Jump to content
oukej

Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements

Recommended Posts

Yeah my concern was more from seeing them go boom in one hit. Doesn't make for great gameplay, especially if you lose an entire squad and IFV to one random missile. I mean, it makes things far more deadly and tense, but it's not easy to balance in a large scale coop mission. The possibility to be able to deploy smoke and withdraw/evac is important to the feel and play of the mission, so it's more of a question of the best way of maintaining that, while making the PCML far more useful than it currently is in 1.80. I'm probably less concerned with how that's achieved, to be honest...

 

It's also that, according to SAAB:

Quote

Selectable Overfly Top Attack (OTA) against armoured targets and Direct Attack (DA) against non armoured targets such as other vehicles and vessels or enemy troops inside buildings.

which suggests that armoured targets should be able to withstand more hits from a direct mode, but I don't know the best way of translating that to light armour like IFVs, especially with flat sides. Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're assuming reactive armour?

 

Of course, i would be less concerned if we had an AT4 equivalent for NATO ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top armor is always the weaker one. Hence the top attack/airburst being more lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

which suggests that armoured targets should be able to withstand more hits from a direct mode, but I don't know the best way of translating that to light armour like IFVs, especially with flat sides. Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're assuming reactive armour?

 

Of course, i would be less concerned if we had an AT4 equivalent for NATO ;-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

BTW what's up with the Kamysh? The damage value read was only ~0.07, yet it exploded after a few moments... additionally, in my first test, the Ifrit took two hits to kill. but when i was recording it died in one hit.

 

The damage command doesn't necessarily reflect the true damage state of a vehicle. Vehicles can be destroyed purely by hit point damage, I believe either to HitHull or HitFuel for ground vehicles. For example, if you do "cursorTarget setHitPointDamage ["HitHull",1]", a Kamysh will still read 0 for its damage value but will explode after a few seconds anyway. It's better to use a combination of damage and getAllHitPointsDamage when evaluating how much damage a weapon has done.

 

Arma also does decent modelling of different hit points/armor values on vehicles, so you should also probably be hitting each vehicle from the same angle if you want comparable results. Dunno how much that affects missiles, but for something like a tank cannon there is a very noticeable difference in damage done based on where shots hit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, darkChozo said:

rma also does decent modelling of different hit points/armor values on vehicles, so you should also probably be hitting each vehicle from the same angle if you want comparable results.

Yeah that's true... hmmm... I'm not sure how to set such a test up, actually, without spending a lot of time positioning vehicles between runs :/

 

 I guess there's also the added complication that all hitpoints may not be located in the same place between vehicles. Will try this again using getAllHitPointsDamage just to see what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

my concern was more from seeing them go boom in one hit

I find this discussion or any test about damage useless at this point, as it is very likely that we will see changes to how it works soon. Also,

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Diagnostics_Exe

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, x3kj said:

I find this discussion or any test about damage useless at this point

 You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works.

 

I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are:

 

Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with).

 

and

 

More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc).

 

 

@oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2018 at 1:18 PM, Strike_NOR said:

 You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works.

 

I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are:

 

Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with).

 

and

 

More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc).

 

 

@oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)

I think it's pretty much too late at this point, I was lobbying for damage overhaul and APS back when they were asking people what they wanted to see in tanks DLC.

The vast majority of people seem to prefer aesthetics (interiors) over functionality (proper damage and armour simulation, APS warning systems...).

 

Nevertheless, I remain excited for the DLC.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scavenjer said:

I think it's pretty much too late at this point, I was lobbying for damage overhaul and APS back when they were asking people what they wanted to see in tanks DLC.

The vast majority of people seem to prefer aesthetics (interiors) over functionality (proper damage and armour simulation, APS warning systems...).

 

Nevertheless, I remain excited for the DLC.

 

 

Functionality and interiors are 2 different topics and 2 different professions.

 

Modeler who model interiors won't code C++ functionality of armor simulation. 

Lots of people supported and commented on driving phyX simulation that has dedicated thread

and we have seen progress on that front. There it is functionality.

 

But hold on to your hats, they are working on something interesting for sure, that wasn't revealed yet.

Maybe that error simulation pop up that someone mentioned is a clue. We just have to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, en3x said:

But hold on to your hats, they are working on something interesting for sure, that wasn't revealed yet.

Maybe that error simulation pop up that someone mentioned is a clue. We just have to wait.

We hope the sail will appear from the distant sea and turn in our direction )))

Spoiler

63385128.jpg

 

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

×