ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul

[Brisse 78]

My test with M855 ball yielded -0.00135 which seems a bit high indeed. This one was a bit tricky becouse when I get it right in medium range it gets wrong when used for long range and vice versa. The other rounds I did was not that much off. I understand that this is becouse Arma3 ballistics is simplified and there is more and more error the further the bullet travels.

I use velocity when tuning airfriction, not drop. I test ingame and use a script to lookup the velocity of the projectile at certain ranges. I might give your method a try. It certainly seems correct mathematically, but I'm not sure it gives correct velocity at medium and long range ingame. When I compare to IRL tables, it seems that the bullets in Arma don't decelerates enough.

I'm also going to see what kind of drop I get at different range. Maybe that is way off with my method?

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 ----------

This is ingame test of velocity with my M855 ball

airfriction -0.00135

v0 = 930m/s = 3 051 ft/s

10m = 918m/s = 3 012 ft/s

100m = 812m/s = 2 664 ft/s

200m = 709m/s = 2 326 ft/s

300m = 619m/s = 2 031 ft/s

400m = 541m/s = 1 775 ft/s

500m = 472m/s = 1 549 ft/s

600m = 412m/s = 1 352 ft/s

700m = 360m/s = 1 181 ft/s

800m = 314m/s = 1 030 ft/s

This is the IRL data I was using as a guide:

Edited June 12, 2014 by Brisse

[Spartan0536 189]

My test with M855 ball yielded -0.00135 which seems a bit high indeed. This one was a bit tricky becouse when I get it right in medium range it gets wrong when used for long range and vice versa. The other rounds I did was not that much off. I understand that this is becouse Arma3 ballistics is simplified and there is more and more error the further the bullet travels.

I use velocity when tuning airfriction, not drop. I test ingame and use a script to lookup the velocity of the projectile at certain ranges. I might give your method a try. It certainly seems correct mathematically, but I'm not sure it gives correct velocity at medium and long range ingame. When I compare to IRL tables, it seems that the bullets in Arma don't decelerates enough.

I'm also going to see what kind of drop I get at different range. Maybe that is way off with my method?

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 ----------

This is ingame test of velocity with my M855 ball

airfriction -0.00135

v0 = 930m/s = 3 051 ft/s

10m = 918m/s = 3 012 ft/s

100m = 812m/s = 2 664 ft/s

200m = 709m/s = 2 326 ft/s

300m = 619m/s = 2 031 ft/s

400m = 541m/s = 1 775 ft/s

500m = 472m/s = 1 549 ft/s

600m = 412m/s = 1 352 ft/s

700m = 360m/s = 1 181 ft/s

800m = 314m/s = 1 030 ft/s

This is the IRL data I was using as a guide:

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/data.jpg

If you intend to compare my results with the M855A1 EPR with an M855 you will see a noticeable difference. The M855A1 is completely different in design, it uses a different powder charge and has a high MPA rating. It also has a better ballistics coefficient which will definitely have an impact on results. Feel free however to test my code in game with the airFriction value I have set, and then try to calculate an AF value for the M855A1 EPR, I would be interested in seeing the results when I compare them with a range card, however I am certain in Bakerman's work on this Community Ballistics Calculator as he cites many BIS references correctly.

[Brisse 78]

Same test with your M855A1 EPR 14.5 Inch Barrel

airfriction -0.0011543788

v0 = 930m/s = 3 051 ft/s

10m = 920m/s = 3 018 ft/s

100m = 828m/s = 2 717 ft/s

200m = 738m/s = 2 421 ft/s

300m = 657m/s = 2 156 ft/s

400m = 585m/s = 1 919 ft/s

500m = 521m/s = 1 709 ft/s

600m = 464m/s = 1 522 ft/s

700m = 413m/s = 1 355 ft/s

800m = 368m/s = 1 207 ft/s

I will leave it up to you to judge since I don't have the IRL data for this round, but I guess it could be realistic values considering it's a different round.

[Spartan0536 189]

Same test with your M855A1 EPR 14.5 Inch Barrel

airfriction -0.0011543788

v0 = 930m/s = 3 051 ft/s

10m = 920m/s = 3 018 ft/s

100m = 828m/s = 2 717 ft/s

200m = 738m/s = 2 421 ft/s

300m = 657m/s = 2 156 ft/s

400m = 585m/s = 1 919 ft/s

500m = 521m/s = 1 709 ft/s

600m = 464m/s = 1 522 ft/s

700m = 413m/s = 1 355 ft/s

800m = 368m/s = 1 207 ft/s

I will leave it up to you to judge since I don't have the IRL data for this round, but I guess it could be realistic values considering it's a different round.

The MV for the 14.5 inch barrel M855A1 EPR should be 905.256 with the AF of -0.0011543788 (you got the AF right just not the MV), if you could use my Muzzle Velocity that would help validate, at this time it would not work.

[sanguinius51 11]

Thanks for the awesome work Spartan, glad to see that someone has made a real effort in unifying the community to make it better, more realistic, and more entertaining.

[miketim 20]

@Spartan

Have you shared your ballistic data with the RHS American Armed Forces mod team? (or do you know if they are using it) I really hope so.

[Spartan0536 189]

@Spartan

Have you shared your ballistic data with the RHS American Armed Forces mod team? (or do you know if they are using it) I really hope so.

I do not believe I have talked specifically with anyone from the RHS team.

[jakeryan760 10]

The ballistics on the RH PDW update are amazing.. Seriously I encourage anyone to try that pack if you want to see his work. I won't use another weapon until the M4 update.

[Subscyed 10]

Just a question @Spartan0536: Are you thinking about making this addon compatible with realism-oriented addons like AGM and CSE (and possibly ACE3), if not merging with them?

You've clearly gone into a lot of work to accomplish this and I can only say I'm completely astounded.

Great work!

[EricJ 759]

I've been meaning to ask and keep on forgetting to ask... but is it possible for you do to a SOST optimized for a 16-inch barrel? I've been using the 14.5 on my IAR and while it works real good, I feel it's not totally there so if you can get a chance...

[Spartan0536 189]

BALLISTICS UPDATE, 4.6x30mm H&K RELEASED!

I have now officially released the ballistics code for the 4.6x30mm H&K munitions. All ballistics information are based on the H&K MP7A1 PDW and the rounds provided by RAUG Ammotec. Based on this information the ballistics code should be within a 2-3% margin of error thanks to the excellent documentation provided by both H&K and RAUG Ammotec.

[Spartan0536 189]

Hello Arma Community, I have been getting over the Stomach Flu and a major hardware failure that included a whole wipe of my win 7 pro SSD. I have new parts coming in this Tuesday/Wednesday (7/22/14-7/23/14) and with that I can run ArmA III again this time with the new Bootcamp features that will help me check certain things with ballistics in game. I did manage to backup all my ballistics work and research so no worries there. I am excited to finish off 7.62x51, .300 Blackout, 9x19 Parabellum, .357 Sig, .45 ACP, .40 S&W, and 6.8x43mm SPC, all of which are near completion.

[LoupVrt 14]

Get well Spartan and glad to hear you didn't loose your research.

We are excited too that you finish off all these ammos (HLCs AR-15 does have neats .300 rifles btw).

For which barrel length(s) have you tailored the 7.62x51 ballistic?

[EricJ 759]

Cool, so no adjustment for a 16-inch barrel Mk318 SOST I take it?

[EricJ 759]

Anyway, since I'm getting no response here's my approximation:

hit = 10;

typicalSpeed = 925.1468;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

[Spartan0536 189]

@EricJ;

The SOST round from a 16 inch barrel would be approximately 3000 ft/s, it uses a very fast burning powder that was made for Carbine length rifles.

@Kawa;

7.62x51mm NATO is very comprehensive I have calculated values for 13,16,20, and 24 inch barrels, it is a LOT of work and I am working on it right now, its all mind numbing at times....

[EricJ 759]

So that translates I use 14.5 inch barrel stats then as I would assume longer barrel = higher speed right? Reason is I use it on my M27 and trying to get decent accurate ballistics for it.

[EricJ 759]

BTW did a test drive on your M855 SPR 20-inch balliistics values... You can ask the CSAT squad I used this ammo on but they're all dead. Nice work man as always...

In all actuality I called it "M861" as it's a caseless round but the values are all yours man so yeah good job :)

Edited September 17, 2014 by EricJ

[EricJ 759]

By the way I modded your 14.5 inch Mk318 for a better round for the M27 (since it has a 16.5 inch barrel):

class ej_B_mk318: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 9.5964864;

typicalSpeed = 909.989736;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

In all fairness I added 2% to your values to reflect the 2-inch difference and felt it was a fair adjustment since I don't have your formula.

Performance-wise it's consistent with the 14.5 inch (same drop pattern) so it should pass your standards.

[Spartan0536 189]

Update 9/25/2014!

I have prepped the front page of this thread for all of my incoming works, the pistol calibers are still WIP, however I have concluded that .45 ACP will NOT have a dedicated Subsonic round, this is due in part by its slow FPS to begin with which is subsonic, and even with an SMG barrel and +P ammunition its velocity would not go above 1120 ft/s which is the speed of sound at sea level. The Wide Flat Nose Gas Checked Hardcast bullet for .357 Sig will remain unless I can find another subsonic load for .357 Sig in a JHP form, all of the .357 Sig rounds are supersonic and would make suppressing them difficult. The only 2 Calibers to have SMG versions at release will be 9x19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP, later on I will calculate an SMG length for .40 S&W based off the H&K MP5/40.

I have decided that for the time being I will finish all 4 of the most popular pistol cartridges used by Civ/LE/MIL sectors, those are 9x19mm Parabellum, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, I will work on other cartridges later. 5.7x29mm I may end up doing next as its also an SMG round thats popular with some tactical response units in both handgun and SMG forms. I am looking at working on .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .500 S&W Magnum to get the magnums out of the way. After that I will likely work on 9x18 Makarov, .380 ACP , .38 Special, and .45 GAP, .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .50 Action Express to get the "wild cards" finished. Do not expect those later pistol calibers outside of 5.7x29mm to come any time soon as I have many many rifle calibers to finish work on, including the entire Russian arsenal of 5.45x39, 7.62x39, and 7.62x54R which should be coming after this next set of rifle rounds.

However my progress with 6.8x43 SPC, 7.62x35 AAC, and 7.62x51mm NATO is coming along rapidly, I am just double/triple checking the accuracy of my work trying to match results with documentation available publicly. The results are very very interesting to say the least and each caliber has its strengths and weaknesses. For some of the calibers I will be adding in extra bits of "suggestions" regarding recoil, visual flash read for AI and auditory report read for AI to make my ballistics as real as possible.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Spartan0536

[EricJ 759]

Where's the beef?

Just kidding...

Anyway here are my values for M27 16.5-inch and a Magpul Masada I use personally (16-inch barrel values:

class ej_B_mk318: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 9.5964864;

typicalSpeed = 909.989736;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

class ej_B_m855a1: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 8.27687262;

typicalSpeed = 923.36112;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

class ej_B_mk262iar: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 10.798901;

typicalSpeed = 826.98336;

airFriction = -0.0011362379;

caliber = 0.615;

deflecting = 15;

visibleFire = 2.5;

audibleFire = 5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

class ej_B_mk318mda: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 9.548503968;

typicalSpeed = 905.43978732;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

class ej_B_m855a1mda: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 8.27687262;

typicalSpeed = 923.36112;

airFriction = -0.001243324;

caliber = 0.755;

deflecting = 18;

visibleFire = 3;

audibleFire = 5.5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

class ej_B_mk262mda: B_556x45_Ball

{

hit = 10.20766;

typicalSpeed = 818.68493734;

airFriction = -0.0011362379;

caliber = 0.615;

deflecting = 15;

visibleFire = 2.5;

audibleFire = 5;

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

nvgonly=0;

tracerendtime=1;

tracerscale=1;

tracerstarttime=0.050000001;

};

Again for the "mda" values I reduced the IAR values by .5% to reflect a half inch off the barrel. Can't wait for your newer ballistics man...

[hellsan631 11]

Update 9/25/2014!However my progress with 6.8x43 SPC, 7.62x35 AAC, and 7.62x51mm NATO is coming along rapidly, I am just double/triple checking the accuracy of my work trying to match results with documentation available publicly. The results are very very interesting to say the least and each caliber has its strengths and weaknesses. For some of the calibers I will be adding in extra bits of "suggestions" regarding recoil, visual flash read for AI and auditory report read for AI to make my ballistics as real as possible.

Really looking forward to this. Love to see the expanding list of supported rounds. Are you planning on doing some larger calibure rounds, like the 12.7, .408, or 50 cal?

[galzohar 31]

Is there a feedback tracker ticket for having BIS implement the correct ballistic values that we can vote on?

It would be really nice if improved ballistics did not require a mod and wasn't just applicable for weapon mods that used those values, while the other weapons/magazines would remain messed up. :(

[Bucic 1]

Is there a mod file available? It doesn't have to be of the latest revision.

[Spartan0536 189]

Ballistics Update! (9/28/2014)

.300 AAC Blackout v2.0 Released!

Here is a quick Q&A to answer some basic questions about the values for .300 AAC Blackout..

Q: The damage is less than I expected, and .300 Blackout uses .308 bullets, why is 7.62x51mm hitting so much harder?

A: Damage is dependent on 3 things, bullet composition, velocity, and projectile mass. A 7.62x51mm round has more power with a longer barrel than .300 Blackout does, this means more range and more damage, this also equates to more recoil.

Q: Why is the "caliber" of the subsonic rounds so high, would this not make them penetrate like an FMJ?

A: The caliber is based off of velocity and BP ratings, I use an algorithm of 1.2mm of Mild Steel (St3/20 Gauge) to equal 1mm of RHA which supposedly is correctly simulated in ArmA 3. Now the subsonic loads are capable of penetrating 2.5mm of RHA at 125 meters, the supersonic FMJ rounds will penetrate 2.916mm of RHA at 400m, remember that velocity plays a HUGE factor in this, I also make their penetration slightly higher than "rated" as in ArmA the bullet will be moving significantly slower after passing through that material and if it will penetrate 2.916mm of RHA and I set it to 2.916mm of RHA it will be STOPPED by that effectively, I give it another 10% to ensure a pass through with limited performance as would happen in RL. "Caliber" means nothing without velocity, so remember that for future references.

Q: Taking what you just said about "caliber" why do the 5.56x45mm rounds generally penetrate more than .300 Blackout when .300 Blackout is a bigger bullet?

A: The 5.56x45mm NATO rounds are all MILSPEC, they were designed for military operations in mind, meaning better barrier penetration, the .300 Blackout round currently as of (9/28/2014) is a purely civilian round. Technically you could pull an M998 .308 armor piercing round and use it in .300 Blackout, however no one has done this publicly yet so there is no information on it, and I do not have 6-8K USD to test this out. The FMJ round in .300 Blackout is an M80 Ball from a 7.62x51mm NATO catridge, however the M855A1 EPR from an M4 has better penetration than the M80 fired from a 20 inch barrel.

Q: Why are the AirFriciton values so low on the subsonic rounds, this looks ridiculous!

A: The 240 Grain Subsonic loads have a ballistics coefficient of .685, this makes them VERY efficient at retaining velocity and kinetic energy, they are also not crossing the trans-sonic barrier thus making their resistance much lower, this is why the 9 inch SBR has a lower AirFriction than the 16 inch AR in subsonic, once you go into high coefficient subsonic rounds things get a little different. Remember the AirFriction values change dynamically in game, they are not static, its just what they start at that is listed.

IMPORTANT NOTICE!

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that if you use .300 Blackout in an AR that you include a model of the AAC 762-SDN-6 suppressor, this is rated for .300 Blackout and was specifically designed for it for use on AR platforms!

Link to information on the AAC 762-SDN-6 Suppressor:http://www.advanced-armament.com/762-SDN-6_p_433.html

Addendum: Also for recoil, a standard .300 Blackout round has 15% more recoil than a high end 5.56x45mm NATO round, for subsonic loads its about 20% more recoil than an MP5-SD.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Spartan0536