Soldier protection (dev branch)

[pettka 694]

Month has passed.Any new info on this?

 

Let me guess - New issues appeared as we iterated on Soldier protection and work is currently halted due to expansion focus?

Or perhaps is just summer vacation time that slowed down the process, regardless, I would love to hear more on this topic.Perhaps

in tomorrow sitrep?

We have the iteration mostly ready and tested internally, it's more an issue of proper data management that may be explained Soon^TM in a roadmap blog hinted on during the developer diaries ;)

[froggyluv 2136]

...and this is coming with some new hit reactions yes yes ?
:)

 

 EDIT: Sorry Cosmic it has not -just edging them :p

[cosmic10r 2331]

...and this is coming with some new hit reactions yes yes ?

:)

 

Really... has that been discussed? wow... great news!

[twisted 128]

...and this is coming with some new hit reactions yes yes ?

:)

 

 EDIT: Sorry Cosmic it has not -just edging them :P

 

but itd be great to not have that yoyo effect of the gun flying out then back. one of the biggest animation problems in the game is the hit reactions. especially when you consider  that a majority of the point of the game is to hit the enemy

[strangere 2]

We have the iteration mostly ready and tested internally, it's more an issue of proper data management that may be explained Soon^TM in a roadmap blog hinted on during the developer diaries ;)

Is it correct to assume that these changes will appear after 1.50?

[en3x 209]

We have the iteration mostly ready and tested internally, it's more an issue of proper data management that may be explained Soon^TM in a roadmap blog hinted on during the developer diaries ;)

 

Ah, you guys are always step ahead with different developments, as soon as I thought I got

it figured it out, here comes proper data management. ;) I'm looking forward to roadmap soon^TM

[en3x 209]

but itd be great to not have that yoyo effect of the gun flying out then back. one of the biggest animation problems in the game is the hit reactions. especially when you consider  that a majority of the point of the game is to hit the enemy

 

Yeah no I agree, the current problem current seem the outdated animation system in arma, which I'm sure can be

revamped/improved recoded, and they would have to tackle locomotion connecting to the hits on different stances.

[x3kj 1247]

 

which I'm sure can be revamped/improved recoded

lot of things can be done if you throw enough money, time and skill at it... not always is it the best approach however. Meaning - they will propably wait for the new engine when they have to redo lot of stuff anyway

[en3x 209]

lot of things can be done if you throw enough money, time and skill at it... not always is it the best approach however.

 

In current scheme of things looks like it all comes down to priorities.And those comes from development roadmaps,

which they might cover it their recent ADC (arma development conference).

[en3x 209]

http://www.ponderweasel.com/shot-wearing-a-bulletproof-vest/

 

Quote

 

Of course, the force of the impact is dependent on a number of factors including, but not limited to: the type of vest worn, the caliber of the weapon, the type of ammunition, and the distance from which the person was shot. Assuming again that the vest is in good condition and is rated for the weapon used, the vest should stop the bullet, but not before forcing the wearer backward or even knocking them down and sometimes with feelings similar to getting the “wind knocked out of you.†It certainly looked that way for Robert Kaiser, CEO of PPSS Group, who took a bullet wearing one of his company’s bullet resistant vests on camera:

While the vest works to absorb and dissipate the energy from lethal impact, the energy still has to go somewhere, and it is that very force that the wearer experiences. As the vest disperses the force of the bullet, it essentially affects a greater surface area by spreading the force. Thus the strange comparison of the force of a tiny bullet to a much larger baseball bat.

[-Coulum- 35]

There is indeed a difference between a helmet shot and a face shot now. 

After more testing, I believe I was mistaking top of the head "glancing" hits (not dealing full damage) with helmet protection. It does seem that the helmet does offer protection to the whole face still. It would be nice if the devs could comment on the changes made/planned

 

In the arsenal I was able come up with these number of "shost to kill" vs the carrier rig from within 10 metres

 

9mm (PO7) - 4

556 (Mk20) - 3

6.5 (MX) - 3

7.62 (Mk14) - 2

 

I also noticed that all of these weapons are instant kills against unarmoured torsos. It seems that the 9mm and 556 especially, are much more effective nowadays. 

 

Personally I strongly dislike this new level of lethality. A 9mm should not be effective against high rated plate. To some degree, same for 556. The plate will certainly take more than 3 shots. Of course realistically the plate doesn't cover the whole torso. So I am hoping this damage buff is a short term fix, until the proper coverage of armour is represented. More severe hit penalties/reactions would also do well to balance out the protection armour grants. 

 

I know the devs said they were working on the issue. Any update/change in plans that you can throw at us?

 

@en3x

 

So how do your think all that info should translate in arma 3?

[en3x 209]

After more testing, I believe I was mistaking top of the head "glancing" hits (not dealing full damage) with helmet protection. It does seem that the helmet does offer protection to the whole face still. It would be nice if the devs could comment on the changes made/planned

 

In the arsenal I was able come up with these number of "shost to kill" vs the carrier rig from within 10 metres

9mm (PO7) - 4

556 (Mk20) - 3

6.5 (MX) - 3

7.62 (Mk14) - 2

I also noticed that all of these weapons are instant kills against unarmoured torsos. It seems that the 9mm and 556 especially, are much more effective nowadays. 

 

Personally I strongly dislike this new level of lethality. A 9mm should not be effective against high rated plate. To some degree, same for 556. The plate will certainly take more than 3 shots. Of course realistically the plate doesn't cover the whole torso. So I am hoping this damage buff is a short term fix, until the proper coverage of armour is represented. More severe hit penalties/reactions would also do well to balance out the protection armour grants. 

 

I know the devs said they were working on the issue. Any update/change in plans that you can throw at us?

 

@en3x

 

So how do your think all that info should translate in arma 3?

I do agree with you on 9mm.All major retailers of armor are displaying multiple 4+

shots with 9mm and it doesn't come through.

I'm still figuring out.

I was responding to that video where guy shots plate armor and wearer shows no effect.

Clearly after bullet hitting the ceramic plate, that force has to go somewhere.

[x3kj 1247]

 

Clearly after bullet hitting the ceramic plate, that force has to go somewhere.

Rigid body armor will distribute over a much larger area then soft bodyarmor - because thats what the guy who was hurtin after a pistol shot was wearing.

In case of a steelplate the deformation will be minimal, so the area it distributes force is basically the entire surface of the plate. Ceramics deform alot more (and degrade a heck of a lot faster).

[solzenicyn 129]

Hi guys,

 

as some of you may have already noticed, soldier protection is (again) undergoing certain substantial improvements at development branch. This time we have improved the protective gear so that it is now able to offer different protection levels across various body parts. At first we tried to achieve this through implementation of gear fire geometries, but due to several technical obstacles and difficulties we've opted for somewhat simplified, yet still more than viable solution through hit points protection differentiation.

 

The deal is that while in the old soldier protection system the protective gear could protect only one hit point (be it head, body, arms or legs) with the same protection level, now we are able to define different protection levels for various hit points in each particular vest or helmet. To make a proper use of this, we have differentiated soldier hit points from four into ten selections: head, face, neck, chest, diaphragm, abdomen, pelvis, arms, hands and legs. Each vest or helmet now reference to those hit points which are actually covered by it's given model and offers specific protection level to each referenced hit point. For example, most helmets are no longer able to protect the face, while they are still able to offer some limited protection against glancing pistol and rifle shots. Also, vests no longer cover the whole torso with the same armor all over.

 

This improvement allowed us to maintain some unprotected critical body parts regardless of gear composition and it's protection levels on each soldier. This does not mean that protective gear is again negligible, it is just not able to magically protect everything. Protective gear should still substantially increase your battlefield survivability, but not to the detriment of precise marksmanship. With one well placed shot you are now able to take down even the most protected enemy even with a mere pistol (well, it's not that easy to actually hit though). We consider this level of lethality as highly desirable for Arma 3 gameplay experience as it tends to reward the active skill rather than just the passive choice of gear.

 

However, exact protection levels are still subject to further considerations and subsequent tweaks. Thus they are also highly dependent on your feedback. Therefore I would like to encourage you to share your experience, opinions and suggestions on the subject matter and on the current state of soldier protection at development branch. Nevertheless, please bear in mind that any sort of extensive overhauls of the current system are absolutely not feasible for the development capacities of our team are quite limited by ongoing Expansion development.

 

I hope that you will like to play with the newly improved soldier protection as much as we do and thank you in advance for your eventual interest!

[-Coulum- 35]

Awesome solzenicyn! thanks for the detailed explanation. Time to start testing

[Sniperwolf572 758]

 

Hi guys,

 

as some of you may have already noticed, soldier protection is (again) undergoing certain substantial improvements at development branch. This time we have improved the protective gear so that it is now able to offer different protection levels across various body parts. At first we tried to achieve this through implementation of gear fire geometries, but due to several technical obstacles and difficulties we've opted for somewhat simplified, yet still more than viable solution through hit points protection differentiation.

 

The deal is that while in the old soldier protection system the protective gear could protect only one hit point (be it head, body, arms or legs) with the same protection level, now we are able to define different protection levels for various hit points in each particular vest or helmet. To make a proper use of this, we have differentiated soldier hit points from four into ten selections: head, face, neck, chest, diaphragm, abdomen, pelvis, arms, hands and legs. Each vest or helmet now reference to those hit points which are actually covered by it's given model and offers specific protection level to each referenced hit point. For example, most helmets are no longer able to protect the face, while they are still able to offer some limited protection against glancing pistol and rifle shots. Also, vests no longer cover the whole torso with the same armor all over.

 

This improvement allowed us to maintain some unprotected critical body parts regardless of gear composition and it's protection levels on each soldier. This does not mean that protective gear is again negligible, it is just not able to magically protect everything. Protective gear should still substantially increase your battlefield survivability, but not to the detriment of precise marksmanship. With one well placed shot you are now able to take down even the most protected enemy even with a mere pistol (well, it's not that easy to actually hit though). We consider this level of lethality as highly desirable for Arma 3 gameplay experience as it tends to reward the active skill rather than just the passive choice of gear.

 

However, exact protection levels are still subject to further considerations and subsequent tweaks. Thus they are also highly dependent on your feedback. Therefore I would like to encourage you to share your experience, opinions and suggestions on the subject matter and on the current state of soldier protection at development branch. Nevertheless, please bear in mind that any sort of extensive overhauls of the current system are absolutely not feasible for the development capacities of our team are quite limited by ongoing Expansion development.

 

I hope that you will like to play with the newly improved soldier protection as much as we do and thank you in advance for your eventual interest!

 

 

This sounds nice. :) Are there plans to extend to more than the hit points you listed? From what I can tell, only the face has any sense of "direction" (front of the head). There is no difference between left or right arms, the front and the back of the chest, sides of the head vs top and back etc.

 

For example, some cases of asymmetrical protection, some common, some not:

 

Vests that only cover front but not the back.

Vests that have full cover for the front/back torso, but not to the sides.

Vests that might cover one arm, but not the other.

Vests that have shoulderpads, but no cover on the rest of the arm. (This might already be in as arms vs hands)

Vests that cover upper legs, but not below the knee.

Helmets that only cover the top and the back of the head, but not sides of the head.

Helmets that cover only one side of the head.

 

I'm asking this because while the increase in "resolution" of the hit areas are nice, a user seeing a vest that visually has no side and back protection, and then aiming for those areas and expecting critical damage, isn't going to exactly have trust or understanding that if the front of the chest is protected, it's actually protected from all sides. It doesn't exactly place confidence in visual acquisition of those "lethal zones" and in the well placed shots to them but rather understanding of how the various vests are configured, no matter how they actually appear.

[x3kj 1247]

At first we tried to achieve this through implementation of gear fire geometries, but due to several technical obstacles and difficulties we've opted for somewhat simplified, yet still more than viable solution through hit points protection differentiation.

Hm very unfortunate... out of curiosity, could you go into detail what the obstacles are?

Do i understand this correctly, will this mean that every soldier has more hitpoint classes now? Or is this just a multiplier for damage  (say abdomen armor is weak and lets through all damage Hitpoint "Torso" but chest is strong and reduces most of the damage to "Torso") to the old Hitpoints we have now?

More detailed hitpoint classes for soldiers would help medical system Mods. A bonus if this system is used i guess. In that respect i would say that it would make sense to divide the legs into upper leg and lower leg as well. Because hits to the upper leg/ tigh are alot more deadly (blood loss) then hits to the shin for example, thus (futuristic) armor might be added for the upper leg but not for lower leg.

I think the protection system is lackluster for 2 reasons (apart from hit locations):

• No matter how good the armor, you can always damage the unit with the shot (implying that every shot penetrates into the body)
• Armor always keeps the same protection level.

A Pistol in reallife wont get through a level 3 or 4 plate, and (depending on the armor) never will no matter how often you shoot at it. The same is true for 5.56mm standard rounds and level 4. Those armor plates are designed to protect against it, so it makes no sense that you can die from those weapons if hit on the armor. This issue would have been solvable with the fire geometry method.

 

If high level armor was made to completely stop all smaller rounds ingame however, it would make armor too strong then it really is.

 

Therefore i propose the following solution:

_{I guess this might fall under the "extensive overhaul" part, but i'll let that to you to decide}

Armor needs an armor rating value and it's own health value.

When the armor is hit, the armor rating value is compared to the projectiles calibre value (used for penetration against fire geometry normally). If the armor value is higher then the caliber value, no penetration occured, therefore no damage to the person will be dealt. If the armor value is lower, the person receives damage. The damage the person receives is only very slightly reduced (to simulate velocity reduction and soft armor)

 

The armor health is reduced by the damage of the projectile, no matter if penetration or not, to simulate deterioration. Stronger/faster bullets deteriorate the armor faster then weaker/slower bullets.

Once the armor health is reduced to 0, every hit is automatically counted as penetration.

 

It would allow more reallistic armor protrayal, with different armor materials being able to be used (ceramic plate - very good protection, fast deteriorating; steel plate - medium protection, slow deterioration, kevlar - bad protection, very slow deterioration, etc). Thus you might want to choose different armor not only based on weight, maximum protection but also on deterioration.

In addition to that it creates a more realistic and interesting dynamic on the battlefield - you can no longer kill a soldier by punching through his armor, loot his armor and have full protection. Same with Airstrike or artillery casualties - you can't use their armor anymore.

 

There is still the question of blunt trauma from non-penetrating shots - but once the distinction between penetration and non penetration is implemented, this seems like a fairly easy modification of the damage system to me.

[-Coulum- 35]

The new hitpoints to seem to work as described. Good job devs. Nut shots for the win.

 

I suggest making the neck hitpoint extend further down to just below the collar bone. Because on the character it is clear this area is not covered by any armour, but, since it is currently part of the chest hitpoint rather than the neck hitpoint, it is treated as if it were armoured.

 

I must agree with sniperwolf that even more hitpoints would be beneficial. I know its sounds ungrateful, but there is still the problem of exposed flanks being treated as if they were armoured. And when it comes to mods where people are making crazy armour configurations, it would be good to have separate hitpoints for the left and right sides. My suggestions: flanks (on the side, from armpit to hip), upper and lower leg, upper and lower arm and shoulder on both left and right sides...

 

If nothing else there really is a need for the left and right flanks of the torso to be modeled so you can get past that body armour. 

 

And now that the armour covers more accurate regions of the body, it needs to be made more effective. Plate armour should not fail after 3 shots from a 9mm pistol!

 

@x3kj

Yes I agree with the general idea you have there. I, and I am sure many others throughout this thread have come up with similar ideas. I would love it if the devs implemented something so in depth, but unfortunately I think it will be left in mod territory. And fairly so.  

[domokun 515]

Also while it's great to debate the finer points of pistols and rifles, please don't forget how such body armour will protect against other injuries, e.g. fragmentation (grenades, artillery shells, IEDs), trauma (vehicle collisions, falls), etc. As I'm sure you're aware, whilst such body armour is focused on providing ballistic protection, they also offer vary degrees of protection against other injuries.

Does anyone with RL experience, better still, testing data help substantiate this?

 

Finally, another really obvious point, but definitely one not to miss, is the drawbacks. Body armour is heavy and cumbersome, especially the higher protections, i.e. it interferes to a greater or lesser degree with the wearer's mobility, not to mention their stamina, especially in hot and/or humid conditions (Tanoa!). So please ensure that this is not underestimated or even neglected.

[x3kj 1247]

 

Yes I agree with the general idea you have there. I, and I am sure many others throughout this thread have come up with similar ideas. I would love it if the devs implemented something so in depth, but unfortunately I think it will be left in mod territory. And fairly so.

You can't mod the damage calculation system because it's hardcoded. You can't disable it to replace it with your own, so the only option is to do some "hacks" to superimpose your system. This is less performant then a native solution and might have other drawbacks.  I can't imagine it to be that difficult technically to introduce healthpoints for armor  and a healthpoint check in the damage formula.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

You can't mod the damage calculation system because it's hardcoded. You can't disable it to replace it with your own, so the only option is to do some "hacks" to superimpose your system. This is less performant then a native solution and might have other drawbacks.  I can't imagine it to be that difficult technically to introduce healthpoints for armor  and a healthpoint check in the damage formula.

While I agree with your sentiment and the suggestion of armor degradation in your previous post, this is simply not true. You can process the damage yourself, and I wouldn't call the HandleDamage Event Handler a hack.

[x3kj 1247]

Ok i admit i'm not particulary versed in the scripting department. Without native degradation, having proper bullet stopping abilities on the armor will be too powerfull. Because Lvl4 Armor can take one single 12.7mm hit, after that it's basically useless.  Without degradation it would stop an infinite amount of 12.7mm and that's just silly and no improvement whatsoever.

And this is, apart from hitpoints, the biggest issue i see with the armor. Just more hits for lower caliber weapons is very arbitrary and people will always complain about too much / not enough armor.

With this system it would be alot closer to reality and as such puts a stopper on this, what seems to me, as a constantly changing mood (too few hits to kill against armor, too much hits to kill against armor)

 

It would also make armor choice more interesting, because most players in mission where you can choose armor just use the vest with the highest rating, the one with the shoulder guard (if they have the DLC).

Equipment durability is in every survival game basically and many other games with inventory systems have it as well. So it's not like introducing durability would somehow suddenly confuse the playerbase.

 

Infantry Gunplay, and therefore Handweapons plus protection against it are the Core Gameplay and focal point of Arma 3 (because vehicles sure as hell aren't), so i reject the notion to leave this to mods to improve it...

[chortles 263]

I'm wondering whether unscripted armor degradation is possible without having to go the "object-oriented" route that DayZ did.

[froggyluv 2136]

 While Im a complete noob with realistic bullet vs armor aspects - it seems that the 7.62mm rounds kill shot every armor level with  one shot to the torso. I was wondering why my level III armored SF guys (with jacked skill level) were routinely dying to unarmored African militia armed with AK's. After testing in the arsenal I can kill every armor'ed bot with 1 shot -what gives?

[andersson 285]

AK? Maybe it's the mod who is not compatible with BI protection system?