Tanks - Damage improvements

[mickeymen 324]

On 28.03.2018 at 11:27 PM, Strike_NOR said:

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. :)

 

 

@Strike_NOR, it seems to me that your efforts in the field of experiments with damage to vehicles are very valuable. Thank you for that!

I hope that your experiments will influence the final appearance of DLC Tanks and even after it.  

 

PS: But still I remain disagreed with you about the lack of treatment inside vehicles

[pils 49]

On 21.2.2018 at 7:17 PM, scavenjer said:

there is no description on rockets or missiles stating what kind of warhead they have (HE, HEAT or tandem HEAT)

 

HE and HEAT are labelled. But in case of HEAT there is no info if it's a tandem warhead or not.

HE variants:

RPG HE

MAAWS HE

9M135 HE

Titan AP(!)

 

All other variants are HEAT. 

[scavenjer 112]

48 minutes ago, pils said:

 

HE and HEAT are labelled. But in case of HEAT there is no info if it's a tandem warhead or not.

HE variants:

RPG HE

MAAWS HE

9M135 HE

Titan AP(!)

 

All other variants are HEAT. 

Yes, I meant difference between normal HEAT and tandem, also AP means Anti-Personnel, so yeah.

[x3kj 1247]

@oukej@Asheara

I've read the changelogs regarding bullet ricochet and post penetration angles. I have two questions regarding that change:

What is the current maximum angle deviation when the bullet exits from penetrated fire geo, and what does it depend on anything (material properties? impact angle?) and is it dependant on bullet configsettings in some way?

 

If the answer is no, could the post penetration (exit direction after penetration) be made configurable per projectile in the form of defining the maximum allowable deviation angle from bullet traveldiraction before penetration? Because there are use cases where projectiles don't change angle on penetration, such as HEAT jets, rail guns and and direct energy weapons (lasers). It would be beneficial to have this configurable -> a simple flag in the form switching direction change after penetration on/off would also suffice.

 

Not only is it more true for simulation and damage mechanics, in my case it is extremely obvious visually - where a direct energy weapons has a fairly long tracer. When they penetrate and change direction, you see the tracer changing direction inside the object (because of its length) and that looks totally whacky.

 

[oukej 2910]

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

could the post penetration (exit direction after penetration) be made configurable per projectile in the form of defining the maximum allowable deviation angle from bullet traveldiraction before penetration?

The direction after exiting a geom. is normally distributed and there's a new property governing the +/- max. deviation. You can set it to zero.

penetrationDirDistribution = 0.25

There's also a new similar property that governs the deviation added to the angle of departure of a projectile after ricocheting.

deflectionDirDistribution = 0.5

[Yoshi_E 179]

Finally had some time to do testing on armored combat with Kinetic rounds.

 

The re-work on MBTs is well done.  Distinctive features between the different tanks  might not be so noticeable (e.g Slammer Front Armor + Engine layout, in contrast with Kuma all around protection), but game balance wise this might be for the best.

These changes also allow for more skilled and well placed shots. The normal player / AI will shoot the front armor many times to kill a target, while a skilled player might aim for the turret / gun mechanism, and  shoot the tracks to immobilize the vehicle .

Module damage is consistent, if you know the weak spots...  

 

I love that hitting the lower Glacis, for example on the Slammer with a Verona HEAT (my new favorite AT weapon), is a one shot kill. While hitting the upper Glacis takes multiple hits.  (This is almost War Thunder level)

 

Though some things that might need a little tweaking: 

• T-100 engine area (the area in the back where you can 1 shot kill the tank from the side) is a bit small / tricky to hit. Or Kuma is to easy to kill on the engine from the side?
• T-100 indestructible side skirt / Slat around the engine.
• Slammer detonates is you hit the passenger area with a HEAT from the side, why? (I know that area is used to store ammo RL, but in Arma it is a separate, empty compartment with a blast door to the rest of the tank)
• Some ERA is still not triggered by HEAT (e.g T-140 Side ERA vs Verona HEAT)
• Kuma turret ring is still weak / weird

 

Overall the T-100 is still King in Tank Vs Tank engagements. The crew is pretty much impossible to kill from the front (except driver maybe). The compact heavily  armored turret together with its 125mm gun and its overall small profile makes it a beast.

The T-140 is a great Tank, but only gets the 3rd place, as it can be immobilized and disarmed quickly.

The MBT-Kuma gets 2nd Place for its high mobility, and great overall protection (against Mines, bombs HEAT), though the big weak spots (pretty much the hole SLAT area) on its ass is a problem when attacked from the side. Kuma has quite some gaps in its protection (turret ring....)

The last spot again, claimed by the slammer, simply due to its slow speed, makes it hard to use in a dynamic battle field (and not all crew can turn out).

 

 

My last wish would be a few more effects on tanks (e.g large black smoke for damage / destroyed engine) or bright sparks when rounds bounce on the armor / penetrate.

Sparks on Tracks on the contact with Stone / Concrete would also make a neat effect.

 

Tank gets hit by a Heat AT missile or Bomb or Mine? Crew does not even get shaken or are not even able to hear it!! This needs to change.

I know this could be done with scripts... but imo it is a big part of tank warfare and would increase the immersion a lot.

[scavenjer 112]

The T-100 doesn't use cage armour around the engine area, uses simple rubber-fabric screens.

Unless you're talking about the T-140.

 

The difference in the engine you see is due to the designs.

Kuma is essentially a leopard 2 where the engine is placed lengthwise in the back with fuel tanks and radiators alongside.

The T-100 like most post T-44 Russian designs placed the engine perpendicular/sideways with radiator on top, fuel tanks infront and transmission behind the engine.

Thus the Kuma has a large engine profile from the side and small from the rear, while the T-100 is the opposite.

Ofcourse the size and compactness difference is also an attribute.

 

As far as the slammer goes, when I did my testing the LFP was immune to everything but scalpels or bigger, though that could've changed.

 

Overall I'd say frontal engagements haven't changed much in terms of where you aim, but have changed in terms of the after effects.

 

Crew dies much more easily, damage is more consistent, ricochets are much less common and overall the ballistics are finally predictable!

 

Biggest thing that has changed for me is less randomisation and need to go for (Arcady) turret shots.

 

Previously I knew that the best possible shots were turret ring/cannon breech shots because of the weird bouncing mechanics causing the highest probability of a one-shot kill.

Even when facing tanks almost sideways, the best place was still to shoot the turret.

 

I'm happy to say that's changed for the better.

Now you aim for CoM/crew shots or other important components.

 

Still need to do more in-depth testing upon release though.

[Strike_NOR 898]

It seems now that BI have added a new material for use inside vehicles, namely "vehicle_interior.bisurf". According to my tests this material, when struck, deals significantly more damage to the overall health of vehicle hitHull and crew. 

 

While it is still a rather "indiscriminate" way of distributing damage, it means that the vehicle exterior armor does not have to distribute the damage like before. Which in turn, should mean that ricochets and semi-penetrations now deal a lot less damage to the vehicle and crew health, unless the round actually enters the interior compartment. At this point, the vehicle takes great amounts of damage.

 

I like the improvement, it is a way better approximation of damage, than what used to be. Although, maybe not as detailed as many had hoped :) (simulating that little sprocket that rotates the turret ring anyone? :D, or the drivers cupholder breaking?)

[Hvymtal 1251]

Generally speaking, anything inside the interior of a tank is going to react very badly to getting shot, the fleshy meatbags especially. It's not a perfect system, but it'll work well enough for what we need it to. A super in-depth system will take more time to work out (especially since at this point I imagine programming A3 is more an exercise in tricking C++ to do what you want it to :P) and perhaps the details are not as relevant as we perceive them to be for a combined arms game that's meant to capture the essence of it rather than deep-diving into technical manuals of everything. The more realistic armor works the better, but generalizing the hull and internals into "very damage resistant" and "ow" will be "good enough for government work."

 

 

That said, they should make another component called "boiling vessel" on the NATO and AAF vehicles, which if damaged 100% the crew will automatically bail out and the vehicle is locked, because obviously the thing's worthless if the boiling vessel is gone

[Qinetix 304]

Hi,

 

how does the Fire Geometry LOD model of slat cage look? Is it same as visual LOD or is it more simple? Does it have any specific material?

[scavenjer 112]

10 hours ago, Qinetix said:

Hi,

 

how does the Fire Geometry LOD model of slat cage look? Is it same as visual LOD or is it more simple? Does it have any specific material?

From testing it seems to just be a relatively thin sheet metal, as for the material, it's called: "armour plate 3mm".

Or something along those lines...

Cage armour isn't really that thick so seems fine to me, ofcourse if they'd have fulfilled my wishes it would've been more in-depth and probably have needed a rewrite of a lot of the penetration simulation.

 

Not to mention probably taking a year extra to do....;)

[Hvymtal 1251]

Simulating it as destructible spaced armor as if it were "solid" gives you the tactical gist of it, and for Arma that's really all you need

[scavenjer 112]

2 hours ago, Hvymtal said:

Simulating it as destructible spaced armor as if it were "solid" gives you the tactical gist of it, and for Arma that's really all you need

Well yes, but just like the ERA, all it does is slowing down the submunition.

 

I would've preferred if they would've cancelled the submunition altogether while not affecting AP at all, though like I said, it would've taken a lot more time and resources.

 

I'm really crossing fingers for arma 4 having an easier/adaptable engine to allow for such things.

Really hope we atleast get all the things we currently see in this DLC (mechanics/balance) in base arma 4.

 

I think it's quite unfortunate that Bohemia has limited resources/time/people, they've got an admirable down to earth attitude towards consumers and a will to constantly improve the game.

 

I only wish I'd have been active on the feedback from the start, would've suggested quite a few things (proper mildot scopes comes to mind).

[Hvymtal 1251]

Considering they'd be rebuilding it from the ground up in a new open-ended engine (Enfusion), I'd be surprised if we didn't start with something akin to Arma 3's final form

[Yoshi_E 179]

Some more testing for actual combat as PVP:

These test try to give you a feeling for "how easy it is to kill an enemy tank" for PVP combat.

Spoiler

 

Form the view of Opfor (125mm Gun)

125MM APFSDS-T (T-140k) at 3km vs all MBTs, center of mass shot (Total of 10 runs)

Misses and bounces are counted as well. 

Number of hits before total destruction:

• Slammer UP: ~4,5 (min 3; max 6)
• T-140k: ~5,4 (min 4; max 8)
• T-100: ~3 (min 3; max 4)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~3,2 (min 2; max 4)

 

At close ranges the results are different. You can actually aim for a weak spot.

125MM APFSDS-T at 500m vs all MBTs, lower plate shot (Total of 10 runs):

• Slammer UP: ~4,5 (min 2; max 7)
• T-140k: ~5,2 (min 4; max 6)
• T-100: ~2,4 (min 2; max 3)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~2 (min 1: max 4)

 

125MM APFSDS-T at 500m vs all MBTs, upper plate shot (Total of 10 runs):

• Slammer UP: ~3,1 (min 3; max 4)
• T-140k: ~3,5 (min 2; max 5)
• T-100: ~2,5 (min 2; max 3)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~3,4 (min 1; max 5)

 

 

 

The same for the 120MM APFSDS-T (all other nations):

120MM APFSDS-T (Kuma) at 3km vs all MBTs, center of mass shot (Total of 10 runs)

• Slammer UP: ~4,6 (min 2; max 7)
• T-140k: ~5,9 (min 4; max 8)
• T-100: ~3,6 (min 2; max 6)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~3,8 (min 2; max 6)

120MM APFSDS-T at 500m vs all MBTs, lower plate shot (Total of 10 runs):

• Slammer UP: ~7,1 (min 6; max 8)
• T-140k: ~6,3 (min 5; max 8)
• T-100: ~2,2 (min 2; max 3)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~2,4 (min 1; max 4)

120MM APFSDS-T at 500m vs all MBTs, upper plate shot (Total of 10 runs):

• Slammer UP: ~4 (min 3; max 5)
• T-140k: ~3,5 (min 3; max 4)
• T-100: ~3 (min 3; max 3)
• MBT-Kuma:  ~3,9 (min 2: max 5)

 

Against HEAT 120mm rounds (shot test, 5 runs)

• Slammer UP: ~8
• T-140k: ~8 
• T-100: ~3
• MBT-Kuma:  ~9

 

 

 

 

I can conclude, after doing this test, that my previous assumptions on the tank rating was wrong (a few posts above). 

The overall most durable tank in a frontal engagement is the Slammer against 120mm guns. It takes a minimum of 3 (rarely 2)  and maximum number of 8 rounds to kill.

However the overall protection of the T-140k against both 125mm and 120mm is more reliable on all ranges, and will most likely win in a frontal engagement. This combined with its superior maneuverability earns the T-140k the first place in my ranking, followed by the Slammer UP on the 2nd place.

The best way to kill a Slammer and T-140k is by shooting the upper plate. This also has the advantage of destroying the turret / barrel.

 

The Kuma and T-100 are fighting a close fight. The Kuma has many big weak spots, the engine and its lower Glacis, together with its bulky turret and hull, make it an easy target. However the Kuma offers better protection against missiles (HEAT) and mines compared to the more mobile T-100. They both share the 3rd place.

Though in mobile engagements against AT threads the Kuma performs better and would even overtake the slammer up, but this is a MBT vs MBT ranking so... 

For the Kuma the best way is to shoot the lower Glacis, this guaranties total destruction after 1-2, sometimes 3 rounds. T-100 seems to have the same lack of armor on the complete front armor, this makes it quite easy to destroy in ~3 rounds.

 

The standard variant of the Slammer is found on the last place, nr. 4. This is due to the lack of ERA and a commander turret and its overall slow speed, making it unable to compete with other tanks.

 

Side shots are irrelevant for this rating, as you will most likely destroy or disable the tank in the first shot (if you know where to shoot).

For me it was surprising to see the huge difference in the protection against HEAT rounds, and the fact that the Slammers lower Glacis offers more protection than its upper plate.

If you got different results during testing, feel free to share, compare or correct mine.

[scavenjer 112]

5 minutes ago, Yoshi_E said:

-snip-

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Pretty much consistent with what I've seen, though I have to wonder how the Kuma gets such different results for the lower plate now.

 

It used to be the case that the lower plate would stop most shells, maybe they tweaked it.

 

In terms of what tank is most likely to survive a tank on tank engagement I do think the T-140 stands a better chance of surviving if it can avoid the second shot, purely due to having an unmanned turret.

 

Question: did you try this with crew inside?

And did you try specific weakspots or "ammo" shots?

[Yoshi_E 179]

8 hours ago, scavenjer said:

Question: did you try this with crew inside?

And did you try specific weakspots or "ammo" shots?

 

All tests were done with the crew, 0% fuel and 0% ammo.

I might be wrong, but as far as I know the ammo count or fuel count does not impact the survivability of the tank.

 

And i did not try any specific spots. So called "weak spots"  (other than tracks, engine, gun.....) don't really exists. It is still a lot of RNG what the round does inside the tank, sometimes it just stops with little to no dmg, and another time it bounces around causing 100% dmg. The front of the tanks don't have "holes" in the armor, if u mean that.

 

It would be cool if we could get screenshots of the front and side of MBTs (maybe APCs) with their armor / material thickness. Or their internal layout (materials) similar to the VR Target Kuma (Im sure BIS got sekrit tools for that).

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

19 hours ago, Yoshi_E said:

 

All tests were done with the crew, 0% fuel and 0% ammo.

I might be wrong, but as far as I know the ammo count or fuel count does not impact the survivability of the tank.

 

And i did not try any specific spots. So called "weak spots"  (other than tracks, engine, gun.....) don't really exists. It is still a lot of RNG what the round does inside the tank, sometimes it just stops with little to no dmg, and another time it bounces around causing 100% dmg. The front of the tanks don't have "holes" in the armor, if u mean that.

 

It would be cool if we could get screenshots of the front and side of MBTs (maybe APCs) with their armor / material thickness. Or their internal layout (materials) similar to the VR Target Kuma (Im sure BIS got sekrit tools for that).

 

 

With "weakspots" I meant things such as the gunner's sight on the Kuma (no add-on armour there), cannon mantlets in general, LFPs, ammo rack placements....

So yeah, it seems ammo racks aren't really a thing, though I'd be interesting to see if you can consistently kill certain crew from the front.

 

I have noticed certain spots lead to fuel leaks.

[Yoshi_E 179]

@scavenjer 

 

 

 

In these images, I tried to represent the armor potential on the tanks:

https://imgur.com/a/G2NFm

 

Stuff like this could be useful for newbies, as you can pretty much not figure it out by just playing the game.

 

If you stick to this image armor guide, you will be able to consistently kill the crew of the tanks at close range. The T-100 might be an exception, as its armor is pretty troll, and you are more likely to kill the hole tank instead of just the crew.

[scavenjer 112]

48 minutes ago, Yoshi_E said:

In these images, I tried to represent the armor potential on the tanks:

https://imgur.com/a/G2NFm

Yup, pretty much consistent with my testing.

Kuma's gunner optic definitely is much weaker though.

[Yoshi_E 179]

@scavenjer Ah yes, I know (forgot it). Updated the image. https://imgur.com/a/G2NFm

 

Overall the Penetration / bouncing of rounds needs a bit of tweaking. Well the DLC release date is not far out, so maybe look at it at a later date.

 

 

 

Maybe decrease the bounciness of AP rounds? APFSDS-T rounds generally do not bounce at all, even at extreme angles.

Right now a round that goes 1750m/s can change its direction by 30° and only lose only little energy. Impacts at that speed would normally tear the projectile apart, rendering it useless on a second impact.

 

I would prefer them not being able to bounce at all, over what they are doing right now. Right now every bounce/deflection causes additional damage to the vehicle, making them more destructive than actual penetrations.

These images are similar to the Kumas front armor, and should not bounce.

 Even on the flat tank roof, the AP rounds still get a hold on the armor.

 

APFSDS-T round reflections, as they are in the game, just do not exist.

 

 

I can work with the mechanics the way they are (already doing so for 5 years), but it just feels off... 

It might be better to leave it the way it is, I just wanted to point this out.

[pils 49]

I've noticed ... the tracks of the Nyx are extremely vulnerable to small arms fire.

A few rounds 5.56 mm, two or three 6.5 mm, one or two 7.62 mm to pretty much any track component will disable them completely.

A Nyx is driving in a few hundred meters past me - one or two burst with the Zafir and the poor thing can't drive no more - making it an easy target for RPG.

 

 

 

 

 

The impeller wheels look strong enough to resist plenty of 7.62 mm fire. Even if a 7.62 mm round fired at the side happens to graze the track itself, the track looks sturdy enough to deal with that.

In fact, I wrote an email to the public relations/info department of the Bundeswehr or whatever you call that and received a friendly reply.

They said the Wiesel 2 and all of its vital components are protected against small arms fire up to 7.62 mm NATO and shrapnel. They said the track is quite sturdy and will be able to take quite some small arms fire before being completely disabled.

However they admitted, massive, concentrated fire from close ranges at the track itself will eventually cause enough damage to disable it - I mean yea, of course.

 

But a few rounds to the impeller wheels should do pretty much nothing. 

• Please consider adjusting the resistance of the Nyx tracks to small arms fire. 

[x3kj 1247]

@oukej@Asheara

A few weeks ago i saw a changelog regarding the "repair"/ reintroduction of the fuel damage to cars and tanks.

Could we get some details about what the conditions for this are?

1. Is it hardcoded to HitFuel class?
2. Can it safely be disabled by a config parameter (haven't found any that looked the part) or not defining a HitFuel class (and instead rename it) ?
3. What is the treshold value where fuel loss starts to happen?
4. What is the formula for rate of fuel loss?

There could be some implications for the various refueling scripts out there, and also for damage scripts of course.

[Asheara 214]

Hello there!
I know it's been way too long since my last appearance :) Today, with the release, we shall bring you... answers!

 

On 4/9/2018 at 8:09 PM, x3kj said:

@oukej@Asheara

A few weeks ago i saw a changelog regarding the "repair"/ reintroduction of the fuel damage to cars and tanks.

Could we get some details about what the conditions for this are?

1. Is it hardcoded to HitFuel class?
2. Can it safely be disabled by a config parameter (haven't found any that looked the part) or not defining a HitFuel class (and instead rename it) ?
3. What is the treshold value where fuel loss starts to happen?
4. What is the formula for rate of fuel loss?

There could be some implications for the various refueling scripts out there, and also for damage scripts of course.

 

1) Yes, it is

2) Yes, not defining HitFuel class will disable it

3) 0.9

4) Eh, that's a bit complicated... speed of fuel leak can be calculated as: 0.2 * 0.1 * (fuelcapacity ^ 0.8) * (fuelHit)

• fuelHit return 0 or 1, depending whether HitFuel is smaller or bigger than 0.9
• fuelCapacity has 0.8 exponent to make it a logaritmic function, so 100 units (Hunter) of fuel will be leaked in ~2min and 1882 units (MBT_01) will be leaked in ~4min

Don't ask me what these constants are :D

I'll get back to you soon to sift through the other questions which might be here!

[scavenjer 112]

Euh, ERA explodes when you hit a wall with the tank at high speeds... didn't see this before the patch went live

https://streamable.com/f6hvp