopic but wanted to ask; What's broken with lineIntersects? I wasn't aware it's not working properly and will be gutted if that's the case as I'm basing a load of stuff on it and it's cousins for something I'm making.

BTW - I thought it was only introduced in 2012; around the 1.60 patch when they added in a load of new commands for DayZ. (Not saying that to try and score "internet points" against you - was just unaware it was available before).

[maturin 12]

I tend to agree with maturin. But that is how the engine is written. It is really showing it's age and drawback possibilities and features. Without complete rewrite of this engine (which is impossible at the current state and very hard and money/time consuming task to do after release of ArmA 3) most of the flaws still will be present in the game. And game probably had to be almost twice the price (which I don't personally care but overall sellings could hurt - fanbase would buy the game anyway).

I can't seem BiS developers to be happy with the whole idea of rewriting the engine completely - from scratch to develop ArmA 4 in next 12-15 years. Maybe I overused the numbers but I can see devs jumping off the window if working for a such long time on the engine. But if decided to do then better to aim high or better completely not touching the code.

No, you don't agree with me.

BIS could make a perfectly fine damage system with the current engine if they wanted to. As it stands, all I want them to do is lift us off the shameful baseline vehicle damage currently stands on. That will 'give us the tools' that Nouber and other modders want. Because what we currently have is bullshit like small-arms fire to airframes dealing microscopic amounts of damage to pilots, and cars made of C4 instead of metal and fiberglass, with modders unable to insert more detailed damage states.

[noubernou 77]

Nou - this is slightly offtopic but wanted to ask; What's broken with lineIntersects? I wasn't aware it's not working properly and will be gutted if that's the case as I'm basing a load of stuff on it and it's cousins for something I'm making.

BTW - I thought it was only introduced in 2012; around the 1.60 patch when they added in a load of new commands for DayZ. (Not saying that to try and score "internet points" against you - was just unaware it was available before).

Intersect, not lineIntersects.

Actually it looks like they fixed it recently both in A2/A3.

Now to just get BIS to return ComponentXX selections in the results instead of just custom named ones.

[das attorney 858]

Intersect, not lineIntersects.

Actually it looks like they fixed it recently both in A2/A3.

Now to just get BIS to return ComponentXX selections in the results instead of just custom named ones.

Cool, thanks for getting back to me man. Was getting a bit worried there and thought I'd have to revert to spawning objects at the 2 positions and using the "Splendid Camera" to check visually if the result matches up to what's supposed to be going on...

Glad the intersect command has been fixed for you guys as well. I'll have to read up on it as it sounds quite useful. :)

I did a bit of fiddling about in O2 so when you say ComponentXX, do you mean (fire geometry) components defined in the packed pbo?

[noubernou 77]

Cool, thanks for getting back to me man. Was getting a bit worried there and thought I'd have to revert to spawning objects at the 2 positions and using the "Splendid Camera" to check visually if the result matches up to what's supposed to be going on...

Glad the intersect command has been fixed for you guys as well. I'll have to read up on it as it sounds quite useful. :)

I did a bit of fiddling about in O2 so when you say ComponentXX, do you mean (fire geometry) components defined in the packed pbo?

Yes, the ComponentXX selection names are used internally by the engine, and when the intersect command returns the named selections of a model intersecting that line it ignores those, even though they tend to be the most comprehensive selections.

[hellfire257 3]

Why does my helicopter explode if the blades hit an object or water? Shouldn't the blades just break and the helicopter crash violently?

Physics =/= damage modelling

[fragmachine 12]

No, you don't agree with me.

BIS could make a perfectly fine damage system with the current engine if they wanted to. As it stands, all I want them to do is lift us off the shameful baseline vehicle damage currently stands on. That will 'give us the tools' that Nouber and other modders want. Because what we currently have is bullshit like small-arms fire to airframes dealing microscopic amounts of damage to pilots, and cars made of C4 instead of metal and fiberglass, with modders unable to insert more detailed damage states.

Oh yes, I agree with You. But just not with the argument that community have to do all the things for the developers. Developers prepare the code and throws up their hands when asked about the improvements, engine possibilities.

In this case better damage modelling - is something devs called - very hard task to do.

Edited August 9, 2013 by fragmachine

[maturin 12]

But ACE has done it just fine, and the only thing holding them back from a perfect system is a few broken commands and shoddy models.

[fragmachine 12]

ACE did it fine and in fact it did amazed me when I first saw armor penetration, fire going off the turret after hit, or cook offs (it might be SLX mod - im not so sure about this though). But surely - less script = less lagging gameplay experience. Of course there are a lot of really well optimised scripts that do lots of work with minimal to none framerate loss. But in most cases running something at the engine level is uncomparable less stresful to the hardware.

Anyway I think that BIS would know best what to improve in that area but IMO unfortunatelly they don't have enought time for it - priority changed.