ballistics ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul WIP

[Spartan0536 189]

IMPORTANT NOTICE, This is a WIP thread for my ballistics code, if you are looking for the final values please visit the link posted beneath this advisory! Ballistic calculation parameters updated (03/17/2024)!

Finalized Values Link: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?173466-ArmA-III-Ballistics-Overhaul

For all questions regarding my ballistics work please go to my Q&A thread located here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?192752-ArmA-3-Ballistics-Overhaul-Q-amp-A

Hello fellow ArmA players/modders,

ArmA III is a great game with amazing potential thanks to the efforts of its community and Bohemia Interactive. However the ballistics in ArmA III leave much to be desired especially in some of the more well known rounds like 5.56 or 7.62 where bullets do not do enough damage or penetrate the right amount of barrier material. This is where I have decided to help out, I do extensive research, calculations, and testing to all of my ballistics work to ensure they are as authentic and realistic as ArmA III's engine allows me.
 

Q: Why are your ballistics better than anyone using BI's ballistics?

A: BIS default is terribly off base, and many mod makers use their numbers as a base and make some small modifications thus making them flawed. All my work is based off of REAL WORLD BALLISTICS taken from reputable sites and are backed by the ammunition manufacturers. My ballistics information is easily within a 5% margin of error making them as realistic as possible within a "simulator".
 

Q: What about Ruthbergs Advanced Ballistics Mod, are his values wrong, are your values better than his, whats the deal here?

A: Ruthberg and I communicate with each other fairly often, we are working cooperatively by different means; my code is bullet specific, where as his mod changes the environment and weapon variables that interact with bullets. Ruthberg's ballistic simulation is far better than mine, however his mod does put a lot of extra strain on the server/system using it, so in heavy firefights you are likely to experience lag issues. Because my code is all based on BI's parameters and code you will NOT see any lag from my work. To make things clear, Ruthberg and I are NOT in competition with each other and we never should be, he covers one aspect of ArmA and I cover another, we both have the same goals in mind, we just go about achieving it in different ways with different results to total realism and client/server performance.
 

Q: What kind of limitations do your ballistics have in ArmA?

A: This is a very good question, in recent testing I along with a few other mod developers have confirmed that Body Armor as far as the plate carrier goes, adds armor to the legs, arms, hands, feet, and torso to the body, the helmet adds armor to the whole head, face included. Body Armor does NOT have an "armor check" to it, it simply negates a portion of the damage based on how "heavy" the armor is, this means that a JHP or even a frangible round will do more damage to the target even though it would not have penetrated the vest, this is a SERIOUS problem, and to my knowledge there is no mod available that fixes this. Another big issue is how BIS calculated object/material densities in ArmA III, my favorite example is the "Metal Shed from Hell" test, where I take a BIS default ArmA III metal shed that looks like its sheet metal but has enough density to completely stop a BIS default 5.56x45mm NATO round in its tracks. My ballistics including penetration may be Real World correct however this does not mean that they will interact with ArmA's material environment correctly, this is something that is completely out of my control as different buildings have different densities and there is no standard model or reference to work from regarding this. ArmA III also does not simulate drag realistically, this I figure is due to 2 things, 1 BI did not want to spend more time than they deemed necessary to accurately simulate ballistics, and 2 they wanted the game to operate smoothly across a wide variety of systems.
 

Q: How are your ballistics values formulated, and why are they superior to BIS Default?

A:I first research the ammunition in question based on military viability and if the round is not military standardized I go into more of a practical Civilian/Law Enforcement sense.

I then take the information from my research including a whole ballistic profile and plug it into JBM's ballistic calculator.

I then plug in my standard atmospheric model (see the next Q&A for more information on this) into the ballistics calculator.

I then run the calculators and and gather the data for transfer to Bakerman's ArmA III ballistics calculator v2.

Once the data is compiled in Bakerman's v2 calculator I manually adjust the Airfriciton value to closely match the real ballistics curve (its simply NOT possible to get it 100% correct using default parameters).

Once those ballistics curves are matched according to my specs (see below for additional details on this) I start working on penetration and damage values set by BI protocols.

After the penetration and damage values are calculated I check the values and performance in game using SMA's (Specialist Military Arms) test range.

If all checks out I then release my data for public use.
 

Q: What exactly does your "Standard Atmospheric Model" look like?

A: G1 Drag Coefficient (I do not like using G7's unless the data is there, for sniper based rounds like .300 Win Mag/.338 Lapua/.408 Cheytac I may consider using them, the difference in performance should be negligible in ArmA III)

ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) density of 0.07648 lb/ft3 @ Sea Level

Ambient Temperature of -2.1 degrees Centigrade or 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit

0% relative humidity

0.0 meters or 0 feet in altitude (hence SEA LEVEL)

Barometric Pressure of 28.147 Hg

This all matches up with ArmA III's speed of sound being set to 330 m/s and the atmospheric density equating ISA parameters.
 

Q: What is this "acceptable deviation" you refer to?

A: ArmA III by default does not fully simulate drag functions correctly, so given that fact I have to establish a "threshold" limit to what I consider the maximum achievable deviation from reality, this breaks down as follows...

0-1% = Perfect

2-3% = Ideal

4% = Average

5% = Maximum Limited Threshold

Pistols & Shotguns = 50m Point Target

SMG's / PDW's = 100m Point Target

Subsonic Rounds (AR/SR) = 200m Point Target

Everything else will be hand calculated based on the rounds performance data available.

*NOTE: These percentages are based on MAXIMUM POINT TARGET RANGES, any shot taken outside of MAXIMUM POINT TARGET RANGES is not configured in my ballistics calculations, this is due solely to an ArmA III simulation issue.

Q: What does your "damage profile" system look like?

A: My damage profile system is based on BIS's system but with more detail based on bullet composition and design that covers every bullet profile used in modern times. This is a 10-1 scale modifier which again BIS uses in conjunction with projectile velocity and mass to get a damage coefficient. My scale is listed from 10-1 below. BI calls this "Sharpness".

10 - Depleted Uranium (Large Caliber rounds 20mm +)

9 - Tungsten Carbide (Large Caliber rounds 12.7mm +)

8 - Steel Core (Large Caliber Rounds 12.7mm +)

7 - Tungsten Carbide (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

6 - Steel Core (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

5 - Full Metal Jacket/Total Metal Jacket (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

4 - BTHP/OTM (Small, Medium, & Large Caliber Rounds up to 12.7mm)

3 - Jacketed Hollow Point/ Soft Point (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

2 - Pre-Fragmented (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

1 - Frangible (Small/Medium Caliber Rounds)

 

*Please note that the higher the damage profile number the less damage to the target but the more penetration the round has. Depleted Uranium and Tungsten Carbide rounds do not deform easily at all, this makes their wound tracts much smaller than a hollow point would thus making them cause less damage to the target, this is not to say a .50BMG with a Tungsten Carbide core would not kill someone, its just that its energy transfer would be less as it would pass though the target.

Q: Why is you bullet drop different from reality, can you make the bullet drop more realistic?

A: Yes I can, however ArmA III's default ballistics engine is very limiting in the way that it does not generate parabolic arch's like real bullets do, this inherently affects drop. Any arching you might see is based on the zeroing of your weapon. Now you CAN make adjustments for drop by altering the speed and airfriction however this would seriously impact damage and penetration and would not represent realism in that sense, its just too little of a change to justify a massive edit that would make the performance unrealistic for something that most people do not even notice.

Q: When are xxx calibers/rounds or where are xxx calibers/rounds going to be made available?

A: When they are finished, rounds/calibers that developers are currently working with take precedence, while I realize there may be xxx gun out there using xxx ammo/caliber I do have a lot of work on my plate and I will get to the rounds as time progresses; I do not get paid for my work, its all freeware, and I have to pay my bills.

Q: Will you do xxx caliber or xxx bullet?

A: I believe the RHS team has the best answer for this, and I use their following algorithm to calculate my answers as well:

foreach(var question in questions)
{
   if(question is Stupid)
   {
         return "We will consult the spirits";
   }
}

*NOTE THIS IS WHAT RED HAMMER STUDIOS WROTE ON THEIR Q&A, I JUST COPY PASTED, ALL CREDIT GOES TO THE RHS TEAM FOR THIS CODE SEGMENT!

I encourage all weapons/ammo mod makers and even BIS if they wish it to use these values for their weapons (please keep the rounds named appropriately to accurately reflect the ballistics). Using this code is FREEWARE, all I ask is if you use this code please give a "special thanks" referencing my contribution in your mod. The code and its values come with absolutely NO WARRANTY what-so-ever, the end user assumes all liability for any and all damages that may or may not be incurred by their use.

"Standard Agreement"

All I ask is that I am included in the credits to your mod for any work my code as contributed towards your mod, if you win any mod contests or prize money I shall NOT require any payment only a mention of thanks in credit where it is due.

Groups/Members that require PUBLIC AUTHORIZATION to use my ballistics code:

None at this time....

Groups/Members NOT ALLOWED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to use my ballistics code:

1. 2nT Group - Tristen/MrHuachuca

Edited March 17 by Spartan0536
updated ballistics parameters to version 5, updated Q&A section

[fluttershy 2]

Thank you so much for the effort and time invested into this.

Finally someone is taking up the challange of adjusting the ingame rounds to a level where it is worth calling it a simulation!

I would love and appreciate it if you research and contribution would also, at a later stage, include Ballistics of other NATO Caliber rounds, i will make sure we use these inside our mod for sure.

Sadly, i can not type out how much this effort means to me.

[Spartan0536 189]

thank you for the kind reply it makes it all seem worth it. If in fact others like my work as much I would be happy to work on 7.62x51 NATO, .338 Lapua, .50 BMG, 9x19mm Parabellum, and .45 ACP!

[samyg 3]

Very interesting. Question, will you also expand this to include 7.62 NATO rounds and maybe even other round types like 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and real world 6.5mm rounds?

Edited February 18, 2014 by samyG

[bakerman 247]

Nice to see the work Olds & I did helping the community. If you have any other questions feel free to PM me.

I like the attention to detail, please do more. :)

[Spartan0536 189]

@samyG, I am considering it, the hard part is getting accurate ballistics data from Russian military surplus rounds mainly the mild/hardened steel core and the sniper PU rounds in 7.62x39. I am not saying I will not attempt, just saying that I have been down that road before and its a pain in the ass.

@Bakerman, no THANKYOU for the helpful information if it was not for you and the other ArmA modders I would not have even attempted this, I just hope my mod/code proves as worth while as many of the ArmA 3 mods have.

If anyone has any specific questions or concerns about how I obtained the ballistics information please feel free to ask!

[Spartan0536 189]

Was just playing A3 testing out my Mk262 Mod 1 using Robert Hammers M4/M16 pack, it performed well I had to make a few adjustments such as increasing the base damage and caliber. During live testing the final results showed 2-3 shots for CSAT wearing level II armor, 1 shot for unarmored FIA (insurgent) forces, 1 shot unarmored blufor, 1-2 shot unarmored CSAT, 3-4 shot independent with armor, 4 shot with Blufor Special Rig (most armor protection in game). All tests were done at 50m distance single shot from a crouching position against a non moving live target. Wound channeling was pretty consistent with battlefield reports in Afghanistan and Iraq. Penetration values are better, the Mk262 Mod 1 is not designed as a penetrator but it does have some nice qualities to it that help it achieve better penetration than the M193. at 25-50m I was able to penetrate a metal shed with direct shots, shots from angles greater than 20 degrees did not penetrate but did not ricochet as the round simulated a fragment like it should have. Light housing was penetrated at 50m with varying results as was expected, the round is performing within a 5-10% margin of error 10% being at its absolute worst.

Also I finished work on some 9x19mm Parabellum rounds that the Military and Special Operators & Law Enforcement use. I used Federal Ammunition for the source of the data as that is what many Military and LE rounds are made from.

9x19mm Parabellum Full Metal Jacket

Ballistics taken from Federal American Eagle Full Metal Jacket Flat Point rounds

147 Grain Bullet

1000 ft/s

301 ft/lbs energy

0.20 BC (G1)

hit=7.55;
typicalSpeed=304.80;
airFriction=-0.0011839875;
caliber=1.65;
deflecting=40;
visibleFire=2.5;
audibleFire=4.5;

9x19mm Parabellum Jacketed Hollow Point

Ballistics taken from Federal Tactical HST Jacketed Hollow Point rounds

124 Grain Bullet

1150 fps

365 ft/lbs energy

0.15 BC

hit=8.25;
typicalSpeed=350.52;
airFriction=-0.00157865;
caliber=1.48;
deflecting=36;
visibleFire=3;
audibleFire=5;

These ballistics should also be within a 5-10% margin of error, I have taken a great deal of time and research and testing into these values, they seem to be about on par with real specs.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Jeez those hit values are a bit high, they'd perform just as well as rifle rounds against armoured targets

[Spartan0536 189]

Hit values depreciate over distance based on Air Friction to which the 9x19 has quite a bit of. The 9x19 rounds have not been tested in game yet, further refinement may be necessary. The Defletion, airFriction, typicalSpeed, and caliber should be about exact to real life specs, the damage is the only thing I can not factor in without in-game testing. I use Robert Hammers Sig P226 9mm and it has a standard hit of 7, I may move my values back to 7.42 for FMJ and 7.89 for JHP depending upon combat trials.

Just remember that these 9mm loads are moving 4x slower and have a 5x worse BC than 5.56x45mm NATO bullets, their fall off rate is considerably higher.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Spartan0536

[samyg 3]

Awesome update!

[bakerman 247]

You have to be careful with subsonic projectiles. According to those numbers your JHP can penetrate 7.78mm RHA or 51.88mm meat. I use a caliber value of +-0.4 for JHP which yielded nice results in testing, I suggest you play around with the value and see what works for you.

If you have some time please look at 9x19mm +P and +P+, specifically 7N21 & 7N31. It would be interesting to compare values with you.

[galzohar 31]

What I've always wondered is if the in-game simulation system is even good enough to be fix-able with just config tweaks. Usually, if the config values "smell", so is the algorithm that uses those values :(

[roberthammer 582]

Oh nice , i will add these into M4 pack - i was trying to calculate those new rounds ,but i failed it

so i will use yours thx

btw if you want , you can recalculate the bullets from the pistol pack (.50AE , .454 , .357 , .44 , .40S&W , .45 , .32 , 7.62×25mm , 5.7×28mm , 9×19mm , 9x18mm and .22 LR)

[Spartan0536 189]

Oh nice , i will add these into M4 pack - i was trying to calculate those new rounds ,but i failed it

so i will use yours thx

btw if you want , you can recalculate the bullets from the pistol pack (.50AE , .454 , .357 , .44 , .40S&W , .45 , .32 , 7.62×25mm , 5.7×28mm , 9×19mm , 9x18mm and .22 LR)

I would love to, I have been using your Weapon Packs since ArmA Gold, you are one of the best weapon modders I have seen, real top quality stuff. It has been a goal of mine to help make your pack as realistic as possible, I would consider it an honor sir. By the way have you ever talked with LordJarhead about him making sounds for your weapons, not that your sounds are not impressive already, I just really love his sonic cracks and extra attention to detail?

You have to be careful with subsonic projectiles. According to those numbers your JHP can penetrate 7.78mm RHA or 51.88mm meat. I use a caliber value of +-0.4 for JHP which yielded nice results in testing, I suggest you play around with the value and see what works for you.

If you have some time please look at 9x19mm +P and +P+, specifically 7N21 & 7N31. It would be interesting to compare values with you.

I was considering a 7N21, if I do make a 7N31 version I will make a stipulation on it that it is to be used in SMG's ONLY. The 7N31 will cause in reality massive barrel expansion in a 9mm pistol and can even cause a barrel to explode due to the extremely high HPA chamber pressures. As for the Armor piercing qualities, my AP values are tweaked from Robert Hammer, they are lowered, I am testing this ASAP, if I find them to be over penetrating (I am kind of expecting this) I will greatly reduce the caliber, just remember that these rounds are 5x slower and have a 2-3x higher air friction rate than my 5.56 rounds, this may have a large enough effect to offset the higher caliber.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

Range Report from the 9x19 FMJ Flat Point from RH's Sig P226

Test mediums:

1 BLUFOR Spec Rigged soldier at distances of 15m, 20m, 40m, and 50m

4 shoot house panes

1 unarmored FIA "insurgent"

shooting inside a building that has standard walls and "cubicle" drywall simulant.

The 9x19 FMJ Flat Point performed within a 10% margin of error, I will slightly adjust the AP capability of the Flat Point rounds. On the Spec Rigged soldier it took 4 rounds at ranges of 15-40 meters and 5 shots at 50 meters to incapacitate the target when shooting directly at the plate carrier. The unarmored insurgent was incapacitated at 50m with 1 shot to the chest further review will be needed, I know 9mm's have a history of not doing the job in 1 shot, I will look into police shootout reports to gather more info on this (and they use JHP's). The shoot house panes are wooden walls I am guessing about the thickness simulating 4 sets of dry wall each, so fairly dense I suppose, the 9mm at point blank as expected penetrated as it should, it penetrated with little power however and will NOT penetrate 2 shoot house walls. The indoor test went as expected with the 9mm even at point blank not penetrating the metal doors and none of the interior walls except the "cubicle" style drywall simulant which offered little to no protection as it should not. The AP values will be slightly reduced and damages slightly lowered for the next test, I believe the 9mm FMJ as it stand is again with a 10% margin of error, remember in RL 1 shot to the chest (without Body Armor) with a .22LR WILL KILL YOU, it happens every day (no joke), so 9mm definitely has 1 shot kill capacity even in flat point.

Next test will be with JHP once FMJ is set up....

New FMJ Flat Point Ballistics....

hit = 7.25;
typicalSpeed = 304.8;
airFriction = -0.0011839875;
caliber = 1.48;
deflecting = 36;
visibleFire = 2.5;
audibleFire = 4.5;

[EricJ 759]

I use 10 for my value for the SOST though and its gotten rave reviews so far, but will add this to my config, thanks!

[Spartan0536 189]

My current 5.56mm values will have the SOST at about 10.25 on the hit, the Mk262 is currently sitting in testing at 11. I know that 11 is VERY close to 7.62x51 BALL, however according to US Army reports the MK262 reverse jacked canneleured round hit HARDER in ranges of 100-600m due to the design of the bullet vs standard 5.56x45 BALL and 7.62x51 BALL. In fact the M855A1 up to 350m has BETTER penetration than 7x62x51mm BALL against 3/8 RHA!

[bakerman 247]

@galzohar

In game algorithms are good. Config values are wonky and people don't understand them.

@Spartan0536

If you want you can check out these tools I made for getting and testing penetration values.

[cpl_hicks 2]

Seems like you did some proper research on this, Did Ace 2 use anything along these lines or would this be an improvement on that as well when compared?

My thought is if and when an Ace3 or equivalent comes out we need to make sure they add your work to it so we can get a consolidated standard (basically create something universal so we can have a true unified simulator beyond vanilla).

Thanks for doing this!

[Spartan0536 189]

@galzohar

In game algorithms are good. Config values are wonky and people don't understand them.

@Spartan0536

If you want you can check out these tools I made for getting and testing penetration values.

You sir are AWESOME, I am downloading this right now, what has me concerned is that WOOD has a 300mm penetration value when RHA is 1/10th that; or perhaps I am reading this incorrectly....

Seems like you did some proper research on this, Did Ace 2 use anything along these lines or would this be an improvement on that as well when compared?

My thought is if and when an Ace3 or equivalent comes out we need to make sure they add your work to it so we can get a consolidated standard (basically create something universal so we can have a true unified simulator beyond vanilla).

Thanks for doing this!

Thanks for your kind words, I do hope ACE comes to ArmA III, I put in at at least 1500 hours of game time into ACE II with ACRE, brilliant mod.

[bakerman 247]

@CPL_HICKS

All I can say is there are mods which adjusts the ballistics of ACE, so it's not perfect, but then again nothing is.

The problem with unified ballistic values in ARMA is that there's a scale going from "Arma is a game" to "Arma is a simulator". People also have different ideas about how powerful different ammunition is. My approach is to implement real world values into arma, but some people don't like this as they soon find out that some ammunition like the 556 ball is inadequate when dealing with armored opponents.

I believe there are two major problems facing ballistics in arma which forces people to stray from real world values. The first is that infantry armor is simulated in a terrible manner, it uses a damage modifier system and there are no armor plates in plate carriers. The second is that we still have a HP system, instead we need a simple simulation of organs & bones, which is possible when you consider that vehicles have component damage.

@Spartan0536

An increase in the bulletPenetrability (BP) value means an increase in bullet penetration. The wood value does seem a bit high, I have yet to investigate why this is.

[Spartan0536 189]

Here are some of the issues I face with ArmA III and ArmA II ballistics.....

1. There are never any fouled rounds

2. There never is any "standard deviation"

3. To implement ballistics on a per weapon case it would take a massive re-code of each individual weapon per magazine and ballistics would have to be re-written as such, this is just an overwhelming task for ANY modder/developer.

4, Terminal shock without an actual skeletal, muscular, and synaptic system in place is almost impossible to account for. If someone managed to code a Skeletal, Muscular, and synaptic heath system into ArmA then I would be impressed and would be able to get my ballistics refined even further. Like Bakerman said, Armor values are wonky, ballistics are a bit wonky, nothing in ArmA III is ever going to give Real Life performances, I am only attempting to get them as close as possible with what information and resources I have, so far its been pretty impressive on a base level.

ACE II did something similar to what I am doing, I am not sure how accurate their ballistics were but I have high confidence in their team, as I said they were brilliant.

[PuFu 4600]

i'm sorry, for some reason i voted no. meant to vote yes.

I said it before: this sort of thing unified ballistic addon is needed for all bullet types out there, and is more than welcome to be used as a community standard.

[Spartan0536 189]

Update....

Using the RHA plate mod thanks to Bakerman, I tested both my Mk262 Mod 1 and my 9x19mm FMJ ammo both from Robert Hammer's packs (I highly recommend them, they are quite good, especially the P226, its almost identical to the one I own). Neither the Mk262 Mod 1 or the 9x19 FMJ penetrated 12mm of RHA at any distance including point blank. This is good news as neither round is designed to penetrate that much armor so the values seem to be where they need to. The 9x19 FMJ will also not penetrate metal sheds (this has something to do with BISURF material and not with ballistics of weapons). Mk 262 Mod 1 will penetrate metal sheds with limited capacity and will penetrate the "cheap" houses with moderate capacity.

On a separate note, I have found my mods "theme song" if you would... Five Finger Death Punch - War is the answer.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Spartan0536

[bakerman 247]

I should probably add plates raging from 1mm to 12mm for you, the current set was made for high caliber testing.

[Brisse 78]

The 9x19 FMJ will also not penetrate metal sheds

Reminds me of that time an officer told me that if you shoot a 9mm from a Glock 17/19 at the front of a car, it would go straight thru the the front, the engine block and out of the back of the vehicle.

Of course I knew it was bullshit but I kept that to myself :D

Sorry for off topic, but I thought it was funny to share.