Real Armor Mod

[olds 15]

Good to know Damian! Cheers!

[hlfritz 1]

I must be dense, I cannot find MANW. what is it Olds? ;)

[olds 15]

Make Arma Not War :)

[Damian90 696]

Yeah Olds, but then again, it is interesting to play with TE values, because results are interesting. Reyhard observed that my initial calculations were very different than these made by others, for example SB Pro PE team.

The funny thing is, that my calculations for Abrams ended up with a very high KE values, above 1000mm, but were very balanced with CE values, for example I got 1100mm vs KE and 1200mm vs CE. Which is interesting and I wonder why they were so high. My conclusion was that it was a depleted uranium layers, and later I was thinking ok, these layers are not thick, I made them around 50mm thick, but then again DU have a very high TE (at least such TE values were on Dejawolfs internet site when it's existed, and Dejawolf is one of the devs working on SB Pro PE so I assumed, it was not a fantasy).

So I got impression that there should be actually less layers with steel encased DU (and I made it ecnased in HHS plates, which makes most sense), and then I placed them at the end of armor array so it created a backing for NERA layers (but in equations they act as passive layers as I don't have idea how to calculate NERA).

On the other hand I wonder, maybe all these other estimations are... actually underestimated?

[Defunkt 431]

And there certainly may be room for collaboration on a Cold War variant if they decide to expand in that direction.

Cold War Era Mod by Red Hammer Studios? Yes please!

Can't help but think though that given the scope of the time period already on their plate such a thing would likely be years away. In the nearer term, maybe Sudden would be interested in implementing your research and code into his Cold War era EAST vs WEST mod. He's already achieved a hell of a lot with his A2 ports.

[miketim 20]

Good to see there are some real pros at this stuff, maybe one day all this stuff can teach BI how to do a proper armor system or something.

I remember before when I didnt read Olds post at all in utter ignorance and i was like "lol ur releasing ace 4 or something m8" .... hey , if you guys are helping to fix arma or guide it towards the right path, its worth just as much :)

[olds 15]

Good to see there are some real pros at this stuff, maybe one day all this stuff can teach BI how to do a proper armor system or something.

I remember before when I didnt read Olds post at all in utter ignorance and i was like "lol ur releasing ace 4 or something m8" .... hey , if you guys are helping to fix arma or guide it towards the right path, its worth just as much :)

I've mentioned it before, but Arma 3 really does have a nearly complete ballistics system with regard to armor battles. There are some key adjustments and gaps that RAM fills in to bring it up to par with a proper simulation. For various legacy or gameplay reasons, BI just never followed through with the potential in their code. But because that underlying code is pretty good, RAM doesn't have to do a bunch of hacky stuff to get armor working (as ACE, IF, etc. were forced to do in previous iterations).

Of course this could all be handled better with a minor code re-write, but BI have showed no inclination to do that yet. So RAM picks up the slack in as efficient a way as we could come up with. If BI ever decides to go for it, 200-300 lines of code would easily make Arma on par with the best armor simulators on the civilian market. (I'm speaking here only of armor ballistics and damage, not other weakspots from a sim-perspective like AI, etc.).

Edited November 13, 2014 by Olds

[hlfritz 1]

Make Arma Not War :)

doh!x2 :o

[olds 15]

I agree with Damian that many of the SB numbers are dubious. I include them in the mix of estimates but never trust them outright.

Here are the principles I use to generate my armor & weapon values:

1. All values should conform to real-life published tests or published protection levels if such are available. This is the crucial appraisal for any estimate IMO. These tests are rarely published and they only cover a few vehicles and weapons. But you can deduce a lot from cross referencing them with each other and other published data.
   
   • Many estimates fail this basic principle. E.g. SB's Israeli M111 round can't penetrate T-72 glacis armor, which makes no sense as the Soviets underwent a whole upgrade program because of this round in the early 80's.
     
   • All of the weapons and vehicles I'm working on conform to every published test I can get a hold of. E.g. My M111 does (marginally) penetrate the old T-72 glacis at likely test ranges (1-1.5k). And once the upgrade is applied, it fails to penetrate--as you would expect.
     

[*]Common sense: Weapon and armor values should follow logically consistent patterns: replacements should generally be better than what they replace, dramatic jumps in performance require justification, etc.

• A commonly ignored example: tank manufacturer's almost never dramatically over-armor their vehicles. Tank armor is designed with a specific threat in mind, otherwise weight and costs spiral hopelessly out of control, and competing bids become meaningless. Manufacturers tend to stop at the protection level they've been asked by the government to provide.
  
• You could always make your simulation more complex: RHAe is an oversimplification, etc. etc. Will it make the end results more realistic? Usually not. Will it make the game slower and the data harder to create and keep consistent? Most assuredly! The law of parsimony is included in the definition of "common sense".
  

[*]Basic mathematical modeling: my estimates involve ballistic modeling and (simple) armor modeling. Tank rounds are compared simultaneously against estimates, Arma calculations, and theoretical formulas. This includes projectile flight characteristics--e.g. my standard for "airFriction" & "dispersion" values is shell trajectories that deviate no more than 2% from published ballistic tables out to effective range.

[*]Comparison of publicly available estimates (in multiple languages--thanks to Google Translate): books & periodicals, amateur guesswork on internet forums as long as you don't take them too seriously, manufacturer's claims, etc. i.e. everyone does at least this, though standards of thoroughness vary widely.

[*]Standard theoretical formulas: kinetic values shouldn't be TOO far off from theoretical formulas (e.g. Odermatt). However, I only use such formulas as a rough guide as they basically never match up with verified real-world data in my experience.

Because I'm sim-oriented, these are the research standards for any mod I release in the future. This is why I tend to avoid the very latest equipment--there is not enough data out there to meaningfully cross reference. It's also why I will never consider RAM + vanilla A3 as anything more than a beta test--"future" equipment and all that.

Now I'm happy to support mods with recent equipment if an author asks me to, but I'd be careful assigning "realism" to the data. I like to think that the WW2-Cold War data I'm working on now is 90% consistent with real-life values. That's my goal--but it's no more than an educated guess. Even that level of accuracy would periodically lead to unrealistic combat results in-game. As accuracy levels fall to 80% or 70%, you start to get simulated results that stop being "realistic" or "sim-y" and start becoming "game-y".

Let's consider Damian's example. My research based on the principles above suggests to me that most internet estimates--including SB's wiki--overestimate modern Western weapon values and wildly overestimate their armor values. Newer Russian vehicles and weapons are also prone to overestimates, though not by quite as much. M1 & Leopard-2 protection values are now well over 1000mm KE? To protect against what? Those countries own latest and generally un-exported ammunition? A bit unlikely. "Opfor" Soviet/Russian sabot development has barely progressed since the early 80's and tops out around 600mm penetration (speaking generously). Are those values possible? Maybe. Are they likely? I think not. That being said, I don't really have the data to make claims much beyond (NATO) equipment like the 120mm M829 sabot, the M1A1, and the Leopard 2A4.

I don't want to start a debate on specific values here. We can create a separate thread for that if people are interested. I'm merely giving some insight into my standards of evidence. Other approaches and opinions are available.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Olds

[Damian90 696]

M1 & Leopard-2 protection values are now well over 1000mm KE? To protect against what?

There is however good reason to overarmor vehicles. I am close to military (and hopefully soon I will start to serve ;)), and what I understood is, that there is of course a reason not to overarmor and base protection on known threats, but at least for last decade of Cold War, NATO was preparing it's existing vehicles to face a threat of next generation Soviet fighting vehicles, so all R&D was focused on finding a sollution, both in modernizing existing platforms, and designing new platforms, the latter idea was scrapped when cold war ended, so modernization had priority in later years.

Of course I doubt they get to over 1000mm vs KE protection, but I believe that protection for the front armor of the most modern tanks in NATO arsenal, ranges from 700mm vs KE to ~900+mm vs KE, something around that. For example here in Poland, I seen some documents, stating that to efficently protect a tank class vehicle against current and future KE threats, frontal protection at minimum should be no less than 700mm vs KE, and favorably it should be larger.

We should also consider the fact that with development in materials technology, manufacturing methods, costs of armor can actually go down, I have here a document, about ECP1 modernization form M1 tanks.

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2015/Army/stamped/P40_GA0700_BSA-20_BA-1_APP-2033A_PB_2015.pdf

You can see there cost of purchase of the Next Generation Armor developed within ECP1 pogram.

Most of the costs of modern fighting vehicles are actually in electronics, not armor.

It's very complex issue, and I fear that we can only speculate, at least not without seeing exact design of NATO tanks frontal armor. I seen a photo of Canadian Leopard 2A4's front hull armor cavity opened, and considering a poor quality of photo, it was rather obvious that armor is made from densly packed layers of something, so in fact, protection might be relatively high contrary to most estimations, which might consider smaller density.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/706/o5lv.jpg

Here is mentioned photo.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Damian90

[serjames 357]

Facinating reads as usual from you both.

From a player base perspective; enabling easy application of your theorys to the ingame models seems Key. i.e. allowing Mod builders to apply the simulation of real armour as easility as possoble. That would seem to me important to set the high standards we expect.

SJ

[Tonci87 163]

Is this still in development? Please say yes :)

[bakerman 247]

Yes, a very big YES. ;)

[pulstar 55]

Great to have you back Bakerman!

[Tonci87 163]

Yay! :D

[Valken 621]

Hurray!

[spanishsurfer 58]

Question about this mod. In order for it to work do both client and server need to have it activated? What's the result if it's activated server side but not client? Thanks!

[olds 15]

Question about this mod. In order for it to work do both client and server need to have it activated? What's the result if it's activated server side but not client? Thanks!

Both need it Spanish.

[olds 15]

As we build toward a proper release, I'm going to remind modders to look at all the updated material in the

Arma Damage & Penetration Description

and particularly to the

Armor Recommendations Section

This should be of great interest to anyone working on vehicles--especially armored ones. The information there applies to all vehicle creation, whether you plan on using RAM or not. RAM-specific information is being moved to its own brand new wiki where all your questions will be answered!

[warden_1 1070]

Amazing work, cant wait!

[olds 15]

If you are interested in potentially testing an upcoming release in multiplayer, please PM me.

[MANTIA 55]

Has any of the Arma III patches broke anything that has to do with @RAM? Just curious, our group is looking to add the mod to our addon list.

[olds 15]

Not yet as far as I know--any recent breakage appears to be related to PhysX (which does not affect RAM). I haven't tested it properly though as we're pretty busy with the next version. :blush:

[MANTIA 55]

Not yet as far as I know--any recent breakage appears to be related to PhysX (which does not affect RAM). I haven't tested it properly though as we're pretty busy with the next version. :blush:

Thanks, looking forward to it.

[Zriel 12]

If you are interested in potentially testing an upcoming release in multiplayer, please PM me.

I understand then that it is not MP compatible?