ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul

[Spartan0536 188]

To be fair Ruthbergs mod does a bit more than what BIS would even consider, his mod takes into effect not only the Coriolis effect but also the Eötvös effect as well. His mod also takes into consideration not only the barrel length but twist rate, ambient temperature, barometric pressure and humidity levels which are generated. When he first announced his project I told him I do not think there is anyway one could script that in, he proved me wrong, and his work is very well done, he and I do work cooperatively through different means and we do share ballistics databases and information privately. Now if BIS would hire Ruthberg and myself we could get you guys the most realistic ballistics possible in a true simulator environment.

[gibonez 18]

To be fair Ruthbergs mod does a bit more than what BIS would even consider, his mod takes into effect not only the Coriolis effect but also the Eötvös effect as well. His mod also takes into consideration not only the barrel length but twist rate, ambient temperature, barometric pressure and humidity levels which are generated. When he first announced his project I told him I do not think there is anyway one could script that in, he proved me wrong, and his work is very well done, he and I do work cooperatively through different means and we do share ballistics databases and information privately. Now if BIS would hire Ruthberg and myself we could get you guys the most realistic ballistics possible in a true simulator environment.

That would be amazing.

From a gameplay perspective everyone wins, the intricate means that Ruthbergs mod calculates ballistics would not interfere with the vanilla gameplay and instead would enrich the firefights especially the longer range encounters.

Meanwhile at the 0-400m engagements that make up 90 percent of arma encounters gameplay would remain relatively the same.

[Brisse 78]

When he first announced his project I told him I do not think there is anyway one could script that in, he proved me wrong, and his work is very well done, he and I do work cooperatively through different means and we do share ballistics databases and information privately. Now if BIS would hire Ruthberg and myself we could get you guys the most realistic ballistics possible in a true simulator environment.

I said the same thing, and that it was a risky project since Marksman DLC could potentially cripple the mod or make it obsolete, but I'm so glad he went through with it. :)

BI would never implement it into the core game though. They would never accept the performance impact it has.

[bakerman 247]

http://dev.arma3.com/post/oprep-muzzle-velocity

we've introduced an initSpeed property to weapons themselves

:D

[Defunkt 431]

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 reason I ask is because as much as I'd like to see weaponry reflect real-life as far as is possible what's even more important to me than absolute accuracy for a given weapon is that they maintain some sort of relative efficacy as a whole. When I see (in the SMA thread);

Is it just me or are these weapons to strong compared to ArmA 3 vanilla weapons? The 5.56 from this pack seems even more powerfull than the 6.5 rifles.

The default 5.56x45mm rounds are a freaking joke, and the default 6.5 Grendel is not even on par, in fact I wonder why the hell they decided to use 6.5 Grendel over 6.8 SPC. The freaking necking on the 6.5 Grendel would cause so many feeding issues its not even worth considering for use in automatic mil-spec rifles. My 5.56x45mm values are much more realistic as far as the default engine will allow, which I have to say is not too terribly bad.

I have to wonder if this treatment, as long as it it's only for a subset of weapons, is effectively compromising authenticity rather than enhancing it by seriously skewing relative efficacy. I certainly look forward to the day there's a complete data set with this precision for all of the most commonly used rounds but I'm personally a bit wary about using only parts of the such a treatment until then. Just my 2c.

[EricJ 724]

And it's not just the SMA thread, as I've used Spartan0536's ammo for possibly a year or more, and always got better results with his Mk318 ammo as opposed to the 6.5 Grendel. From a comment from him as I wanted to my MCR initially 6.5 (as I wanted his touch on the round) and he told me no, so I went from 6.5 to 5.56mm and can with a 20-inch barrel get real good performance. Now I've slowly (finally) switched to Mk262 ammo and getting better results than the Mk262 5.56mm. Though I think BIS skewed the CSAT ammo as I've noticed I've gotten fairly good performance when using the Katiba a few times so if I were to use vanilla weapons then the Katiba or a 5.56mm weapon is preferred, but never the MX as even now the BIS 5.56 is actually decent and using that on Insurgency has yielded good results as well. So I think it's just BIS's way of handling it but overall if even in the real world 6.5 isn't cutting it then using better rounds at a smaller barrel diameter is the way to go.

[galzohar 31]

I have to wonder if this treatment, as long as it it's only for a subset of weapons, is effectively compromising authenticity rather than enhancing it by seriously skewing relative efficacy. I certainly look forward to the day there's a complete data set with this precision for all of the most commonly used rounds but I'm personally a bit wary about using only parts of the such a treatment until then. Just my 2c.

Obviously, one can't fix absolutely everything. Though it should be made clear in the installation notes of the mod (possibly a section dedicated to mission makers) which weapons should be used and which weapons are not supported, so you don't include weapons with unrealistic configuration values in your missions if you plan to use weapons with more realistic configuration.

The biggest issue, though, that for me it doesn't seem very easy to figure out which weapons of which mods should already have proper ballistics and which don't, so that I can avoid mixing them in missions. And which ballistics mods fixes which weapons.

Making just a portion of the weapons realistic is a good step, because it allows in the future to also make the rest realistic. If you keep tweaking stuff to be broken in order to match other broken stuff, you'll never get out of the pit of broken stuff.

As for performance, if the code was part of the game and in C++ and not have to use the SQF overhead, it would most likely run way faster and be hardly noticeable of a performance hit. Or, at the very least, the important parts of it can be simulated without performance hit. Even not taking temperature, humidity and Coriolis into account would be a huge improvement over what we currently have.

By the way, giving everyone in your mission Mk 262 is not very realistic... As far as I know, match quality rounds are not cheap and aren't normally issued! Heck, in IDF even M855 is considered "expensive" and used only in LMGs (Negev) and marksman (basically ACOG/night scope+BIPOD on a 5.56 M4A1 or Tavor), plus it has lower velocity so not really worth the money for soldiers who aren't ever supposed to shoot beyond 300m anyway. The rest just use the old M193...

Edited February 12, 2015 by galzohar

[EricJ 724]

Seriously civilians don't know that, just like everybody's a Marine and everybody has M4A1s (even ten years ago people thought that) because Call of Duty says so.

But you tell them the "right" way and you're ignored. I still remember that topic where a veteran who'd actually been in that area of Afghanistan who offered some good photographs to help but was told no. So while some do listen, overall that's the pervading theme and why I don't download a shitload of mods. Some do good granted, but I always support Veteran mods more due to the fact that they don't bring the bullshit as far as uniforms or weapons.

Edited February 13, 2015 by EricJ

[Defunkt 431]

Making just a portion of the weapons realistic is a good step, because it allows in the future to also make the rest realistic. If you keep tweaking stuff to be broken in order to match other broken stuff, you'll never get out of the pit of broken stuff.

It's not for me to instruct anyone on how they should pursue their hobby but if I was undertaking a project like this I'm pretty sure I'd start by giving everything an approximate/best-guess-with-available-data treatment across the board so it's all within coo'ee relatively speaking and only then start seeking perfection for the individual types. That way it should be possible to use the data right from the start without potentially upsetting balance.

Right now I feel like if I put down a group of OpFor and a group of BluFor using the available improvements the latter are likely to clean-up every time because they're using the latest and greatest Mk.262/M855 with RL ballistics and the OpFor are stuck with whatever somebody thought was scaled usefully compared to vanilla (which seemingly was originally scaled by BIS for lengthy, highly survivable engagements). People often complain about how hard it is to put down units in A3 but giving only one side more lethality is creating a different (bigger) problem. Again, just my 2c on the state of the project at this time.

[galzohar 31]

Well, at least I can agree that giving the other weapons *something* that may be inaccurate but is much more accurate than vanilla BIS would be a good improvement, making those weapons use-able. Not sure how easy/difficult that would be, though.

But in any case, if any vanilla item becomes obsolete by a mod when the mod is enabled, the mod should be specifying it. Otherwise, it is a nightmare to make missions that are meant to be played with using the mod.

[EricJ 724]

Values based on a 16.1 inch barrel in 6.8 SPC, both versions:

Full Metal Jacket Boat Tail

hit = 9.8519565144;

typicalSpeed = 807.002196;

airFriction = -0.001337517144;

Open Tip Match Boat Tail

hit = 11.83457849574;

typicalSpeed = 715.7758608;

airFriction = -0.000839918079;

[EricJ 724]

Spartan0536, I took your 6.8 rounds out for a spin and other than the heavy recoil as I would assume that felt recoil is that of an MX? If so then cool, if not what would be the equivalent? Regarldess the Open Tip 6.8 works pretty good, and overall a good combat round against the AAF targets (I assume better against normal CSAT still) so it looks good so far. I have yet to try the FMJ but still good work as always.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

Tested out the FMJ rounds and pretty much performs like the M80A1 7.62mm round, which isn't bad but a good rule of thumb to go off of. Other than that it's fairly good to go.

[gatordev 214]

By the way, giving everyone in your mission Mk 262 is not very realistic... As far as I know, match quality rounds are not cheap and aren't normally issued! Heck, in IDF even M855 is considered "expensive" and used only in LMGs (Negev) and marksman (basically ACOG/night scope+BIPOD on a 5.56 M4A1 or Tavor), plus it has lower velocity so not really worth the money for soldiers who aren't ever supposed to shoot beyond 300m anyway. The rest just use the old M193...

FWIW, MK 262 (possibly MOD 1, but I'm not 100% certain) is/has been standard issue for a while with a lot of units. I know a Marine FAC that said he had MK 262 for his unit in AFG back in 2011-ish. It might not be everywhere, but it's not just for special teams or DMR/SPR guys. Also, with the Marines getting issued ACOGs across the Corps...talk about a deadly combination.

[Spartan0536 188]

Ok so here is the issue with my ballistics that many people bring up to me......

Q1. 5.56x45mm Rounds are almost OP, they do tons of damage especially when compared to 7.62x51mm NATO, this is not realistic at all....

A1. 5.56x45mm NATO rounds are very accurate, where they greatly differ is in BALLISTICS COEFFICIENT, the 7.62x51mm NATO round hits MUCH harder at range over 5.56x45 and that is most certainly true to life. Now for up close performance, ask any real combat solider/operator, the new 5.56x45mm rounds like the SOST or SPR being that they are OTM designs are EXTREMELY effective inside of 300m, they are NOT yaw dependent and at about 12 inches into 10% organic ballistics gelatin they have jacket-core separation with violent cavitation. Even the older M193 and M855's are devastating because of their yaw effect, in fact many combat troops have indicated that their 5.56mm weapons are effective, its the many "armchair Generals" that seem to say other wise. Now when we start getting into Afghanistan mountainous ranges like 600-1000m 5.56x45mm NATO begins to lose tons of effectiveness this is why the Mk262 Mod 1 SPR round was developed, but the problem is 800-1000m with a 5.56 is not IDEAL, its more than probable to kill with a 5.56x45 out at 1400m but there are much better more efficient bullets to use for that job.

Q2. Why are your HIT values so high for the 5.56 and its not that much higher or its lower in a larger caliber bullet?

A2. I take 2 things into account that are also calculated in the ArmA III Ballistics Calculator, this includes Barrel length (manually computed using real averaged barrel lengths as I do not have the time nor patience to cover every single micro adjusted barrel length) and, powder burn rates (again manually calculated using reputable websites where people take the ammunition and shoot it for real and record their calculations). Knowing the barrel length, the type of powder used and its burn rates is critical to getting accurate ballistics for different barrel lengths. That being said 5.56x45mm rounds being fired from a 20 inch barrel are extremely deadly as that was the barrel length that the round was originally designed for and it loses effectiveness especially in the SBR category. Now take a .300 Blackout round like the OTM and compare it to the SOST in SBR's and there becomes a whole world of difference in terms of performance, this is where .300 Blackout shines and absolutely embarrasses 5.56x45mm NATO. Taking a 7.62x51mm NATO OTM in a 16 inch barrel and a 14.5 inch AR in 5.56x45 using SOST ammo and once again 5.56 loses in terms of performance, barrel length matters.

Q3. Why is 6.8x43mm SPC / 6x35mm KAC / 4.6x30mm H&K so lacking in terms of performance, these are supposed to be better that what our military is currently using....

A3. I will break this down specifically in 3 sections to explain each....

a. 6.8x43mm SPC is NOT a NATO round and it most likely never will be, its got great potential as a military cartridge but its just not a mil-spec round, this limits its real popularity as it was designed initially for better combat performance, once the US military & NATO said NO it went solely to CIV/LE markets where other rounds are widely available that can do more than what 6.8x41 SPC offered and for cheaper in many cases. 6.8x43mm like I said is a round with great mil-spec potential but without the military backing it up it will never live up to its full combat potential, hell only 1 company produces an FMJ round for it, that being Remington and its ballistics coefficient is laughable, but its the only FMJ commercially available so I included it.

b. 6x35mm KAC, this was supposed to be a solution to a problem that never really existed, short barrel 5.56x45 performance is greatly limiting but only at RANGE, well KAC set out to use a slightly bigger bullet that would have less recoil than a 5.56 but more terminal performance in CQC and thus the 6x35mm KAC round was made, and its existence was about 1-2 years and now its pretty much DEAD, its virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get this round commercially and even KAC does not have the ballistics info on the round anymore and the munitions company that produced it which was Federal/ATK does not even have the info on it anymore and they usually give me the info without any questions. Just to make a note THIS ROUND HAS NOTHING CLASSIFIED ABOUT IT.

c. 4.6x30mm H&K, this is H&K's way of solving CQC woes in SBR's and PDW's. H&K wanted in the PDW market especially after the marketing success of the FN P-90, so they came up with the MP7A1/A2 and a new round, the 4.6x30mm H&K. Now the 4.6x30mm round itself is much like a .22LR in terms of "stopping power" or HIT in ArmA III, but it has virtually almost no recoil like a .22LR and has much much better ballistics than a .22LR. This coupled with an MP7 using a 40 round magazine and the gas system set to 950 Rounds per minute and you have one deadly little CQC PDW that is lightweight. Now you can carry damn near DOUBLE the combat weight in the 4.6x30mm H7K over 5.56 and 9mm ammo, this is critical for a true PDW, and remember the term PDW means PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON, these are designed for CQC, not ranged combat, most of the time its a 100m MAXIMUM recommended range. Remember in CQC this weapon puts out 15 little 4.6x30mm bastards in 1 second with a 1.1 MOA accuracy with almost negligible recoil, this makes it extremely effective in CQC but not much else.

[EricJ 724]

So... 6.8x 43 SPC... Recoil impulse? Anybody?

[Spartan0536 188]

So... 6.8x 43 SPC... Recoil impulse? Anybody?

6.8x43mm SPC should have about 25% more recoil over 5.56 or at least this is what I have read, sadly 6.8x43mm SPC is one cartridge I have yet to shoot in RL.

[EricJ 724]

Okay cool man much appreciated!

[EricJ 724]

Here's some values for a 9.25 SBR for a Barret REC7 in 6.8:

Open Tip

hit = 11.03574444727755;

typicalSpeed = 667.460990196;

airFriction = -0.0008966125493325;

\Full Metal Jacket:

hit = 9.177771678;

typicalSpeed = 752.52954777;

airFriction = -0.0142779955122;

[Brisse 78]

The amount of significant figures used in those number's are slightly ironic considering the ballistic simulation in the base game is so simplified :)

Also consider the fact that real data on external ballistics often have only three significant figures.

Not saying you did anything wrong though!

[Spartan0536 188]

The amount of significant figures used in those number's are slightly ironic considering the ballistic simulation in the base game is so simplified :)

Also consider the fact that real data on external ballistics often have only three significant figures.

Not saying you did anything wrong though!

The ONLY reason my numbers are so detailed is that I use Bakermans Community Ballistics Calculator, based on BIS coding and real world data it gives me insanely detailed results, I then check them and triple check them and yet still end up re-working them down the road.

[bakerman 247]

Removed my post for not contributing to the discussion.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Bakerman

[EricJ 724]

The ONLY reason my numbers are so detailed is that I use Bakermans Community Ballistics Calculator, based on BIS coding and real world data it gives me insanely detailed results, I then check them and triple check them and yet still end up re-working them down the road.

The amount of significant figures used in those number's are slightly ironic considering the ballistic simulation in the base game is so simplified :)

Also consider the fact that real data on external ballistics often have only three significant figures.

Not saying you did anything wrong though!

I think people are going off a tangent that I'm not sure where it's intending to go but... the base values for the 6.8 SPC are based on a 16-inch barrel (from the first post). What I'm doing is more or less "tuning" them for specific barrels. I.e. I'm doing REC-7s by Barrel with a 9.25" barrel. If it's not 16 inches then I tweak the rounds to "fit" that specific barrel if it's not the base lengths listed on that first post. So I'm not trying to redo his work, I"m only modifying it so the client gets some proper ballistics for that particular gun. And I remember Spartan0536 saying something about crediting or modifying his work and let him know, or something like that. So that's why I post stuff like that since down the road if somebody mentions it he knows what they're talking about. Besides other modders may see it as a resource based off of the original values.

[EricJ 724]

Alibi on the last of my weapons pack update, 18-inch Mk318 and Mk262 in 5.56:

class ej_B_Mk26218in: B_556x45_Ball
{
	hit=11.33884549;
	typicalSpeed=851.3064;
	airFriction=-0.001156334628;
	caliber=0.85500002;
	deflecting=21;
	visibleFire=3;
	audibleFire=6;
	model="\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_red";
	nvgonly=0;
	tracerendtime=1;
	tracerscale=1;
	tracerstarttime=0.050000001;
};
class ej_B_Mk31818in: B_556x45_Ball
{
	hit=9.87224168;
	typicalSpeed=936.138336;
	airFriction=-0.001156334628;
	caliber=0.85500002;
	deflecting=21;
	visibleFire=3;
	audibleFire=6;
	model="\A3\Weapons_f\Data\bullettracer\tracer_red";
	nvgonly=0;
	tracerendtime=1;
	tracerscale=1;
	tracerstarttime=0.050000001;
};

[Zriel 12]

Probably dumb question.

I understand this topic/mod as a recopilation of realistic ammunition configs for other modders to use.

Has this been integrated in ACE3 ballistics mod? no? do you know which modders/mods use your values?

Having different mods for weapons, it would be nice to have some coherence with ammunition and ballistics. Or at least know which weapons mods behave similar.

[Brisse 78]

Probably dumb question.

I understand this topic/mod as a recopilation of realistic ammunition configs for other modders to use.

Has this been integrated in ACE3 ballistics mod? no? do you know which modders/mods use your values?

Not a dumb question.

There is similar and realistic config for all vanilla weapons in ACE3. I'm not sure if they were made by spartan or someone else though. I would guess it's Ruthberg's work since he wrote the Advanced Ballistics mod that were incorporated in ACE3 and he is one of the top contributors on the ACE3 github.

Many mods also support ACE3 ballistics. Have a look in "@ace\optional\" and you will see that there are optional compatibility patches for some third party mods.

If you activate the ACE3 Advanced Ballistics module, the entire ballistic simulation is replaced and then there are other config values in play, such as ballistic coefficient, weight and dimensions of the projectile, muzzle velocity tables depending on temperature etc...