Tanks - Damage improvements

[scavenjer 112]

6 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

Can you prove that? RHS mods simulate spall, and yes, sometimes I notice some FPS drop, but they are using scripts to do it.

 

Please provide evidence if you are going to argue against it.

 

And the current system is not ideal, and we don't have a cone. However, I know that engine-wise, indirect hit damage is not blocked by occlusion or ray-tracing inside vehicles, so if the spall cone extended through the gun breech and the gunner/commander would technically be shielded by it, they would still get the full damage. So it's not ideal. In terms of resources spent on this, I don't know if indirectHit is resource friendly, because it still has to check all nearby hitpoints and add damage to them simultaneously, where as a projectile/submunition type would spread this damage application over time, although barely noticable).

 

It would be interesting to make a test case using the physical fragment method and see how it works. After all, it's not like there's gonna be more than 2 APFSDS impacts at the same time in a game scenario. The fire rate and amount of tanks would have to be pretty high.

 

I may look into that when I get home from the night shift... Edit some configs... Make a mess...

Well, this is from my experience with coding in other games (space engineers).

Also, I think one of the devs pointed this out earlier, that being submunitions are fairly expensive.

 

You're also talking about xx amounts of submunitions being generated at one time when impacting an armour plate which then all at the same time have to be followed and simulated... when you use submunitions on the artillery it can already slow down the game, this is one of the major reasons why the cluster ammunition is banned or reduced on a lot of servers.

 

If you can script what you said and show how expensive it really is, then we'll know for sure.

I personally am not too familiar with arma's scripting.

 

AFAIK indirect hit is generally fine unless it hits a lot of hitpoints at once.

[Hvymtal 1251]

Just to clarify, and excuse me if you already stated this and I missed it somewhere, is hitpoint damage resistance dependent on the parent "part" (hull, fuel, etc), or is it for a given area/section/zone of the vehicle? If it's from the parent part, one way to make it more realistic and less dependent on an arbitrary hitpoint calculation would be to create new "parts" to simulate various characteristics.

You could have an area "part" that would allow you to simulate interior spalling affecting the crew without actually creating said spall. Or another "part" that would simulate the tendency for ammunition to react very badly to being hit, which when its parent damage reaches 100%, would, depending on the volatility of ammo storage, cause either a catastrophic kill (Russian ammo carousel, aka emergency turret ejection system, or similar such unprotected ammo racks) or disable the gun and deal significant damage to the turret and hull (blowout panels), or any other number of bits and bobs that react badly to being shot. This would also allow you to seriously increase the damage resistance of the hull and turret.

 

If it's by "zone," then simply increase the damage resistance of the zones that are supposed to be well protected, and decrease the damage resistance to the areas that would react badly to being shot

 

Also, with the new HEAT submunitions in today's build, I think it's time to see just how things stack up with the infantry AT launchers...

[Strike_NOR 898]

37 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

If you can script what you said and show how expensive it really is, then we'll know for sure.

I personally am not too familiar with arma's scripting.

 

AFAIK indirect hit is generally fine unless it hits a lot of hitpoints at once.

 

The beauty of it, is that it is engine hardcoded now, so it may be a lot faster to process. In other words, it's not scripting - it's config editing.

 

I'll see if I can do something about it over the next couple of days, dunno how long its gonna take me because I haven't tweaked configs in 4 years when I made some ArmA addons and retextures from scratch.

 

And regarding indirect hit, I am thinking about the internal damage, which is a form of damage applied around the shot as it travels through the target. This is the "flaw" that @x3kj refers to, where even if the bullet stops, it does this weird spread of damage to hitHull and other modules. It has to be reconfigured in order to have realistic beyond-armor effects, or else the vehicle HP (and ALL crew) will always receive damage, even upon deflecting, absorbing, stopping or penetrating armor plates.

 

@Hvymtal

34 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

is hitpoint damage resistance dependent on the parent "part" (hull, fuel, etc), or is it for a given area/section/zone of the vehicle?

 

I think @x3kj can give a better answer, but I'll try...

 

When reading this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Tanks_Config_Guidelines#Hitpoints (Tank hitpoints)

 

and considering this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

 

I found this vital information:

 

Under tank guidelines the following details:

 

1. HitHull, handling internal penetration - when damaged over 0.9, vehicle will explode. (in other words, hithull acts as anything "explodey").

2. Internal damage is handled by HitHull class. When KE round penetrates the armor plates, it passes the damage to HitHull hitpoints array as seen in example model. The hitpoint vertices are set up in such way that the nearest distance between them equals RADIUS attribute in HitHull class, and they cannot be activated by rounds that fail to penetrate armor.

 

Well. According to the guide, when designing a tank for ArmA 3, you should place hitpoints (vertices) around the vehicle. The vertices have a RADIUS attribute, that makes them spherical, and this is defined in the config. As the guide further states, this distance should be equal to the distance between other hitpoint vertices, so that they overlap. However, there has to be something weird going on here, because the Internal damage statement above CLEARLY says that "they cannot be activated by rounds that fail to penetrate armor", and yet that is exactly what I am seeing in the tests I have conducted with APFSDS versus Kuma.

 

Which leads me to believe, that internal damage has a form of radius, and even if this shot fails to penetrate, it carries the damage over to HitHull inside the tank, because the damage radius overlaps the hitpoint radius, similar to example E here:

 

 

It's like the shot touches firegeometry (FG) but stops, yet some hitRange thing detects a hitpoint within range, and FULL damage is applied. Now imagine how that works, when a shot registers 4-5 hits in the same ARMOR PLATE! You get the kind of results as I saw in my tests.

 

Here's basically the rundown from the damage description:

 

Spoiler

1. Pre-impact

A projectile is headed for the target. (For our discussion let's assume its a kinetic round on track for a direct hit vs. an AFV)

 

2. Initial Impact

The projectile impacts the target. It has not penetrated any armor yet. And if it doesn't have the ballistics to go further it will terminate here doing only this initial damage. Regardless, the following things happen: Every major location on the target takes some damage*. The location nearest the impact point gets the most, and it falls off geometrically. The target's global health is generally damaged the most*. Several factors affect the amount of damage taken: obviously the hit value of the weapon is important, but various weapon & target config values are also involved (minimalHit, explosive, etc.). That's right, some damage has already been done regardless of whether it's pistol-round vs. tank or sabot vs. bunny. If the hit values are high enough, this initial impact alone can destroy the target (essentially by knocking out global health) ...regardless of penetration!**

 

3. Penetrating Damage

If the projectile can penetrate the target's armor, it will continue moving and doing damage as it goes. Here's what happens: Every major location continues to take damage as in step 2*. But something new happens as well... ...as the projectile travels past the armor it starts doing much more damage to the area immediately around itself.*** Global health continues to get damaged and can really get clobbered now. BTW, this happens even if every passThrough value is set to zero(!). The projectile will terminate here or travel on through the target if it has penetration power remaining to do so.

Keep in mind there are (sometimes significant) variations to how this works for things like explosive weapons, indirectHit, deflections, etc. More on those below. And, yes, this description holds true for human targets (shoot someone in the hand, and their head will take some damage).*

 

I have grouped together some text that seems related and have the following remarks:

 

* This effect is one of the things that are preventing ArmA from having realistic armor simulation. As you can see, every major location takes some damage from this, even tracks, engine, turret. The global health takes most - which is utterly unrealistic, because you are only hitting armor at this point. ***This continues post-penetration to the vicinity around the shot, and can kindof be justified as spall damage, but values may need a tweak. Like is mentioned here, the same applies for infantry, a shot in the foot, will injure the head!?

 

** This point can be justified by large caliber (and I mean really large) shells. Imagine the SU-152 (Derp gun) Tank Destroyer hitting a 80mm armor plate with an AP shell. I don't exactly think that tank will go unharmed from it, even if it doesn't penetrate! But, for smaller AP shells etc - it should really not do any significant damage. This may need tweaking in ArmA 3, as non-penetrating hits still injure HitHull (global health).

 

 

Go figure.... *confused*

Edited March 28, 2018 by Strike_NOR
Clarifications

[x3kj 1247]

4 hours ago, scavenjer said:

I disagree with some of the points, namely: shells when penetrating should cause "splash" damage, otherwise it's like you're trying to snipe components with a needle.

[...]

The dependency on velocity I don't think is particularly bad

What you describe as "splash" now is distance based only. It ignores all armor and firegeometry -> means it applies even without even penetrating.  Needle sniping is only a problem if the firegeometry components are too small - they can be artificially increased to account for lack of spalling. Its not pretty but at least it works -> as opposed to the current distance based formula that nobody knows, which enforces a radius based on hit strength. Shoot a soldier in the foot with 50cal or 30mm APFSDS and observe the damage. That the leg should be kaputt is obvious. His torso and even possibly head will however also receive damage due to the effect distance from high strengh hit values - which makes no sense whatsoever.

After all for soft targets this stuff is supposed to be realised via indirectHit mechanic. indirectHit can independently modified.

If the hit strength based effect is retained and instead made configurable (instead of beeing hardcoded like now) i do not object either - provided the value configuration is absolute, and not a simple modifier of status quo. Because the shit with modifiers is that you first need to figure out (by empirical testing) how it is and then slowly dial it up or down by trial and error -> a waste of everyone's time.

 

The ticket is not about removing dependency on velocity (which is already realized via velocity dependant hit strength scaling). It is about the ridiculous dropoff that is based on velocity lost inside the target. If you read my example in the biki, you will know the difference. Imagine you are penetrated by a pistol bullet. If the bullet stops 1mm before exiting your body you receive 100% damage. If the same pistol bullet barely exits your body with such low velocity that it falls straight to the ground immediately after (velocity <0.1m/s), the bullet causes only 20% damage.

 

Quote

is one of the major reasons why the cluster ammunition is banned or reduced on a lot of servers

Reason for lag of cluster ammunition is primarily the amount of particles it causes due to explosion and destruction effects, not the presence of the projectiles itself.

[scavenjer 112]

Did some testing:

1. PCLM has incredbly high splash damage it seems, that OR the T-100s ERA blows up very quickly https://streamable.com/g2ud6
2. The RPG-7 doesn't get stopped by cage armour, and the cage armour doesn't get destroyed by it, it seems https://streamable.com/idyph
3. The Rhino has incredibly good side armour for some reason, it stops a lot of things from penetrating deeper....
4. The gorgon with cage armour also doesn't seem to stop the RPG-7 https://streamable.com/g0qbu
5. The T-140 angara's ERA (especially side) doesn't seem to react at all to HEAT warheads.... even the RPG-7 manages to bypass it and penetrate most of the side armour https://streamable.com/nqk0d
6. HEAT on the RPG-7 (probably more including SPG-9) doesn't seem to get stopped by ERA at all, tested it on the Slammer UP (penetrates through and into side armour), T-100 (penetrates through into the hull itself) and the Rhino (penetrates through but gets stopped by main armour??)
7. SPG-9 completely ignores cage armour and proceeds to one-shot the Gorgon.
8. It seems ERA in general is quite weak to splash damage (with notable exceptions) IMO it should be either hit directly by a projectile with enough energy or hit by enough indirect hit from something like a 120mm HE shell.

[scavenjer 112]

@Strike_NOR and @x3kj I know how the current system works though I didn't know that the when a bullet goes through and through it would only deal a max of 20% damage.... that explains why 556 at times feels so puny.

I'd also like to add that the DARs (atleast on pawnee) don't seem to use the new submunition system, though DAGR and Scalpel do.

[Hvymtal 1251]

Man, VRE is such an excellent engine but it becomes ever more painfully obvious as time goes on and we learn more that it's still based on the backbone and core mechanics of the original one from 2001 :P

[scavenjer 112]

I just tested the Wipeout to see if that's why the cannon on it it so incredibly powerful @x3kj.

It appears the cannon on the wipeout when hitting the side armour of the slammer UP solely relies on this "splash" damage to kill the vehicle isntead of actually penetrating it....So yeah...

 

I agree with @x3kj that the "splash" damage shouldn't be doing things like this : 

 

So, maybe it should get an overhaul, or atleast be tweaked significantly.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

PCLM has incredbly high splash damage it seems, that OR the T-100s ERA blows up very quickly

 

Not 100% sure here, but I think that's the vehicle explosion of the Rhino, not the PCML causing ERA to detonate. You have your vehicles setup too close to eachother for good testing data, as the destruction of one will harm the nearby ones.

 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

The RPG-7 doesn't get stopped by cage armour, and the cage armour doesn't get destroyed by it, it seems

 

For this kind of testing, you may want to use "hitpoints" diag_enable true, so you can see how much damage that piece of SLAT armor receives. It's a bit wonky to use, but you'll get the details. Also, I noticed that the RPG-7 for some reason only travels at 1000 ms initially, instead of 2000 like the tandem heat ammo. When the HEAT jet impacts the Rhino side, it is at approx 600 m/s, and has lost half it's penetration capability so to speak. Even though, your shot deals a whopping 22% damage for some reason. Seems pretty potent to me.

It also seems that the SLAT is failing to cancel the HEAT effect of this shot. 

 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

The T-140 angara's ERA (especially side) doesn't seem to react at all to HEAT warheads.... even the RPG-7 manages to bypass it and penetrate most of the side armour

 

Again, not 100% sure, but I don't think the T-140 uses side ERA panels. They show as 100mm plates no? Seem like they stop the jet pretty well though, as it doesn't enter the crew compartment.

 

 

EDIT: According to @Hvymtal's spreadsheets, they tweaked all HEAT penetrators to 1000m/s. Dunno why though. Maybe they were too capable? It's strange though, because now they are slower than AP ammo XD (APFSDS usually impacts at 1600-1700 m/s ingame.) 

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

Not 100% sure here, but I think that's the vehicle explosion of the Rhino, not the PCML causing ERA to detonate. You have your vehicles setup too close to eachother for good testing data, as the destruction of one will harm the nearby ones.

 

 

For this kind of testing, you may want to use "hitpoints" diag_enable true, so you can see how much damage that piece of SLAT armor receives. It's a bit wonky to use, but you'll get the details. Also, I noticed that the RPG-7 for some reason only travels at 1000 ms initially, instead of 2000 like the tandem heat ammo. When the HEAT jet impacts the Rhino side, it is at approx 600 m/s, and has lost half it's penetration capability so to speak. Even though, your shot deals a whopping 22% damage for some reason. Seems pretty potent to me.

It also seems that the SLAT is failing to cancel the HEAT effect of this shot. 

 

 

Again, not 100% sure, but I don't think the T-140 uses side ERA panels. They show as 100mm plates no? Seem like they stop the jet pretty well though, as it doesn't enter the crew compartment.

Oh yeah, good point the PCLM might not have extreme splash, though I did see similar "issues" when using SPG-9 HE and MAAWS HE.

 

I'll check out the hitpoints diag,

When I checked the Rhino only the wheels were orange and the hull seemed fine, though that might've been right under the threshold.

 

AFAIK the T-140 uses ERA on sides and front, though I could be mistaken/they could've changed it.

Front definitely uses ERA and that didn't trigger either.

[Hvymtal 1251]

I just went through some of the infantry AT launchers. I'm no testing expert, but it feels like they may have been slightly overbuffed, especially against tanks that have composite armor means specifically to defeat HEAT rounds

I'll do a "feel" test for tank rounds now

 

Edit: confirmed, infantry are now better at fighting tanks than tanks are :P

 

Actually, wait, I take that back. Considering the weight of the systems and the impact they have on your mobility as infantry, I actually feel like this is a better spot. Perhaps a slight nerf is needed though, but not much

Titan still could use a weight reduction, but that's a topic for the launchers thread

[oukej 2910]

 

 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

@Strike_NOR and @x3kj I know how the current system works though I didn't know that the when a bullet goes through and through it would only deal a max of 20% damage.... that explains why 556 at times feels so puny.

I'd also like to add that the DARs (atleast on pawnee) don't seem to use the new submunition system, though DAGR and Scalpel do.

I have to admit - and we're really sorry for that and it makes us sad too - that we won't be able to add any major improvements now, before the release. We do plan to continue working on the damage a bit longer and try to solve the most painful issues (deadly grazing hits and easy total damage) for the next patch.

 

On 3/27/2018 at 7:19 PM, Strike_NOR said:

Since some materials take more damage than others (engine iron_cast.bisurf for instance), why not do like I stated in the above bullet point? Make exterior armor plating exceptionally resistant to damage, but have the inner layer (crew compartment walls/liners) susceptible to crew damage. This way, crew will only take damage IF the compartment is compromised, not external plating.

We've tried but at this point our own creations decided to fight backWe've run into issues with too much detail leading to failed hit detections or even more random hit results, invulnerable crew, etc. At least we've gathered some know-how, and a lot of thanks to your awesome feedback and suggestions and even if we won't be able to fix-all-the-things we'll make sure to utilize it in future developments.
 

3 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

*If I am not mistaken, we now have new parameters for submunition handling (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Weapon_Config_Guidelines#Ammo_changes_on_fly_and_on_hit) .

For vanilla ArmA3, this may not be a good option due to performance cost. I am not sure how bad it is, but technically speaking I see a possibility here to create dynamic and accurate spalling mechanics in ArmA3, just like War Thunder.

We've played with spall via submunitions creating submunitions on impact and then adding some delayed submunitions and ...  :) And I'm pretty sure some RHS/CUP spies among A3 devs are already getting their hands dirty reworking their submunitions. (and we've stealed got inspired by some of their know-how in return). Anyway, atm we didn't go that way because we weren't able to rly measure it and test it. Same goes for spam-friendly HEDP and 30mm submunitions, you - damn diff crawlers ;) - have found. Not in this release, sorry :/

 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

Did some testing:

1. PCLM has incredbly high splash damage it seems, that OR the T-100s ERA blows up very quickly https://streamable.com/g2ud6
2. The RPG-7 doesn't get stopped by cage armour, and the cage armour doesn't get destroyed by it, it seems https://streamable.com/idyph
3. The Rhino has incredibly good side armour for some reason, it stops a lot of things from penetrating deeper....
4. The gorgon with cage armour also doesn't seem to stop the RPG-7 https://streamable.com/g0qbu
5. The T-140 angara's ERA (especially side) doesn't seem to react at all to HEAT warheads.... even the RPG-7 manages to bypass it and penetrate most of the side armour https://streamable.com/nqk0d
6. HEAT on the RPG-7 (probably more including SPG-9) doesn't seem to get stopped by ERA at all, tested it on the Slammer UP (penetrates through and into side armour), T-100 (penetrates through into the hull itself) and the Rhino (penetrates through but gets stopped by main armour??)
7. SPG-9 completely ignores cage armour and proceeds to one-shot the Gorgon.
8. It seems ERA in general is quite weak to splash damage (with notable exceptions) IMO it should be either hit directly by a projectile with enough energy or hit by enough indirect hit from something like a 120mm HE shell.

The ERA / SLAT decrease the munition speed based on what type it is. By reading projectile speeds in diag you should be able to see the difference between fresh ERA or SLAT and destroyed one but the effect is sometimes too weak to be noticed/play a role. We're aware of it.

 

 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

@Strike_NOR and @x3kj I know how the current system works though I didn't know that the when a bullet goes through and through it would only deal a max of 20% damage.... that explains why 556 at times feels so puny.

I'd also like to add that the DARs (atleast on pawnee) don't seem to use the new submunition system, though DAGR and Scalpel do.

DAR remain HE in the end. Sorry for the mistake

 

 

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

30 minutes ago, oukej said:

*begin snip*

 

I have to admit - and we're really sorry for that and it makes us sad too - that we won't be able to add any major improvements now, before the release. We do plan to continue working on the damage a bit longer and try to solve the most painful issues (deadly grazing hits and easy total damage) for the next patch.

 

*Gets up and thrusts fist into the air*

 

We've tried but at this point our own creations decided to fight backAt least we've gathered some know-how, and a lot of thanks to your awesome feedback and suggestions and even if we won't be able to fix-all-the-things we'll make sure to utilize it in future developments.

 

Hey, I don't know what makes me more happy, the fact that you appreciate the work I put into the feedback, or the fact that you are going to use it for future developments! Great news!
 

We've played with spall via submunitions creating submunitions on impact and then adding some delayed submunitions and ...  :) And I'm pretty sure some RHS/CUP spies among A3 devs are already getting their hands dirty reworking their submunitions. (and we've stealed got inspired by some of their know-how in return).  Not in this release, sorry :/

 

But maybe next? :p JK, Sounds like you are having some great learning experiences from this!! :D

 

DAR remain HE in the end. Sorry for the mistake

 

*end snip*

 

 

 

A lot of transparent news @oukej. I really appreciate that you took the time to answer some of these concerns. It's also nice to hear that you are looking into the armor configs and damage handling. It seems like the DLC is pushing quite hard now toward release, and of course getting things polished is more important than re-inventing damage mechanics. But, I firmly believe that the ArmA 3 hit registration and damage system can be re-purposed into dealing with damage in a more immersive and realistic way :)

 

And seriously, I don't mind spending some hours grinding data and reproducing the same shots over and over. It becomes necessary to establish confirmation of improvement and consistency, so don't hesitate to ask if you need someone to volunteer to gather data and do extensive testing. :)

 

 

Edit:

 

LMAO didn't click the meme link until now. Almost dieded, like if a grazing apfsds hit my kuma!

Edited March 28, 2018 by Strike_NOR
Memes, yo

[Beagle 684]

While the DLC will not be the new Tank Simulator some exspected, it wil make armored vs. Infantry gameplay a lot more interesting. Soem Abstraction is always happening in games. Some of the best tank sims use hitpoints and charts till this day.

Iron Front 1944, mande in the RV engine, had some good shots at tank damage, but it was very dependent on scripted effects.

 But from my little experience with tweaking OFP units data, I know that even with simple hitpoint number balancing, the feel of a game can change a lot. As long as we see less 1 hit kills all over the games plattforms, Gameplay can improve....as longn as those 1 hit kills are still posible under the optimal conditions. Currently I have the impression tjhat hits to the rear of hull and turrets are underwhelmingly uneffective.

 

I noticed something wierd on the T-100. On serveral occasions the ERA was activated by collisions with clipping objects like the dry walls scatterred over the maps fields.

[Hvymtal 1251]

Hey, Given the copious amounts of backend and AI issues that Arma 3 still has, I wouldn't be surprised if one of their future major updates will be specifically for dealing with the stuff that makes arma 3 tick; tank damage could be rolled into that

 

@Strike_NOR I'm fairly sure BIS has some poor intern locked away in Edita most of the year and sustained on a diet of rice specifically for this purpose. Or paid employees, they probably have those too.

 

@Beagle It must be remembered that MBT is just a fancy way of saying "Medium tank with a big gun and beefy frontal armor" It is entirely possible to one-shot an MBT with even a 45 degree side shot, especially with the quality of modern ammo or even an infantry-launched ATGM of sufficient modernity. Those bazooka plates, slat, and ERA over the running gear are a necessity to provide spaced armor to protect against HEAT specifically because of this

[x3kj 1247]

as someone else mentioned elsewhere "propably takes just 2 days to implement" - yeah. But it takes 1-2 weeks to fully test and evaluate

Dr. Time, the biggest super villain ever conceived.

 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Dev Branch, AKA crowd-sourced beta testing. One of the best idea ever made

[Strike_NOR 898]

"Where actual valuable feedback, is just as random as tank damage"

[Hvymtal 1251]

Hey, opening it up to people who have paid them money is not such a bad idea, especially when you have people who know what they are doing and/or have been around forever (you) or are really good at breaking shit when they try hard enough (me). It's also not that hard to wade through the crap to find the valuable feedback. Contradicting information that both assumes there is a problem is still more information that allows people with the source code to figure out exactly what's going on. Assuming that said contributor doesn't contradict themselves on a reasonably regular basis

<----------

 

Quote

Edit: confirmed, infantry are now better at fighting tanks than tanks are. Actually, wait, I take that back

 

I TRY OKAY!

[Strike_NOR 898]

Hey @oukej!

 

I raise your meme to the next level.

 

Here is some real SubmunCeption for ya!

 

 

A picture of a helmet, penetrated by submunitions infront of your meme about putting submunitions into the submunitions of ur submunitions, because you heard I like submunitions!

 

(Yep, it's actually the result of a small hollow charge after penetrating a 7cm steel plate. Oh, and there used to be a watermelon in there, couldn't find it afterwards.)

[x3kj 1247]

4 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

Dev Branch, AKA crowd-sourced beta testing.

my post was referring to testing and validation necessary for designers and developers pre deployment, so "pre alpha" in "gamer terms"

[Hvymtal 1251]

1 minute ago, Strike_NOR said:

Hey @oukej!

 

I raise your meme to the next level.

 

Here is some real SubmunCeption for ya!

 

(snip)

 

A picture of a helmet, penetrated by submunitions infront of your meme about putting submunitions into the submunitions of ur submunitions, because you heard I like submunitions!

 

(Yep, it's actually the result of a small hollow charge after penetrating a 7cm steel plate. Oh, and there used to be a watermelon in there, couldn't find it afterwards.)

WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DID YOU DO TO THAT POOR M1 YOU SADIST!!!!!!! 

(Prepares M48A3 for immediate departure to the Nordic lands)

[Strike_NOR 898]

11 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME.......

 

 

Ooops.. While I was at it, I kinda did it to two....

 

 

You know, to gather... empirical data... just like ArmA 3 damage improvement testing....

 

So are you coming to purge the heresy or what?  Will I be given the emperors mercy?

[Hvymtal 1251]

Turns out the National Firearms Act considers tank guns to be "destructive devices," (why they would ever think that is beyond me) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives won't let civilians have a tank that doesn't have a steel rod welded to the inside of the barrel, let alone ship it across the Atlantic AND the North Sea.

Consider yourself lucky this time, but I'm sure I can "convince" the national guard to let me have an M60A3 with a gun that works next time. Just need to figure out what to do about the Navy...

[Strike_NOR 898]

So I kinda' thought I'd listen to @x3kj's advice back a few pages... "Less talking - more doing". 

 

Here's a small teaser of what came out of that :) 

 

RPG-7 shot at door (two different shots):

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

So I tweaked some further... Tried to use tracers to simulate spark effects :) Thought it came out pretty well :)

 

Spoiler

Hit to the Varsuk Engine compartment (outside view).

 

Hit to the Varsuk Engine compartment (inside view).

 

Shot to the side of the Kuma turret. Definitely more lethal towards crew now :)