Jump to content
Spartan0536

ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul WIP

Would you use this ballistic code in your mod?  

158 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use this ballistic code in your mod?

    • Yes
    • Not Sure, perhaps you could site your findings more in depth
    • No


Recommended Posts

Update!

I have started work on .357 Sig, .45ACP, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 6.8x43mm SPC.

.357 Sig will consist of the following....

147 Grain Full Metal Jacket Flat Point

125 Grain HST Tactical Jacketed Hollow Point

80 Grain Glaser Safety Slug Silver (polymer capped semi-frangible hollow point)

.45ACP is in initial research stages right now

7.62x39 and 5.45x39 will only have 2 selections of munitions to choose from, this is due to the data available for these Russian rounds which might I add are extremely hard to come by. Both 7.62x39 and 5.44x39 will be standard military FMJ and AP (armor piercing). I could use Wolf Military Classic JHP's if there is enough call or want for them in these calibers, keep in mind that JHP's are NOT used by the Russian military forces. Both of the 7.62x39mm rounds are use the Wolf Military Classic 124 grain FMJ ballistic coefficient as this is the closest I can get to official information about their ballistics coefficients, Russian made ammo is very hard to get info on as they do not like to talk about it.

6.8x43mm SPC is also a bit difficult to find a wide range of munitions on as it was never standardized by NATO to replace 5.56x45mm, that being said however 6.8mm SPC will be featuring 2 of the test loads used by the US Army during testing of the 6.8mm SPC carbines that include the Barrett M468/REC7 and the LWRC PSD short barrel rifle. More information will be made available as work is completed.

As for the subsonic rounds, I have decided to delay them until my work on all other caliber is finished and I have finalized my work on suppressors.

Here is what you can expect from the .357 Sig Glaser Safety Slug Silver Tip, the reason I used a .45ACP video is that .357 Sig and .45 ACP generate very similar results in media testing, I will provide a picture to better illustrate what I mean. Please be sure to take note of the damage caused in the meat test, this is a very accurate way to test the results inside a human torso.

Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

Edited by Spartan0536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up old information from my Service time. The 338 Lap ammo used was produced by Blackk Hills 300 Grain with 2800 FPS Velocity. I also know that SF Snipers use a different Company they trust in for there rounds. Its written down by deceased Chief Warren Officer Chris Kyles in his book, ill get you the Info tomorrow.

Also to note, our standard issue ammo had different tested muzzle velocitys, which were written down on the 20 rnd package itself. Average Range from 870 to 900 m/s (2854 to 2952 ft/s)

Edit: NVM looked it up (couldnt sleep otherwise) Quote from Chris Kyles Book American Sniper: Chapter 5 Guns

"Our rounds were match-grade ammo bought from Black Hills, which makes probably the best sniper ammo around." So at least Seal Team Snipers used the same rounds we did.

Odd feeling having a German Sniper utilize a UK build Sniper Rifle shooting US made Ammo....

Edited by fluttershy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Hills makes the Mk262 Mod 1 SPR round in 5.56x45mm, its very devastating to light armored and unarmored troops, it pretty much hits with the force of a 7.62x39mm round but unlike the 7.62x39 it dissipates all of its energy in the target, its extremely lethal and has the reputation to be one of the most accurate 5.56x45mm rounds available next to the Hornady Superformance Ballistic tips which are obviously not Hague approved.

I have some excellent .338 lapua rounds in mind including the Black Hills and Lapua loads themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im impressed to see someone picked up on the ballistic physics of the game and improved on it. That actually makes me wanna start playing again just to try the new ammo. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with this post .

To begin I would like to know what the sources are taking to make your calculations .

I am also looking for you to show what are the mathematical formulas using these for them.

This is critical to understand what is the mathematical model using these and you have relevance.

I dislike a lot to talk about materials when the game has implemented simulation model materials.

Also I would like to know your level of education to make these statements .

I do not like at all that you're pushing the community to use your settings in mods.

The game currently has a simulation of materials , so your assumptions are possibly the least erroneous .

I have read post yours insist on using your calculations to other " modders " and that worries me a lot because they are taking as valid calculations we do not know if they are incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with this post .

To begin I would like to know what the sources are taking to make your calculations .

I am also looking for you to show what are the mathematical formulas using these for them.

This is critical to understand what is the mathematical model using these and you have relevance.

I dislike a lot to talk about materials when the game has implemented simulation model materials.

Also I would like to know your level of education to make these statements .

I do not like at all that you're pushing the community to use your settings in mods.

The game currently has a simulation of materials , so your assumptions are possibly the least erroneous .

I have read post yours insist on using your calculations to other " modders " and that worries me a lot because they are taking as valid calculations we do not know if they are incorrect.

Never found a word where he insists upon it. The only thing i found was "encourage" - now google both words and you will notice a significant difference. Secondly, "The code and its values come with absolutely NO WARRANTY what-so-ever" is what he clearly states below his first post. On top of that, his newly calculated rounds actually do very well represent the values of there Real-Life counterparts, how do i know? - i fired the M855A1 as well as Mk 262 from a variety of Plattforms as well has participated in range tests of the M855A1 (black tip). Good thing we have 1 unhappy blabbermouth though, next time actually read the word written down by the creator. If you do not have anything constructive to add apart from second guessing someone that has put hours and hours of work into something he freely offers to the community, maybee you should look for a different community.

Looking forward to the new Handgun ammo variables Spartan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with djotacon's tone as well. OP is doing a great thing, no need to attack him like he is forcing his values everywhere.

There's also a good point in his post, though. I would agree that having some numbers/diagrams (bullet path/drop? ingame penetration/ricochet testing?) would add much to apparent credibility of this research and - who knows - if it's backed up good, maybe it will be adopted by developers? You never know.

I vote for at least partial disclosure. Maybe the community could help as well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with djotacon's tone as well. OP is doing a great thing, no need to attack him like he is forcing his values everywhere.

There's also a good point in his post, though. I would agree that having some numbers/diagrams (bullet path/drop? ingame penetration/ricochet testing?) would add much to apparent credibility of this research and - who knows - if it's backed up good, maybe it will be adopted by developers? You never know.

I vote for at least partial disclosure. Maybe the community could help as well :)

My tone is perfectly fine and I'm not insult or use rude language to expose my reasonable doubts.

This person less than a month ignored completely the play mechanism of the weapon system does.

So I raise my doubts about its sources and knowledge about this topic.

What I say here are my doubts about whether this dataset are reliable or not given that our information about them are now mere speculation.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

A. BIS default is terribly off base, I wonder if they have ever even shot a 5.56x45mm round out of a rifle. Many mod makers use their numbers as a base and make some small modifications thus making them flawed. All my ballistics are based off of REAL WORLD BALLISTICS taken from reputable sites and are backed by the ammunition manufacturers. Most of my information comes from people who test manufacturer and hand loads for firearms enthusiasts to use in the real world. My ballistics information is easily within a 5% margin of error making them as realistic as possible within a "simulator".

I think making such statements is of great immodesty.

The armament of the game is balanced with respect to their armor and style of the game itself.

If you want to create another model different damage is something commendable but I do go through a realistic model when a large part of the data is not known is not useful.

In my opinion we should rely on a mathematical model rather than a set of random data.

A model also would allow us to make quick adjustments to the "modders" to create their own model of damage.

Right now with the change in the resistance of the armor automatically invalidate the proposed model and that is a problem to be treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armament of the game is balanced with respect to their armor and style of the game itself.

maybe in your dream world it is :rolleyes: personally, I stopped playing Arma 3 because of how bad the damage system works. these new values make the game at least resemble firefights against human beings, and not robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe in your dream world it is :rolleyes: personally, I stopped playing Arma 3 because of how bad the damage system works. these new values make the game at least resemble firefights against human beings, and not robots.

Nah, every soldier can take 3 to 4 clear bodyshots and walk away....

Question, are you also looking to implement special purpose rounds later, such as api or raufoss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about 3 to 4 clear head shots? ;) but yeah, offtopic somewhat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with this post .

To begin I would like to know what the sources are taking to make your calculations .

I am also looking for you to show what are the mathematical formulas using these for them.

This is critical to understand what is the mathematical model using these and you have relevance.

I dislike a lot to talk about materials when the game has implemented simulation model materials.

Also I would like to know your level of education to make these statements .

I do not like at all that you're pushing the community to use your settings in mods.

The game currently has a simulation of materials , so your assumptions are possibly the least erroneous .

I have read post yours insist on using your calculations to other " modders " and that worries me a lot because they are taking as valid calculations we do not know if they are incorrect.

I can understand the trepidation of my claims being realistic, one of the calculators I use is right from Armaholic and was used to calculate ballistics in the ACE 2 mod, its a very very well designed calculator that allows me to get the AirFriction values correct in ArmA and I cross reference this data with a Ballistic Calculator from Hornady which I use in RL for my long range shooting (I am a US Army ROTC Qualified Expert Marksman in Smallbore, Rifle, Long Rifle, and Handgun) I have also competed in some civilian "pick-up" marksmanship competitions. My close friend shot for the US Army Marksmanship unit and the University of Memphis and he and I shoot and train together many times a year (he is now an active US Army National Guard MP Lieutenant). I also have other shooting enthusiast friends that own multiple class 3 and class 4 weapons. I have operated many weapons that even Law Enforcement and Military have most likely never operated, in fact I will post a short video of me shooting a fully automatic and suppressed Uzi compliments of one of my good friends named Glenn. As for penetration and damage values these are based off of internet sources on mainly TheFiringLine, AR15.com, TheHighRoad, and youtube. The youtube videos are all about either being shot into FBI and IWBA calibrated ballistics gelatin, soft panel body armor vaules ranging from level 1a - level 3a, and or into pork rib meat to accurately show real damage of the rounds presented. The penetration and damages are all tested in game to accurately represent what the videos had shown and I use RHA plates in game down to 1mm thickness at various ranges to test. I also have worked on another mod called Occupation Source which was a mod for the Source engine (Half Life 2) where we did real ballistics including shock values, tissue damage, and bullet physics including fragmentation, boring, splintering, ect...

My Uzi Video:

Uzi 4 You

Addendum:

I have gathered all necessary ballistics information from Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Corbon-Glaser, and Either doubletap or BuffaloBore for the following pistol rounds....

.357 Sig

.40 S&W

.45 ACP (.45 Auto)

These calibers will be tested and released next, followed most likely by 5.45x39, 6.8x43mm SPC, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, and 7.62x54R. If I can get the information on the 6x35mm KAC round that is exclusively used in the KAC PDW I will also try to incorporate that as well.

Edited by Spartan0536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My tone is perfectly fine and I'm not insult or use rude language to expose my reasonable doubts.

This person less than a month ignored completely the play mechanism of the weapon system does.

So I raise my doubts about its sources and knowledge about this topic.

What I say here are my doubts about whether this dataset are reliable or not given that our information about them are now mere speculation.

No, it is not. You're implying OP doesn't know what he's doing (insult) and demand explanations - who are you to demand it?

OP is a tempered man and wasn't offended - lucky you. I would.

Edited by DarkWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Djotacon has the right to critique and question the work of the author, although his approach seems a bit harsh. It's in poor taste to insult him because you do not agree with his views. He was also correct when he stated that "The armament of the game is balanced with respect to their armor and style of the game itself". Adjusting one thing in the game can throw everything off balance and has the potential to degrade the experience.

Spartan0536 has built much of this mod on the work of others and has very few apparent links to any of the tools and information he used. If somebody states something like "Most if not all of these ballistics are within a 2-3% margin of error" and doesn't show much hard evidence then a little bit of suspicion is to be expected. To make this perfectly clear I'm not discrediting Spartan0536's work, rather I'm just pointing out the obvious for those who may have missed it.

The information & tools used by Spartan is the following:

Ballistics Calculator by Dust2Dust

Armor penetration and damage explained by Olds

Ballistic testing tools & addons by me

The rest of the info is either from his own personal experience or publicly available.

I hope this answers Djotacon's questions to a degree.

PS. Putting up the real life data used for the arma config values would probably eliminate most future questions such as this.

Edited by Bakerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djotacon has the right to critique and question the work of the author, although his approach seems a bit harsh. It's in poor taste to insult him because you do not agree with his views. He was also correct when he stated that "The armament of the game is balanced with respect to their armor and style of the game itself". Adjusting one thing in the game can throw everything off balance and has the potential to degrade the experience.

Spartan0536 has built much of this mod on the work of others and has very few apparent links to any of the tools and information he used. If somebody states something like "Most if not all of these ballistics are within a 2-3% margin of error" and doesn't show much hard evidence then a little bit of suspicion is to be expected. To make this perfectly clear I'm discrediting Spartan0536's work, rather I'm just pointing out the obvious for those who may have missed it.

The information & tools used by Spartan is the following:

Ballistics Calculator by Dust2Dust

Armor penetration and damage explained by Olds

Ballistic testing tools & addons by me

The rest of the info is either from his own personal experience or publicly available.

I hope this answers Djotacon's questions to a degree.

PS. Putting up the real life data used for the arma config values would probably eliminate most future questions such as this.

Thanks for posting that information directly with subsequent links to follow. I believe you meant to say "I'm NOT discrediting Spartan0536's work" :P

Additional Information, for anyone interested all the Ballistics Coefficients I use in the calculators are G1 NOT G7 rated (I am quite sure most people here don't know what any of that means, heck many shooters don't even know differences in BC's)

Edited by Spartan0536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djotacon has the right to critique and question the work of the author, although his approach seems a bit harsh.

That's what I said initially, didn't I? Please read my first post.

Anyways, let's get back to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spartan0536

Haha yeah. I've been up almost 24 hours and my typing accuracy is below poor to start with. :sleeping:

@DarkWanderer

The post was not directed at you at all so apologies if that's what I seemed to be implying. It's for everybody and anybody to read and take from it what they will, but specifically typed for Spartan0536 & Djotacon.

Edited by Bakerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Spartan0536

Haha yeah. I've been up almost 24 hours and my typing accuracy is below poor to start with. :sleeping:

@DarkWanderer

The post was not directed at you at all so apologies if that's what I seemed to be implying. It's for everybody and anybody to read and take from it what they will, but specifically typed for Spartan0536 & Djotacon.

Okay, apologies from my side as well, then - hope we have it settled now :)

Question for Spartan: are you planning to release a replacement config for default weapons at some point? That would be great for both testing and modding perspective - basically, the mods which are inheriting default ballistics would be updated automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, apologies from my side as well, then - hope we have it settled now :)

Question for Spartan: are you planning to release a replacement config for default weapons at some point? That would be great for both testing and modding perspective - basically, the mods which are inheriting default ballistics would be updated automatically.

I believer Ikr has an ammo config mod that uses my ballistics, one of my later goals is to provide accurate muzzle velocities for a variety of commonly used weapons so that all guns can have accurate magazine configs for init velocity thus affecting all the other values appropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep up the good work Spartan0536 and don't let the nay sayers discourage you. Not saying they don't have the right to question and criticize, of course they should do that if they feel something good can come of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

I talked with Knights Armament this afternoon about their 6x35mm round that is used exclusively in the KAC PDW and they were unable to get me the G1 ballistics coefficient for the round as it was in prototype stage only and was never manufactured in number. I did some research on the round and its parent case is the Remington 221 Fireball with modifications. KAC was able to provide me with the design, velocity (from an 8 inch barrel), KE power, and the mass in grains. Using this plus their claims of performing similar to a 5.56x45mm NATO round out to 300m I came up with my "GUESSTIMATED" G1 BC of .263 (the M193 5.56x45mm round used in Vietnam has a BC of .243) Modern MK318 Mod 0 rounds have a BC of .306 this round sits where I think it might be, again I can not claim any kind of realism outside of perhaps a 30% margin of error, the information on this round is just not there. However I was able to find information on the recoil of the weapon, and its been described as slightly less than a 5.56x45mm carbine. Again I can not stress enough that the 6x35mm KAC rounds are not entirely accurate in ballistics, they do have some realistic properties but are no where near as founded as my other rounds, if anyone has any information on the KAC 6x35mm G1 BC I would be grateful.

Another update:

I was able to secure the G1 Ballistics Coefficient of the 5.45x39mm Russian military rounds, this was VERY VERY difficult to get. Thanks to a good friend of mine who is able to get his hands on some rare ammunition, he gave me the information from his ballistics calculations for his Yugoslavian Automatic AK74 (pre ban) with the 7N22 rounds, the only difference between the 7N22 and 7N24 is the use of a tungsten core over a steel core, the construction, weight and velocity are identical thus not changing the BC.

7N6 penetration has been rated according to Russian Military claims at 300m (Russia uses st3 steel in testing which is very low quality carbon steel, mild steel has a higher density) using RHA examples of 1.3mm of mild steel to equal 1mm of RHA and coverting the densities I came up with an average of 4.5mm RHA at 300m.

7N24 Penetration has been rated according to Russian Military claims at 350m, again converting the necessary densities the round averaged out at 6.5mm RHA at 350m.

There is a big difference in the rounds construction of 7N6 and 7N24, the 7N6 is more of a general purpose round that is mass produced for the Russian Forces, it has a much better yaw tendency over the 7N24 which is primarily designed to defeat soft and some hardened body armor as well as be a blind barrier penetrator. Due to the design of the bullets the 7N6 will feature a higher general hit damage to represent the better yaw tendency over the 7N24.

Edited by Spartan0536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian Military Rounds Update.....

Following up on all my research over the past week & a half on the Russian Military Rifle rounds I have managed to piece together a nice set of rounds for the soviet block weapons enthusiast to use. The ballistics are fairly well comprised, I had to limit the rounds due to the availability of information on Russian military loads other then 7.62x54R which is very prevalent and has tons of information available even for modern military production munitions. Below is a complete list of what to expect in one of my coming updates.....

5.45x39mm

Russian Military Designated 7N6 FMJ

Russian Military Designated 7N24 AP

7.62x39mm

Russian Military Designated 57-N-231 FMJ

Russian Military Designated 7N23 AP

7.62x54R

Russian Military Designated 57-N-323S FMJ

Russian Military Designated 7N13 AP

Russian Military Designated 7N14 Sniper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing work Spartan, particularly on KA's 6x35mm! We are, virtually, using their PDW as our main weapon thus your researchs are warmly received here, KUPTGW!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarkWanderer

That's one of your interpretation and I don't insult anyone in the post.

I've seen you chasing me and harassing me in another post.

So from now forget speak with me ever.

---------- Post added at 01:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ----------

@Spartan

I've been reading the documentation on which ye made​​. As expected it is a complete fabrication.

For me it has no real validity beyond pure statistics.

The more weak points I see in these types of modifications are based on the absence of a mathematical model applied to the game.

They are using data and values ​​from "ARMA 2" may not serve in "ARMA · 3" and based on a real physical model. Without a simulation of materials, a wind model and a system to reflect the recoil of the gun. These values ​​are only a subtle way to upgrade weapons as valid as any other valid but not to improve the game from the point of view of its playability.

---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ----------

Another very serious problem is the fact that the data are static. If you change some behavior of the weapons in the game the results can be adverse.

What I mean is that you need a complete modification of code along with the data. Create a statistical curve that reflects the behavior of the ammo you have and with the statistical model, create a mathematical model that joins the source code to create a playable model and integrate it all together.

The data right now - I think - in actual state is useless for the pourpose of the OP.

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

×