Jump to content
Asheara

Tanks - Damage improvements

Recommended Posts

Having a lot of fun with the HEAT weapons now! Definitely seems like the penetration works as intended. Damage values against MBT global health are pretty low (which is good), but whatever gets hit inside suffers badly (also good).

 

Because you created the HEAT mechanic like you did (submunition onhit event), it works against everything :)

 

All shots below taken with RPG-42

 

Infantry hiding behind walls? No prob:

Spoiler

Knock knock!

 

Who's there?

 

HEAT!

 

HEAT who?

20180324150048_1.jpg

 

HEAT- High Explosive Anti-Things

20180324150113_1.jpg

 

20180324150232_1.jpg

 

Also, you know that Helicopter you thought protected you?

How about a two-hit combo. HE with a punch of AT as aftertaste!

Spoiler

20180324151524_1.jpg

 

Also getting very cool results against MBT's:

 

Spoiler

Frontal armor of Kuma is very tough! Can withstand the RPG-42 pretty well.

 

In this picture, all three shots hit glacis or turret front. Penetrated, but not all the way. Tank suffered about 25% damage.

20180324152443_1.jpg

 

This scenario all three shots hit, none penetrated, neither crew or tank suffered damage. 

20180324152501_1.jpg

 

From the side of the turret or turret ring is a different story though :) 

20180324152715_1.jpg

 

 

Looks like there are some material issues with the projectiles. They throw a lot of dirt, while it should be like miniature orange/yellow sparks.

 

 

Other than that, I am truly enjoying them. Excited to see how it will look when the rest of the HEAT weapons are updated :)

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will 20mm HE(AWC 304) go through without not exploding? Sometime HE exploding in MRAP(Ifrit) look like APHE round.Is this mean 20mmHE have too penetration?

I think MRAP have atleast 10mm RHA because it can protect by small arms.20mm HE will explode until go through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if we talk about the damage improvements of all vehicles(especially ground vehicles).in your opinion what will happen if AP rounds or AT rounds penetrate into the storage of ammunitions in that vehicles, yes it will be a coco chunch explode! But before it's explode, it would be something like in this clip below? no need to always happen but it's more REALISTIC.so how about to add this simulation into the game and support with all of your contents in "Tanks dlc" update? :) ,however just a little opinion XD

 

Share this post


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

so how about to add this simulation into the game and support with all of your contents in "Tanks dlc" update?

Hi!

 

I already asked for this and the devs said there wasn't time to implement it.

 

Also, the chance of a cookoff isn't just random, the end result is random and the tank design makes it even more random on top of that. There's like 3 levels of randomness going on.

 

So it's better to keep it as is for now, and let modders work something out. ACE 3.0 has ammo cookoff.

 

Lastly, dunno how forums rules are... but, although your video isn't exactly graphic I'm pretty sure there are at least two people being killed in this video.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

Yes, there will be an armor to prevent autocanon(Leo2 has 350mm RHA)

past 3gen some tank will prevent 120mm apfsds there.

 

Gun mantlets are always a weak zone on all, even most modern tanks.

 

However protection levels of gun mantlets will vary depending on design, size etc. But none is capable to protect against most modern APFSDS and HEAT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brooklyn Beckham said:

I think if we talk about the damage improvements of all vehicles(especially ground vehicles).in your opinion what will happen if AP rounds or AT rounds penetrate into the storage of ammunitions in that vehicles, yes it will be a coco chunch explode! But before it's explode, it would be something like in this clip below? no need to always happen but it's more REALISTIC.so how about to add this simulation into the game and support with all of your contents in "Tanks dlc" update? :) ,however just a little opinion XD

 

What you see there IS the explosion, since it is more a flagration of Ammunitio. There will be no follow up detonation..it wil just burn.

 

Back on topic: 

 

Currently the to attack of the titan is underwhelming, I repeated it dozends of times but it seems you need at least 4 Titans AT in Top attack mode on the Rhino to detroy it. Thats a bit weird. The crew will jump out unharmrmed well before. I guess fire is not a factor in ArmA, but I would exspect a HEAT warhead to trigger a fire inside a mid to light armoured vehicle when it penetrates the engine or fuel storage or even the ammo storage. In general there is rarely any empty space behind armour where hit don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against a Rhino? I'd would think that would be a guaranteed one-shot, unless it's the UP. The PCML top attack at least does more damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEAT against thin skinned vehicles does rarely lead to direct vehicle detruction...it just punches trough and ingnites or damages whats in its way. But a top attack would always hit something vital inside.

I try it on the receiving side next but this quick test shows what problems the new HEAT system brings when we focus on soft and light armoured targets. Its because HEAT should be quite devastating on Light armour because of secondary effects. (pressure build up, incendiary effects)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I'm asking for the "cone" damage, combined with ammo rack modelling that should lead to quite consistent/predictable damage simulation

Share this post


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

That's why I'm asking for the "cone" damage, combined with ammo rack modelling that should lead to quite consistent/predictable damage simulation

don't forget fuel system and engine fires A HEAT is hot enough to light up Diesel fuel. Wile it won't just explode, it will spray over and burn. AS mentioned, the insides of vehicles currently seem to be disconnected from the armor and filled with Nitrogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tested against some other vehicles, it appears that the Titan is underperforming strongly, and the Rhino may be over-protected. The Vorona is also performing very inconsistently

Some roughly empirical testing. Keep in mind that the Panther is based off of a tank and has ridiculously high survivability for its class

 

One hit against frontal armor. 1.000 is full health, lower numbers means more damage. Rounded to .001

MAAWS Mk4 (Both versions perform identically, I tested Mod 1)

Rhino: 0.695

Panther: 0.709

Marshall: 0.541

 

RPG-42 Alamut

Rhino: 0.523

Panther: 0.888

Marshall: 0.430

 

RPG-7

Rhino: 0.803

Panther: 0.811

Marshall: 0.703

 

PCML Direct

Rhino: 0.691

Panther: 0.702

Marshall: 0.534

 

PCML Top Down

Rhino: 0.573

Panther: 0.577

Marshall: Instant Kill

 

Titan Direct

Rhino: 0.621, plus notable wheel damage

Panther: 0.689

Marshall: 0.534

 

Titan Top Down

Rhino: 0.837

Panther: 0.839

Marshall: 0.775

 

9M135 Vorona

Rhino: 0.382

Panther: 0.410

Marshall: 0.071

Note: I did have varying damage tallies with the Vorona. When I went to test it for consistency, it suddenly became super consistent with the aforementioned values. Because of course it did:rofl:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glancing at the config, it looks like the Titan AT submunition is set up to be fairly weak; hit=250 for the Titan, compared to 300 for the RPG-42 and 400 for the PCML/NLAW. I know that they were talking about weakening the Titan somewhat, but that seems low enough to be a placeholder. Probably worth waiting until all the HEATs have been updated before looking too closely at missile performance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Glancing at the config, it looks like the Titan AT submunition is set up to be fairly weak; hit=250 for the Titan, compared to 300 for the RPG-42 and 400 for the PCML/NLAW. I know that they were talking about weakening the Titan somewhat, but that seems low enough to be a placeholder. Probably worth waiting until all the HEATs have been updated before looking too closely at missile performance.

Only 12 days of regular development time left till release, It's high time to be alert by such developments in the Dev Build. Especialy since the sound department has its own problems currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Titan is supposed to be the heavy troop-portable AT though. When its damage is worse than the PCML and you can carry more PCML missiles in a given amount of weight, then that is broken levels of weak. There is literally no point in using the Titan versus the Vorona. The Vorona should be the higher-skill, higher-damage piece of kit but the PCML should be the lighter, easier to carry, but least capable guided launcher

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

The Titan is supposed to be the heavy map-portable AT though. When its damage is worse than the PCML and you can carry more PCML missiles in a given amount of weight, then that is broken levels of weak

 

Maybe move this to here:

 

This thread is supposed to be around SLAT, ERA and surfaces materials. The general protection/armor of vehicles.

 

The HEAT damage is still WIP. The update was pushed out later at night, so maybe just give it some time.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bring up my concerns there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also doesn't really make sense for the RPG to do less than the PCML. But like I said, those are almost certainly placeholder values, especially considering the half-implemented state of HEAT and the fact that they've explicitly said that damage values aren't final. So it doesn't really make sense to evaluate them too too closely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Added: 105mm, 120mm and 125mm HEAT shells, RPG32, Titan and Scalpel now use HEAT submunition (damage values WIP) 

(damage values WIP) 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is a feedback thread :rthumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hvymtal said:

Hey, it is a feedback thread :rthumb:

Yeah, I know I'm just pointing this out before people think these values are final lol.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hvymtal said:

The Titan is supposed to be the heavy map-portable AT though

 

Well.. I also thought this first. But after looking at what inspired the Titan system (The Rafael Mini-Spike) I learned that it was actually intended as kind-of a smaller and cheaper Javelin for Anti-personell/entrenchment role.

 

So BI basically thought up a fictional AT missile to fit that system, and as such it is actually really small (I believe the Mini-Spike missile was about 4 kg, while its bigger brother, the Spike (different system), weighed in at 14kg).

 

As such, the Titan is actually a very small and light missile system, that relies on superior attack modes, fire-and-forget system and the ability to carry more ammo.

The downside? Less penetration! I think this balances nicely with other missiles, that sacrifice advanced guidance for more explosive power.

 

2 hours ago, Beagle said:

Its because HEAT should be quite devastating on Light armour because of secondary effects. (pressure build up, incendiary effects)

 

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

don't forget fuel system and engine fires A HEAT is hot enough to light up Diesel fuel. Wile it won't just explode, it will spray over and burn. AS mentioned, the insides of vehicles currently seem to be disconnected from the armor and filled with Nitrogen.

 

2 hours ago, scavenjer said:

That's why I'm asking for the "cone" damage, combined with ammo rack modelling that should lead to quite consistent/predictable damage simulation

 

Well you are all onto realistic, factual things, I think darkChozo says it ok here:

1 hour ago, darkChozo said:

Probably worth waiting until all the HEATs have been updated before looking too closely at missile performance.

 

 

 

I have tested the heck out of the HEAT systems now and as far as I can tell, it works pretty well and accurately in terms of how it penetrates armor.

 

As far as I can tell, vehicles now receive damage from HEAT in two ways:

  1. The initial "parent" ammunition detonation (causes HE/indirectHit damage) will damage any vehicle/infantry nearby that has low explosive shielding.
  2. The AP projectile deals damage the same way as other projectiles do. Meaning some damage to the hitpoint/module at hand, and then it deals some factor of that to the crew and hitHull (global health).

Each time a projectile hits something, it measures how "deep" it goes, and how much speed is lost, and AFAIK damage is a result of HIT x Speed/Typical speed divided by vehicle armor value. (while it is kinda well documented, the actual global health math is still missing https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description  . A quote from the page says it pretty well: "How exactly global damage is applied specifically is still a mystery. In theory, a hitpoint location receives damage. This damage is applied to global damage as well, but reduced via passthrough value on the hitlocation and the global armorStructural value. However, test results indicate that this is not true in every case, not matching any formula that has been floating around on various other damage related pages." ).

 

I don't know how updated this guide is, but theoretically an ArmA 3 vehicle has hitpoints that act as areas that detect a hit, and firegeometry that act as physical obstructions that "incoming damage" collides with. Here's the rundown:

damage_summary_diag_2.JPG

 

 

I don't know what changes have been made to this relationship between firegeometry (FG) and Hitpoints (HP), but this may explain why ricochets cause damage.

 

Like @scavenjer said, it would be nice with a "cone of damage" to simulate spalling. Then we are kindof looking at the "indirect hit" approach, where a bullet deals "splash damage", except instead of being a spherical shape, he would want it in a cone that originates from the hit location. This could be a method, but would require a new type of "indirectHit" that operates with a conical shape.

To sum it up:

Each cone would basically be scaled in size and damage, related to how much energy is spent going through armor, and how much speed is left.

For thin armor, not much energy is spent on penetration, but high speed is left = little spall (small cone), but high speed (high damage).

For thick armor, much energy is spent on penetration, but low speed is left = much spall (large cone), but low speed (less damage).

Finally, if too much speed is lost, the spall occurs in a wide area. but does little damage.

 

The amount of damage average spalling does, would have to be dangerous/lethal to crewmen, but only damage modules.

 

The implementation of this method, would increase crew kills vastly, and increase module damage some.

 

The optional method would be to spawn multiple submunitions in a shotgun manner (like RHS mod does), but these are supposedly resource-heavy compared to "splash damage" mechanics, so I have not decided to go into detail on that.

 

Another different, optional method that @x3kj suggested was to create a firegroup around the crewmen (that is larger than the crew themselves) and make this area give fractional damage to the crew, simulating that even if you don't score a direct hit with the penetrator on the crewman, "spall" will be registered from a near miss.

 

What @Beagle says about internal combustibles such as Fuel and Ammunition (or rather, the propellant charge) is also a nice thought, because then it would not really matter if the heat jet itself does little damage to vehicle global health, because it certainly WILL damage ammo or fuel, which causes explosion/fire.

 

To solve this one sounds easy enough:

  1. Create a new hitpoint called (ammunition storage). 
  2. Make it sensitive to damage (low hitpoint health)
  3. Make it so that if it is "yellow" damage = lose x amount of ammo, "red" damage = instant or delayed detonation of vehicle.

I can't see why this approach has not been chosen? After all, they introduced a buttload of new hitpoints with Jets DLC for jets? Why not redo the tanks? (After all, what the hell is "hull" and why does "hull" get to decide when things explode?) 

 

From dictionary:

noun

"the main body of a vessel, tank, flying boat, etc"

 

Since when does steel explode? Okay - enough sarcasm :) My point is, to fully develop a new armor mechanic in ArmA 3, I am still missing at least one more major thing:

 

Hull = structural integrity, but Ammo and Fuel = explosive and fiery death.

 

Sure you can keep hull, to keep track of how many hundred shells pierce the tank. I don't care about Hull unless the tank literally looks like Swiss cheese, and collapses under its own weight. A powerful blow of a large caliber solid shell might crack steel, so that the tank literally breaks apart, but not cause it to detonate.

 

Still standing (structurally):

Spoiler

bunker.jpg

 

It's not going to explode even if it looks like this. But the insides, I'm sure, are not doing very well.

 

So Asheara said to me a while back, that they wanted Ammo Racks initially, but decided they couldn't make it for the DLC. If that means they abandoned it all together I don't know, but she also mentioned a possible way to work around it - which is to repurpose the HitHull function.

 

With that in mind, I would try to propose the following solution to the problem.

 

Reduce the amount of damage "hithull" receives from penetration, ricochet and hitting other, physically unrelated hitpoint groups.

 

&

 

Make firegeometry in the location(s) where you would store ammunition/fuel in vehicles, and place hitpoints there that directly influence "hithull" damage. 

 

That is a compromise between what we currently have, and what we really want :)

 

If I am not missing something extremely important, then this should lead to the following improvements

 

  • Lower damage dealt to vehicles from penetrations and ricochets alone. (Meaning using your thick armor defensively will give you an advantage).
  • Tanks explode when the critical areas are hit directly and damaged enough. (Rewards you for knowing your enemy, and aiming at the right spot).
  • Crew and modules are far more common to be knocked out prior to vehicle destruction. (Fixing, resupplying and crewing your vehicles become more necessary. Promotes logistics and teamwork).
  • Lastly and, perhaps, most importantly - it should work for ALL vehicles. Hitting fuel or ammo in any vehicle is way more likely to cause explosion, rather than "other stuff". These "other stuff" things will cause the vehicle to break down/cease to work anyhow from module failures.

 

And the cherry on top would probably be that the resulting explosion, and post-explosion burning from a vehicle destruction should be a mathematical combo of: A) How much fuel is left? B) How much ammo is left?

 

This way, an ammo-less vehicle full of fuel mostly just burns, while a loaded tank with half-full fuel tanks would cause a spectacular explosion :).

 

Anyways...

 

Things ARE still WIP. I am going to hold off my book on the subject until after DLC release, but here's an excerpt from it. But after that, I will see what is left to be done and give feedback based on that. Hopefully, if not into ArmA 3, maybe it makes way into ArmA 4 :)

 

Good night :)

Edited by Strike_NOR
Fixing up, polishing, clarifications
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I remember back into the 90's, our most concern in case of a hit was to burn alive inside before we could get out, goes for both crew and passengers of IFV. Thats of no concern in ArmA III and takes ayway a lot of the "experience".

Quite a part of early vehicle training is how to get in and out under diverse circumstances. The emergency transporter that spawn you and the rest of the crew besides the vehicle all at once was not invented back then ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Beagle said:

When I remember back into the 90's, our most concern in case of a hit was to burn alive inside before we could get out Goas for both crew and passengrs of IFV. Thats of no concern in ArmA III and takes ayway a lot of the "experience".

Quite a part of early vehicle training is how to get in and out under diverse circumstances. The emergency transporter that spawn you and the rest of the crew besides the vehicle all at once was not invented back then ;)

 

inb4 "Reload HE" while trying to select "Get out"

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Night515 said:

 

inb4 "Reload HE" while trying to select "Get out"

double tap V is more reliable

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beagle said:

double tap V is more reliable

More like repeatedly smack V until it breaks...

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

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

×