ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul

[stoffl 13]

yay, back to my configs :)

Your hard work is very much appreciated, can't wait to send some of them down range.

[EricJ 729]

Nice, I don't care that you took forever man, I think you're all right :D

Seriously adapted your 13-inch barrel M80A1 EPR to 10.5 inches (-2.5%):

hit = 8.6736459108;

typicalSpeed = 811.3365;

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

Slight tweak of the M80A1 for the M240, value is adjusted from the 24 inch to the 24.8 inch barrel used on the standard 240 (+0.8%):

hit = 10.11918621168;

typicalSpeed = 811.109376;

[malcom86 33]

MAJOR BALLISTICS UPDATE! (1/13/2015)

5.56x45mm NATO updated to v2.2, .45 ACP v2.0 Released, and FINALLY 7.62x51mm NATO v2.0 RELEASED (INCLUDING SUBSONIC ROUNDS!)

You definitely given me a lot of info and tips I was just looking for !! Thanks for the update and expecially for the easy explanation ;)

[DGeorge85 10]

Posted on Toadies thread, but thought this was a better place for a continued discussion.

Ok for anyone who might disagree with my ballistics on the 7U1 subsonic round, here is actaul factual proven RAW ballistics data in comparison...

For this comparison I will be stacking the 7U1 round being fired from an AK-74SU (which is what the bullet was specifically designed for) against the standard velocity rating of a .22 Long Rifle Aguila Interceptor 40 Grain Copper plated lead bullet fired from a GSG-5 with a 9.1 inch barrel.

Russian Military Designated 7U1 Subsonic

5.45x39mm

Fired from an 8.1 inch barrel AK-74SU

Full Metal Jacket (Lead Core)

80 Grains

994 ft/s @ muzzle

176 ft/lbs KE @ muzzle

Aguila Interceptor 40 Grain CP-LRN

.22 Long Rifle

Fired from a 9.1 inch barrel H&K Licensed GSG-5 MP5 .22LR Clone

Copper Plated Lead Round Nose

40 Grains

1470 ft/s @ muzzle

192 ft/lbs KE @ muzzle

Why compare a .22LR Supersonic round to a 5.45x39mm subsonic round from short barrels, they will generate a similar report and we a looking at almost identical KE transfer at the muzzle between both firearms. Case and point, you can equate the terminal performance of a 5.45x39mm 7U1 round with a 40 grain .22 Long Rifle round, not very COMBAT effective when someone else might be using a .300 Blackout, 7.62x51mm Subsonic, or even 7.62x39mm Subsonic round.

Firing a 80gr .22cal bullet at subsonic velocities is what it is, and should be treated as special purpose for short range against non armored units, but the comparison is way off.

That is one of the hottest .22LR rounds on the market, and those are Aguila's published specs. While I have no idea what their test platform is, companies use a long barrel length for testing to beef up their velocity claims for marketing. Pushing a 40gr bullet at 1470FPS is extremely hot for .22LR, and you would not see anything remotely close to that out of a little 9" barrel. The other thing is ballistic performance. A long sleek profile 80gr bullet is going to perform much better than a short round nose 40gr bullet.

[Spartan0536 189]

Posted on Toadies thread, but thought this was a better place for a continued discussion.

Firing a 80gr .22cal bullet at subsonic velocities is what it is, and should be treated as special purpose for short range against non armored units, but the comparison is way off.

That is one of the hottest .22LR rounds on the market, and those are Aguila's published specs. While I have no idea what their test platform is, companies use a long barrel length for testing to beef up their velocity claims for marketing. Pushing a 40gr bullet at 1470FPS is extremely hot for .22LR, and you would not see anything remotely close to that out of a little 9" barrel. The other thing is ballistic performance. A long sleek profile 80gr bullet is going to perform much better than a short round nose 40gr bullet.

Ok for a different comparison, my Sig Mosquito .22LR Pistol that I own and shoot regularly using CCI Mini-Mags has a muzzle velocity of 997 ft/s and that we ME chronographing the shots with the ambient outside temperature of 76 degrees Fahrenheit, 68% humidity, with 2mph xwind on the downrange at 50 yards, and a barometric pressure of 30.01. Again the combat performance of that 7U1 round IS TOTAL CRAP, and CAN be equated with a .22LR bullet.

Do you know why the US Military does not have or wish to develop a 5.56x45mm Subsonic round? It would equate to similar performance as a .22LR; don't believe me, look it up. Hell even civilian companies don't product 5.56x45mm NATO or even .223 Subsonic bullets for that same reason, its just not economical or performance efficient. 5.45x39mm ammunition is WORSE in terms of performance over MODERN 5.56x45mm NATO rounds, even Dr. Martin Fackler proved that one.

Addendum: the approximated speed of that 40 grain bullet from a 9 inch barrel is around 1280 ft/s, it would have lost about 20 ft/lbs KE over published specs, just going off JBM ballistics calculations.

Also here is a picture of the 5.45x39mm 7U1 bullet, yes it is more streamlined than a .22LR, never disputed that never will, however that streamlined feature does not have nearly as much effect as you might think when impacting body armor, and against unarmored targets the damage again can be compared to that of a .22LR or a .22 Magnum.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Spartan0536

[13islucky 10]

That probably explains why 7.62x39 is a more popular choice for suppression, then again I have no idea how subsonic 7.62 performs.

[Spartan0536 189]

That probably explains why 7.62x39 is a more popular choice for suppression, then again I have no idea how subsonic 7.62 performs.

7.62x39mm is a MUCH better choice for subsonic ammo, its near the performance of .300 Blackout in subsonic just with a much worse ballistics coefficient for down range performance. But within 100-150m its quite effective on soft targets.

[Spartan0536 189]

Ok so there seems to be some confusion on how I get such detailed numbers in my ballistics code, let me explain this without going into a 3 hour dissertation.....

There is this great guy that goes by the handle of Bakerman, he made a BALLISTICS CALCULATOR FOR ARMA III USING BIS CALCULATION FORMULAS WHICH ARE BASED ON REAL ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES. I use his CALCULATOR to get those extremely detailed numbers because its a ******* CALCULATOR. I have not spent over 200 man hours of research into my ballistics to just pull imaginary numbers out of my ***, these numbers are scientifically formulated to be as close as BIS's default code will allow me to get, and for the most part I feel very comfortable stating my ballistics code is within a 5% margin of error in many cases.

Some people do not understand Newtonian Physics and that's ok, I will give you a very short easy way to understand how BIS calculates bullet hit so you will get a grasp at what I do....

There are 3 major contributing factors (listed in no particular order) to how a bullet/projectile does damage, and this is NOT just for ArmA III but also real life, if you try to argue this you WILL be arguing against Newtonian physics and I can assure you, you will LOSE.

1. Projectile Velocity

2. Projectile Composition

3. Projectile Weight

Guess what ArmA III simulates ALL OF THESE IN A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIVE FORMULA! Bakerman used their formula which takes the Velocity, Composition (1-10 scale), and Weight of the projectile to get the ******* hit value and you can end up getting some really detailed numbers when calculating these using a calculator. If you don't think this is real enough and you have found a scientific way to cover most if not all possible variables to get real damage values let me know, I will be very interested to see your data, if not then STFU. This message is being posted due to some people sending me messages thinking they know everything about ArmA and ballistics code, yet they are entirely misinformed or are just plain ignorant, perhaps both. Now for clarification the only difference between how I calculate damage differently from BIS is the 1-10 system that BIS devised for ArmA III, listed below is the difference...

BIS Bullet Code:

10 - Very Sharp

5 - Full Metal Jacket

3/4 - Hollow Point

1 - Very Flat

Realistic Ballistics Bullet Code

10 - Depleted Uranium

9 - Tungsten Carbide

8 - Hardened Steel Core

7 - Mild Steel Core

6 - Hardcast/Composite

5 - Full Metal Jacket

4 - Open Tip Match

3 - Hollow Point / Jacketed Hollow Point

2 - Pre Fragmented Core

1 - Frangible

The 1-10 scale I use is based off of ALL REAL KNOWN BULLET COMPOSTIONS, yes DP rounds are real, we used them in AT weapons systems, I have NEVER used a value of 10 in any infantry weapons system, there are plenty of infantry weapons systems that use Tungsten Carbide in the core of the round to get really high AP qualities but they lack in terms of terminal performance when compared to other bullets that may deform and or yaw. Yes this 1-10 scale is not 100% accurate to RL but as I said if you can come up with a scientific calculation to ensure real life hit performance based on combat surgical documentation and ballistic composition then do it, otherwise I suggest that you deal with it. Thanks for taking the time to read this, I hope this helps explain that I am NOT a fraud and that I do know what the **** I am talking about because I spend hundreds of hours doing this for such a small amount of code work to be done.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Spartan0536

[bakerman 247]

Hey spartan,

First of all thanks for all the great work you've done thus far and I hope you'll continue.

I think a lot of people are unhappy with the hit values of ammo in A3 because infantry armor is broken in its current state. Put simply, infantry armor is simulated as a single piece of kevlar. This approach works nicely for soft body armor, but it fails for hard armor and results in expectations not meeting virtual reality. Add to this an OK-ish health system and you get players who are obviously not impressed. So the folk that don't know will search for a culprit and at some point blame the ammo configs, which in all fairness could be the problem, but in your case it's not.

So what to do?

You can change the values so that it will meet certain players' expectation in certain scenarios, but that has a ballistics simulation knock-on effect. This is the approach Bohemia takes. They will configure anti-personal ammo for its primary role; which is great when you're shooting people, but then you also get a 9mm round penetrating 10mm of RHA steel.

Bohemia can fix this and with the upcoming Marksmen DLC and all the great work they've done so far, who knows (fingers crossed). My suggestion to BI and mod-producers is a simple quick fix for infantry armor. If you add armor materials to specific areas of kit you can simulate hard plates, mixed with the already present soft armor simulation this can produce nice & balanced results.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Bakerman

[Spartan0536 189]

Hey spartan,

First of all thanks for all the great work you've done thus far and I hope you'll continue.

I think a lot of people are unhappy with the hit values of ammo in A3 because infantry armor is broken in its current state. Put simply, infantry armor is simulated as a single piece of kevlar. This approach works nicely for soft body armor, but it fails for hard armor and results in expectations not meeting virtual reality. Add to this an OK-ish health system and you get players who are obviously not impressed. So the folk that don't know will search for a culprit and at some point blame the ammo configs, which in all fairness could be the problem, but in your case it's not.

So what to do?

You can change the values so that it will meet certain players' expectation in certain scenarios, but that has a ballistics simulation knock-on effect. This is the approach Bohemia takes. They will configure anti-personal ammo primarily for its primary role; which is great when you're shooting people, but then you also get a 9mm round penetrating 10mm of RHA steel.

Bohemia can fix this and with the upcoming Marksmen DLC and all the great work they've done so far, who knows (fingers crossed). My suggestion to BI and mod-producers is a simple quick fix for infantry armor. If you adds armor materials to specific areas of kit you can simulate hard plates, mixed with the already present soft armor simulation this can produce nice & balanced results.

Yeah I have noticed this, in fact BlazenChamber talked to me on his TeamSpeak server about this very issue, it seems that the personal armor system in A3 right now is a flat damage negation based on the type of armor, its very rudimentary and I have asked around if someone could fix this the replies I got were "if BIS gave us the tools to edit BISURF files then we could fix this really quick". I too am hoping that BIS will either give these tools in the Marksman DLC or at least change the way personal armor acts. The other major issue you touched on was the hit point system in A3, now there are mods like XMED but that does not change HP just medical interaction. The hardest part of getting real damage in the game in my honest opinion is getting a bullets and HP systems to match real combat documentation or at least in a respectable sense and that is one tough "nut" to crack as there are just way too many variables for me to figure in.

BTW Thanks once again Bakerman, without your A3 Community Ballistics Calculator I would be much much father behind than I currently am, you helped me get started and gave me the tools to get the job done right, the community owes you a lot for your work!

Edited January 24, 2015 by Spartan0536
Thanks added for Bakerman

[EricJ 729]

I spent the last hour with his Mk316 ammo out of an M14, I'm not disagreeing with the armor system but the values (as far as I can tell, I never fired M14s in either theater) are doing quite well against some Russians I just plinked. It's some solid stuff and while it may be the armor system, I do know that his stuff is on point so far.

[galzohar 31]

Another quick question:

How do you handle the fact muzzle velocity is defined in the magazine? I noticed the values don't have anything specifying the muzzle velocity (typicalSpeed is apparently only for damage calculation and doesn't affect muzzle velocity at all)? Even if you script it to modify velocity to the typicalSpeed value with a "fired" event handler, it will still not be magazine-specific.

Which mods use these values properly and have a non-binarized config that I can actually look at?

Thanks.

[Spartan0536 189]

Another quick question:

How do you handle the fact muzzle velocity is defined in the magazine? I noticed the values don't have anything specifying the muzzle velocity (typicalSpeed is apparently only for damage calculation and doesn't affect muzzle velocity at all)? Even if you script it to modify velocity to the typicalSpeed value with a "fired" event handler, it will still not be magazine-specific.

Which mods use these values properly and have a non-binarized config that I can actually look at?

Thanks.

in the magazine you use initspeed and set it to what the barrel length is or closest that I provide or you calculate based off of that, that makes the rounds perform to spec, its simple. I have been working with the SMA and HLC teams regarding this to ensure proper velocity per barrel length, its tedious and mind numbing but the end result when you see the bullet trace act correctly is well worth it. Just remember that when in ArmA most guns have a sight set for 100m, in RL this is fully adjustable and you can see different results the trick is to shoot at a 300m target with the sights at 100m to see the drop, then look at a ballistics calculator with the correct information to see just how accurate your rounds performance is, after my calculations most of my V2+ ballistics are within a 3% margin of error, not too bad for BIS default code if I may say so myself.

[EricJ 729]

Also galhozar if you look at my posts that's how I tune Spartan0536's bullets to my guns. Ad hoc but overall I haven't heard many complaints about round performance either. If you're looking to tune the TARs then it's real simple via my method to just create a "new" gun using the BIS guns and implementing your edits, such as this for the M14 in my pack:

class srifle_EBR_F;

class ej_EBR: srifle_EBR_F

{

author="EricJ";

displayName="M14 EBR Mod 0";

scope=2;

maxRecoilSway=0.0001;

swayDecaySpeed=0.01;

inertia=0.1;

muzzles[]={"this","securite"};

magazines[]={"m14Mk316_mag","m14M80_mag","20Rnd_762x51_Mag"};

class securite: Rifle

{

displayName="$STR_R3F_SAFE";

magazines[]={"R3F_securite_mag"};

begin1[]={"",1,1,1};

soundBegin[]={"begin1",1};

reloadMagazineSound[]={"",1,1,1};

drySound[]={"",1,1,1};

optics="true";

modelOptics="-";

opticsZoomMin=0.375;

opticsZoomMax=1.1;

opticsZoomInit=0.75;

memoryPointCamera="eye";

};

class WeaponSlotsInfo {

allowedslots[] = {901};

mass = 60;

class MuzzleSlot: SlotInfo

{

access=1;

compatibleitems[]={"muzzle_snds_H","SF762_ej","SF762blk_ej","SF762Mini_ej","SF762TMini_ej","ej_mzls_H"};

displayname="Muzzle Slot";

linkproxy="\A3\data_f\proxies\weapon_slots\MUZZLE";

scope=0;

};

class asdg_OpticRail1913_IAR: asdg_OpticRail1913 {};

class asdg_FrontSideRail_IAR: asdg_FrontSideRail {};

};

};

[Spartan0536 189]

Also galhozar if you look at my posts that's how I tune Spartan0536's bullets to my guns. Ad hoc but overall I haven't heard many complaints about round performance either. If you're looking to tune the TARs then it's real simple via my method to just create a "new" gun using the BIS guns and implementing your edits, such as this for the M14 in my pack:

class srifle_EBR_F;

class ej_EBR: srifle_EBR_F

{

author="EricJ";

displayName="M14 EBR Mod 0";

scope=2;

maxRecoilSway=0.0001;

swayDecaySpeed=0.01;

inertia=0.1;

muzzles[]={"this","securite"};

magazines[]={"m14Mk316_mag","m14M80_mag","20Rnd_762x51_Mag"};

class securite: Rifle

{

displayName="$STR_R3F_SAFE";

magazines[]={"R3F_securite_mag"};

begin1[]={"",1,1,1};

soundBegin[]={"begin1",1};

reloadMagazineSound[]={"",1,1,1};

drySound[]={"",1,1,1};

optics="true";

modelOptics="-";

opticsZoomMin=0.375;

opticsZoomMax=1.1;

opticsZoomInit=0.75;

memoryPointCamera="eye";

};

class WeaponSlotsInfo {

allowedslots[] = {901};

mass = 60;

class MuzzleSlot: SlotInfo

{

access=1;

compatibleitems[]={"muzzle_snds_H","SF762_ej","SF762blk_ej","SF762Mini_ej","SF762TMini_ej","ej_mzls_H"};

displayname="Muzzle Slot";

linkproxy="\A3\data_f\proxies\weapon_slots\MUZZLE";

scope=0;

};

class asdg_OpticRail1913_IAR: asdg_OpticRail1913 {};

class asdg_FrontSideRail_IAR: asdg_FrontSideRail {};

};

};

EricJ, it might help if you just put it in a code box, it usually helps me, as it cleans it up a bit more, not making a fuss, just a suggestion. As always thanks for supporting my work it does mean a lot to me :)

[galzohar 31]

It seems like you would still have the issue of 2 weapons that use the same magazine have the same velocity.

For example, fixing the 5.56 magazine will only fix it for 1 barrel length, and ruin it for the other barrel length.

It's definitely something that should have been fixed by BIS 3 games ago. I was thinking of scripted workaround to set the velocity of the bullet, but was hoping someone was smarter than that. As this had always been an issue I assumed there were already somewhat proper working solutions in place already.

[Spartan0536 189]

It seems like you would still have the issue of 2 weapons that use the same magazine have the same velocity.

For example, fixing the 5.56 magazine will only fix it for 1 barrel length, and ruin it for the other barrel length.

It's definitely something that should have been fixed by BIS 3 games ago. I was thinking of scripted workaround to set the velocity of the bullet, but was hoping someone was smarter than that. As this had always been an issue I assumed there were already somewhat proper working solutions in place already.

AAAAHHH but on DEVBRANCH they are now allowing initspeed to be set in the weapon itself instead of just the magazine, your prayers are somewhat answered in this case. However the old issue remains on Airfriction, and hit as those would also require their own init lines in the weapon to function true to spec, that is unless BIS found a way for their game to calculate that based off of the variables set in the ballistics table, then we have a nice winning solution.

[galzohar 31]

That implementation is still pretty horrible, though. Not only the other values are missing, they aren't actually magazine specific (unless you use a multiplier, which won't work realistically enough). Is there a tracker ticket already open for this or should we open a new one?

[Defunkt 431]

I've been wanting to ask, the first post doesn't appear to show statistics for a couple of very ubiquitous, principally OpFor, rounds (7.62x39 and 5.45x39 spring to mind).

Am I right in understanding you do also have some values for these but that you haven't listed them because you don't feel that they're necessarily as accurate as the rest?

[EricJ 729]

EricJ, it might help if you just put it in a code box, it usually helps me, as it cleans it up a bit more, not making a fuss, just a suggestion. As always thanks for supporting my work it does mean a lot to me :)

I'll see what I can do next time :) And yeah man always. I've noticed that BIS 5.56 is a bit better now, I've been playing Insurgency by myself and after battlefield resupplying I'm actually not groaning when I have to use BIS mags now.

It seems like you would still have the issue of 2 weapons that use the same magazine have the same velocity.

For example, fixing the 5.56 magazine will only fix it for 1 barrel length, and ruin it for the other barrel length.

It's definitely something that should have been fixed by BIS 3 games ago. I was thinking of scripted workaround to set the velocity of the bullet, but was hoping someone was smarter than that. As this had always been an issue I assumed there were already somewhat proper working solutions in place already.

Yeah I think Spartan0536 will agree that's not realistic (not even a weapon mechanic like he is) but it's there and I think that's BIS's way with handling multiple weapons with the same bullet. But as Spartan0536 said if the weapon has it's own Initspeed then it'll help set the performance better for custom bullets and for various bullets, and then you can start groaning about 178 grain, or 180 grain, and so on... so it's just a good solution overall so hopefully that'll help "tune" bullets better to the specific weapon.

[Spartan0536 189]

I've been wanting to ask, the first post doesn't appear to show statistics for a couple of very ubiquitous, principally OpFor, rounds (7.62x39 and 5.45x39 spring to mind).

Am I right in understanding you do also have some values for these but that you haven't listed them because you don't feel that they're necessarily as accurate as the rest?

I have the data, just have not converted it into game code, I am also going to re-check my sources with new libraries that I have access to, just to ensure authenticity and accuracy, I am a perfectionist when I actually do something. The hard part about getting ballistics for Russian MILITARY ammo is that Russia does not like to publically give out that info at all and that can make things a bit more frustrating, now with access to the US Army's OPFOR database which is a controlled document but IT IS NOT CLASSIFIED, I am able to get certain hard to come by data.

[EricJ 729]

Good, I was going to ask if you were going to do Russian 7.62...

[galzohar 31]

Made a post on the dev branch forum for this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?188556-initspeed-in-weapon

If BIS ignores it (and if I can't find a proper existing feedback tracker ticket for it), I'll open a new one.

Please show your support so we can have proper realistic ballistics in-game, if not through vanilla then through mods, because current system requires dirty scripts to even have some kind of a chance to get something realistic working.

[Brisse 78]

Please show your support so we can have proper realistic ballistics in-game, if not through vanilla then through mods, because current system requires dirty scripts to even have some kind of a chance to get something realistic working.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?181324-Advanced-Ballistics-%28WIP%29&highlight=ruthbergs+advanced+ballistics

[galzohar 31]

You missed my point. My point was getting BIS to realize what they need to change in the engine to make such mods not need to do crazy workarounds or compromises to make proper ballistics work.

Spartan has the values that the game needs to use to get accurate simulation. However the structure of the configs and the way the game uses them make them impossible to apply in a way that will allow using the same magazine in 2 different weapons without losing authenticity. The mod you linked is just another attempt to trick the broken system BIS implemented. BIS should just fix their system and make everyone's life easier.

Edited February 6, 2015 by galzohar