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

Ok this is extremely important, and I need to know from the community what matters here.....

BIS like I have said is taking forever to get the information to me on object densities that are in game, this makes it near impossible for me to get some penetration values down correctly, mainly with civilian rounds and pistol calibers. I have a slight work around which will have some accuracy to them however they will not be entirely true to life without BIS's help. That being said I want to know your thoughts on me using the "work around" model which is still based on relative RHA penetration values or wait for BIS to get the info to me....

Choice A: Use the RHA model work around and release your ballistics code as soon as possible, fix the penetration issues for civilian rifle rounds and pistol rounds later

Choice B: Wait for BIS or the community to get the information to you before releasing your code so that it is as realistic as possible. (please note that I have no ETA as this is all based on how fast BIS gets in touch with me, if they even respond at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote A because:

1) it allows communities to enjoy what you already done without any further delay

2) it will allow you to get feedbacks and then adapt or confirm your work

3) it will gives time BI to get back to you (by the way, did you try channels like Twitter or Skype?)

By the way bis, do you plan to give vests and helmets a reality check too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say option A is the way to go. Nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kawa, I have not tried twitter or Skype, was not aware Skype was even an option with BIS developers, I have tried Steam Chat however, no luck there. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

@Shadow_MSOG, Thanks for taking the time to answer, it really does help me get an feel for what the community wants to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I might have something here, as a hold over, I am not sure how accurate these penetration values might be, they should be as an educated guess goes within a 30% margin of error for civilian and pistol rounds.

Here is my formula so far....

most testing for FBI specs is 2 sheets of 20 gauge steel seperated by 3 inches and the bullet must penetrate no less than 12 inches of ballistics gel and no more (for JHP's) than 18 inches to pass FBI and IWBA specs. So because I do not have values to simulate ballistics gelatin I am substituting using 20 Gauge Steel -> RHA conversion which 1.3mm of 20 gauge mild steel sheet = 1mm of RHA sheet. By doing this I have a decent foundation as ArmA's RHA densities are known thanks to Bakerman and Olds for their work on the Real Armor Mod. RHA is properly simulated in the game according to what I have read so that is why I am using it as a base for RL ballistics.

here is the math for a 9mm Federal Tactical HST JHP +P bullet

4.5 in barrel full frame handgun

20 gauge mild steel sheet = 0.953 mm density

FBI spec show JHP's pen 2 sheets of this density with 3 inch separation to simulate an automotive door plus 17 inches there after into ballistics gelatin according to FBI spec testing.

my tests are 5 sheets of 20 gauge steel as a solid mass with a combined density of 4.76mm

4.76mm of mild steel = 3.6653 mm RHA

Velocity (muzzle) : 329 m/s

Caliber (penetration capability): 0.7427

Penetration Values:

1. RHA = 3.6652 mm

2. Meat & Bones = 11.73 mm

3. Concrete = 19.55 mm

please remember that meat and bones and concrete may not be calculated to RL specs and there are different grades of concrete with different densities and compositions, knowing which type BIS used for their code is NOT known at the time of this posting. Any thoughts as to this, any corrections or adjustments, and please remember this is a formula I have come up with UNTIL I can get the info from BIS about their object densities and their calculations of such objects.

I chose a multiplicative of 5 based on density values, if you take a metric ruler and measured out 4.76mm and pictured 20 gauge steel at that thickness and asked if a JHP bullet would penetrate that based on other ballistics tests and current known penetration values would it be plausible. I know this is not infallible in fact its purely an educated guess but at this time this is the best I can come up with.

Update, using the Community Ballistics Calculator that Bakerman made I have made some descriptive adjustments to Bullet Form that better matches real bullets.....

Bullet Form Factors

[table=width: 200, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]Depleted Uranium[/td]

[td]10[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Tungsten Carbide[/td]

[td]9[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Hardened Steel Core[/td]

[td]8[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mild Steel Core[/td]

[td]7[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Hardcast[/td]

[td]6[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Full Metal Jacket[/td]

[td]5[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Open Tip Match[/td]

[td]4[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Hollow Point[/td]

[td]3[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Pre-Fragmented[/td]

[td]2[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Frangible[/td]

[td]1[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Edited by Spartan0536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan,

Putting this here so not to clog up RH's thread...

20 inch barrel - M16 and MK12 length

14.5 inch barrel - standard NATO carbine/bullpup barrel length (M4, L85, Famas, ect...)

10.5 inch barel - NATO compact carbine barrel length (Mk18's & many PDW's)

Just a few small corrections. The MK12 uses a 18" barrel. I'm guessing the MV isn't that much different in-game use (I don't have any 20" barrels to compare, just my MK12), but I think it's around 20-40 FPS. Also, the MK18 has a 10.3 inch barrel. Yeah, not worth your effort to find the differences between a 10.5 and a 10.3, but just putting it out there. I know the internet is rife with arguments about the "true" MK18 barrel length, but at the end of the day it's 10.3.

Regardless, glad you're still working this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan,

Putting this here so not to clog up RH's thread...

Just a few small corrections. The MK12 uses a 18" barrel. I'm guessing the MV isn't that much different in-game use (I don't have any 20" barrels to compare, just my MK12), but I think it's around 20-40 FPS. Also, the MK18 has a 10.3 inch barrel. Yeah, not worth your effort to find the differences between a 10.5 and a 10.3, but just putting it out there. I know the internet is rife with arguments about the "true" MK18 barrel length, but at the end of the day it's 10.3.

Regardless, glad you're still working this.

I may end up adding an 18 inch barrel simply because of the M249 SAW and other DMR's that are 18 inches, for now the 20 inch barrel should suffice, there is only a 60-80 fps difference but I want the most popular lengths to be correct. As for the 10.3 to 10.5 yeah less than a 2% margin there, not going that detailed, for just 1 barrel length it takes me about 6-8 hours of work and tweaking plus in game battle testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the 10.3 to 10.5 yeah less than a 2% margin there, not going that detailed

Actually I think those barrels might be more different than you all think. I don't know this particular weapon in detail, but I would not be suprised if those barrels have different rifling and that sets them apart quite a lot. Not that I think that is something we want to simulate ingame :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may end up adding an 18 inch barrel simply because of the M249 SAW and other DMR's that are 18 inches, for now the 20 inch barrel should suffice, there is only a 60-80 fps difference but I want the most popular lengths to be correct. As for the 10.3 to 10.5 yeah less than a 2% margin there, not going that detailed, for just 1 barrel length it takes me about 6-8 hours of work and tweaking plus in game battle testing.

That all makes sense. I figured I'd offer it as a data point, but sounds like you're on it. At the end of the day, it's still more accurate than vanilla. Looking forward to it.

Actually I think those barrels might be more different than you all think. I don't know this particular weapon in detail, but I would not be suprised if those barrels have different rifling and that sets them apart quite a lot. Not that I think that is something we want to simulate ingame :)

They're both 1 in 7" barrels. The LMT barrel is 10.5 and the Colt CQBR is 10.3, but they both follow the M4 government profile with a 1:7 twist, so it's close enough for government work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright! Hard to understand why they would make two barrels with such a small length difference. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright! Hard to understand why they would make two barrels with such a small length difference. :)

They are made by 2 different companies that are competing for Mil contracts for the next CQB weapon, the 1:7 twist is standardized as the MK318 Mod 0 SOST is specifically designed for a 1:7 twist giving it a gyroscopic stability of 2.2 (this makes the round very accurate even when crossing into the subsonic speeds).

There is about a 14-16% velocity difference between a 14.5 and a 16 in Mil-Spec barrel (SAAMI competition and Bull Precision barrels have higher ratings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.62x51mm Update....

I have spent some time getting .338 and 7.62x51mm NATO going, .338 was extremly easy as it is such a well documented round which I found surprising and comforting. However the M993 Armor Piercing round in 7.62x51mm NATO is very very hard to come across for numbers.

I managed to get credible testing info right from NAMMO (the people who make the bullet), however I was not given muzzle velocity or ballistics coefficient, I did however get the actual penetration capability of that round and that in itself is huge. With some help from the ballistics experts are JBM Ballistics I was able to calculate the muzzle velocity and the ballistics coefficient of the M993. Please keep in mind this is the best I have to work with, I am very confident in these numbers and they do mathematically check out, here is the formula below.....

Near Velocity / Far Velocity - Chronograph Distance

Pressure - Altitude

Humidity - Temperature

this all equals Ballistics Coefficient (G1)

I came up with the BC after looking at many other ballistics coefficients of bullets at close weight and design and calculated the rest.

here is a link to the calculator: http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmbcv-5.1.cgi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all these numbers you generously supply just for modders to use, or do you plan on one day making a mega ammo mod or somthing? :bounce3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are all these numbers you generously supply just for modders to use, or do you plan on one day making a mega ammo mod or somthing? :bounce3:

All of my ballistics codes are for the community to use at their discretion, all I ask is that I get credit where it is due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMING SOON!

LW 30x133mm munitions...

M789 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose)

M799 HEI (High Explosive Incendiary)

please note these are for the LW system and are NOT used by the A-10's GAU/8 Avenger system, they are used by the AH-64, MH-60L DAP, and LW equipped land based vehicles as well as DEFA/ADEN equipped aircraft ONLY! I would personally like to thank ATK (Alliant Tech Systems) for their help with these munitions in achieveing a 5% margin of error and this includes RHA penetration values as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it covers 7.62x54R, and 7.62x39mm with some of the modern rounds, it could be helpful, I have 5.45x39mm already in testing thanks to some US Military Aberdeen manuals.

Here's what I do have in that book*:

7.62x54R

7-N-13 (aka "LPS", aka "57-N-323S", from 1945, had a white or silver tip until 1977):

tombak steel jacket, "soft" steel core

Bullet weight: 9,60 grams

Propellant: 3,10-3,15 grams VT nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 520 mm barrel: 870 m/s (Mosin Nagant 1944 carbine)

V0 from a 605 mm barrel: 839 m/s (DPM)

V0 from a 610 mm barrel: 830 m/s (SVD Dragunov)

V0 from a 658 mm barrel: 822 m/s (PK)

At 660m, it goes through a 6 mm St.3 steel plate.

Up to 800m, it goes through a 6-Zh-85T (not so) bullet proof vest.

7-N-26 (aka "57-N-323S modernised", from 1999):

armour piercing "ST" steel core whatever it is

no further details7-N-1 standard sniper (from 1966):

Bullet weight: 9,80 grams

Propellant: 3,10-3,20 grams VT nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 610 mm SVD barrel: 835 m/s

7-N-14 enhanced penetration sniper (from 1999):

"FMJ jacketed projectile with an air pocket, a steel core and a lead knocker in the base for maximum terminal effect" (copied wikipedia here as it matchs my book's description which is in french though)

Bullet weight: 9,52 grams

Ballistic identical to 7-N-1

These pages might be useful to you as they have some graphs and tables:

USSR 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo001.htm

Russian 1997 7.62x54r 152 gr. "7N1" Sniper: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo030.htm

Other figures but I ain't able to confirm or infirm them: http://archive.today/0J6sN

7.62×39 M.43

7-N-21 (aka "PS, ordinary bullet, "Ball" in western parlance, "57-N-231" and "57-N-231" are minor subvariants)

tombak steel jacket, "soft" steel core

Bullet weight: 7,97 grams

Propellant: 1,52-1,62 grams B type nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 304 mm barrel: 570 m/s (A-91)

V0 from a 314 mm barrel: 670 m/s (AK-104)

V0 from a 414 mm barrel: 710-715 m/s (AK-47/AKM)

V0 from a 590 mm barrel: 735 m/s (RPK, RPKS)

V0 from a 1021 mm barrel: 735 m/s (no typo, SKS-45)

At 100m, it goes through a 5 mm 2P steel plate.

7-N-23 (armor piercing)

Bullet weight: 7,90 grams

At 100m, it goes through a 16 mm St.3 steel plate.

At 400m, it goes through a 5 mm 2P steel plate.

At 250m, it goes through a 6BZTM bullet proof vest (6 mm titanium + 15 kevlar layers).

57-N-231U ("Umenshennaya Skorost", meaning "low velocity", subsonic to be used with PBS-1 sound suppressor)

Bullet weight: 12,55 grams

Propellant: 0,53-0,75 grams B type nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 414 mm barrel: 295-310 m/s (AK-47/AKM)

Voila, hope it helps.

* Source: "Munitions militaires russes pour armes légères, 1868-2004" by Philippe Regenstreif, ISBN-10: 2703003137.

http://i2.cdscdn.com/pdt2/1/3/7/1/700x700/9782703003137/rw/munitions-militaires-russes-pour-armes-legeres.jpg

http://images.gibertjoseph.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/137/9782703003137_4_75.jpg

Edited by Kawa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's what I do have in that book*:

7.62x54R

7-N-13 (aka "LPS", aka "57-N-323S", from 1945, had a white or silver tip until 1977):

tombak steel jacket, "soft" steel core

Bullet weight: 9,60 grams

Propellant: 3,10-3,15 grams VT nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 520 mm barrel: 870 m/s (Mosin Nagant 1944 carbine)

V0 from a 605 mm barrel: 839 m/s (DPM)

V0 from a 610 mm barrel: 830 m/s (SVD Dragunov)

V0 from a 658 mm barrel: 822 m/s (PK)

At 660m, it goes through a 6 mm St.3 steel plate.

Up to 800m, it goes through a 6-Zh-85T (not so) bullet proof vest.

7-N-26 (aka "57-N-323S modernised", from 1999):

armour piercing "ST" steel core whatever it is

no further details7-N-1 standard sniper (from 1966):

Bullet weight: 9,80 grams

Propellant: 3,10-3,20 grams VT nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 610 mm SVD barrel: 835 m/s

7-N-14 enhanced penetration sniper (from 1999):

"FMJ jacketed projectile with an air pocket, a steel core and a lead knocker in the base for maximum terminal effect" (copied wikipedia here as it matchs my book's description which is in french though)

Bullet weight: 9,52 grams

Ballistic identical to 7-N-1

These pages might be useful to you as they have some graphs and tables:

USSR 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo001.htm

Russian 1997 7.62x54r 152 gr. "7N1" Sniper: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo030.htm

Other figures but I ain't able to confirm or infirm them: http://archive.today/0J6sN

7.62×39 M.43

7-N-21 (aka "PS, ordinary bullet, "Ball" in western parlance, "57-N-231" and "57-N-231" are minor subvariants)

tombak steel jacket, "soft" steel core

Bullet weight: 7,97 grams

Propellant: 1,52-1,62 grams B type nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 304 mm barrel: 570 m/s (A-91)

V0 from a 314 mm barrel: 670 m/s (AK-104)

V0 from a 414 mm barrel: 710-715 m/s (AK-47/AKM)

V0 from a 590 mm barrel: 735 m/s (RPK, RPKS)

V0 from a 1021 mm barrel: 735 m/s (no typo, SKS-45)

At 100m, it goes through a 5 mm 2P steel plate.

7-N-23 (armor piercing)

Bullet weight: 7,90 grams

At 100m, it goes through a 16 mm St.3 steel plate.

At 400m, it goes through a 5 mm 2P steel plate.

At 250m, it goes through a 6BZTM bullet proof vest (6 mm titanium + 15 kevlar layers).

57-N-231U ("Umenshennaya Skorost", meaning "low velocity", subsonic to be used with PBS-1 sound suppressor)

Bullet weight: 12,55 grams

Propellant: 0,53-0,75 grams B type nitrocellulose powder

V0 from a 414 mm barrel: 295-310 m/s (AK-47/AKM)

Voila, hope it helps.

* Source: "Munitions militaires russes pour armes légères, 1868-2004" by Philippe Regenstreif, ISBN-10: 2703003137.

http://i2.cdscdn.com/pdt2/1/3/7/1/700x700/9782703003137/rw/munitions-militaires-russes-pour-armes-legeres.jpg

http://images.gibertjoseph.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/137/9782703003137_4_75.jpg

Thanks, this will help with validity on some of my incoming rounds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already done some of these rounds. Will be interesting to see if spartan come to the same values. I have also included realistic values for burntimes on the tracer variants of the projectiles. :)

5.45x39 7N6 and 7T3 tracer

airFriction = -0.00160;

model = "\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_green";

tracerStartTime = 0.073;

tracerEndTime = 1.35;

7.62x39 57-N-231 and 57-N-231P

airFriction = -0.00180;

model = "\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_green";

tracerStartTime = 0.073;

tracerEndTime = 1.7;

7.62x54 7N1 and 7T2 tracer

airFriction = -0.000785;

model = "\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_green";

tracerStartTime = 0.073;

tracerEndTime = 3;

5.56x45 M855 and M856 tracer

airFriction = -0.00135;

model = "\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_red";

tracerStartTime = 0.073;

tracerEndTime = 1.278;

I will not post the hit and caliber values becouse I'm not convinced I got them very accurate.

These are just some of the projectiles I have modeled so far. I have a few more, including anti tank weapons like the Carl Gustaf, RPG7 and several more.

Edited by Brisse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My research on 7N6 coming from a World Armament Manual that my friend in the US Military was able to get me (DODIC Non-Classified), you can purchase one as a civilian for a couple hundred US dollars, gave me these values on the 5.45x39mm 7N6 round.....

Fired from a 16.4 inch barrel AK-74/AK-12

53 Grain Projectile

2887 ft/s MV

979 ft/lbs KE

.282 Ballistics Coefficient (G1 Drag Function)

Penetration capability of 4.615mm RHA at 300 meters

calculated airFriction: -0.0013492727

Edited by Spartan0536
edited RHA penetration after calculating RHA material density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, I end up with higher airfriction. Wierd :)

I found my data on some random russian website though. Yours could be more reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COMING SOON!

LW 30x133mm munitions...

M789 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose)

M799 HEI (High Explosive Incendiary)

please note these are for the LW system and are NOT used by the A-10's GAU/8 Avenger system, they are used by the AH-64, MH-60L DAP, and LW equipped land based vehicles as well as DEFA/ADEN equipped aircraft ONLY! I would personally like to thank ATK (Alliant Tech Systems) for their help with these munitions in achieveing a 5% margin of error and this includes RHA penetration values as well.

I am discontinuing the M799 HEI round as no US weapons system fires these rounds, only the ADEN/DEFA systems fire these as the US has had issues with rounds "cooking off" in the barrels when under continued fire.

However regarding the M789 HEDP, thanks to my good friend in the US Army for sending me US Army's World Wide Equipment Volumes 1-2 to help me get the info on some of these rounds......

30x113mm M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP)

3,534 Grains

2,641 ft/s Muzzle Velocity

.496 Ballistics Coefficient (G1 Drag Function) *Scientifically Calculated using JBM Ballisitcs Velocity Method*

2 inches of RHA at 2500m (this is not a typo, 2 inches RHA at 2500 meters)

4 meter splash range

1500 meter tracer burn time

Code to follow soon for use in 30x113mm systems that includes the AH-64A, AH-64D, MH-60L DAP, ADEN/DEFA, and LW based 30x113mm systems developed by General Dynamics and ATK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, except my reference came from the Army Knowledge Online website which only active US Military personnel have access to; also the version I am using is dated for 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it, thank you Spartan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Spartan, are you sharing your ballistics info with the RHS Russian Armed Forces and US Armed Forces mod teams?

I sure hope so.

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

×