Armed Assault weapon ballistics

[whisper 0]

The sight zeroing has got my vote for sure.

BTW have seen no difference of bullet flight path with a standard m16 up to ranges of 6-700m, just aim in the same place as always and fire (this cannot be right surely).

I will recheck but it's not the case for me, AFAIK

[frederf 0]

I cannot speak for other game developers, but we did this already for OFP and then again for ArmA. The full flight path of the bullet is simulated, including the bullet drop, in both products. The bullet drop is not that significant in normal rifle engagment ranges (i.e. under 300 m), however when using sniper rifles or machine guns this is definitely something you can see (and something you need to compensate for).

Hold on, I never saw ballistic coefficient implemented in OFP. You really really need the airfriction vs speed function if you want "full flight path" modeling. I also don't think that gravity works quite right in OFP, pulling perpendicular to the bullet's path and not true down, but I might be wrong on that last part.

Getting hit with 5.56 at 300m with a AK74... makes a difference in damage depending on whether the bullet slow-down is modeled or not. MP5, M9 9mm guns under 300m? Makes a big difference.

[DaveG 0]

Quote[/b] ]pulling perpendicular to the bullet's path and not true down

I'm not sure that's true. From a programmers perspective this is harder to implement than modeling gravity straight down.

[frederf 0]

It's easy to test, fire a bullet straight up and track it's x- y- and z- velocities.

X and Y should be zero, while Z should be decreasing according to g.

[shataan 1]

In a wide open terrain game such as FP or ArmA... there are imho 3 types of engagement ranges.

CQB= 1 to 300 meters.

mid range , 300 to 650 or 700 meters , this range being taken care of by the ACOG sighted weaps

long range, the domain of the sniper rifle

It would have been cool to have a range finder in the ACOG scope view, and the ability to set the range in 100 meter increments after 300.

Right now it auto sets which is ok, I am really happy to finally have the ACOG. But manually setting the ACOG would have been over the top. Same with the Sniper rifles.

But, i can live with it as is.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't see what the problem is, it seems accurate enough to me:

[Stendac 0]

I don't see what the problem is, it seems accurate enough to me:

Neat trick there, Chief.

How'd you do that?

[Barely-injured 0]

wow thats a nice and informative reply KyleSarnik

can you post a pic with the same thing with M-16, Ak-74 and M4

[Big Dawg KS 6]

See it for yourself, here's the mission, just change the player's weapons or put an ammo crate near him and try firing different weapons at distant targets.

The above picture shows the trajectory of an SPR round fired at a target approximately 1000m (give or take 100m) away.

[majoris 10]

I think there was a more extensive thread regarding ballistics and bullet info a week or two back. But, unlike most, I think restarting a previously discussed topic is a good thing, and not something that should be flamed.

So, on a side note, thanks for opening the topic again

Just seems to me like the game everybody wants is VBS2, features and all, for ArmA. 3D mission editor, realistic ballistics, more realism, etc..

Too bad BIS needs the military for their money.

[twisted 128]

I think there was a more extensive thread regarding ballistics and bullet info a week or two back. But, unlike most, I think restarting a previously discussed topic is a good thing, and not something that should be flamed.

So, on a side note, thanks for opening the topic again

Just seems to me like the game everybody wants is VBS2, features and all, for ArmA. 3D mission editor, realistic ballistics, more realism, etc..

Too bad BIS needs the military for their money.

absolutely. and why not. ArmA's is a combat simulation. it says so on a title screen.

the elements that make up a combat simulation are the things people want and the reasons BIS can make money selling ArmA.

The more of a simulator it is the better. and i don't think that it'd step on VBS' toes cause that's made for governments to train the troops in simulated situations. hell, even ballastics in a game no way prepares you for really shooting a gun it's loud, kicks, and lining up the target is a different story altogether).

BIS are smart. they have found a territory no other game comes close to and if they own it they will continue to grow and become stinking rich and successful and good for them. they will deserve it by doing things like giving the ballistics etc to the masses (lots of money there).

[4 IN 1 0]

anyone notice that the recoil of the M107 have been improved?

anyway the way they calculate the flight path needs to improve, but what they need to do the most is to give us is a more realistic tracers and fix it!

[USM-75R.Hspd -XO- 0]

all I know is this... when training on the rifle in real time, we were told that the round travels, in a wave sort of motion, very slight but still a wave. The bullet drops and raises, but each time it raises it is just a little lower than the prior. When striking at a 50m IRL you aim center of mass on the target, at 100m you aim a little lower, 150m is when you start heading back up for the center of mass aiming just a little up from where you did the 100m target. at 200 meters you are a little higher, 250m you are just under center of mass, and then finally at 300 you are center of mass of the target. Beyond 300 your round starts to loose its momentum and thus you have to aim a bit higher than usual. I only qualified to 300m but I'm guessing a marine qualifying at 500 would agree with me.

[4 IN 1 0]

all I know is this... when training on the rifle in real time, we were told that the round travels, in a wave sort of motion, very slight but still a wave. The bullet drops and raises, but each time it raises it is just a little lower than the prior. When striking at a 50m IRL you aim center of mass on the target, at 100m you aim a little lower, 150m is when you start heading back up for the center of mass aiming just a little up from where you did the 100m target. at 200 meters you are a little higher, 250m you are just under center of mass, and then finally at 300 you are center of mass of the target. Beyond 300 your round starts to loose its momentum and thus you have to aim a bit higher than usual. I only qualified to 300m but I'm guessing a marine qualifying at 500 would agree with me.

i think what you talk about is not only about ballistic now, but also how your rifle is zeroed

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

The "wave" motion is caused by the rifeling in the Barrell. To fly without the wobble the rifeling needs 1 twist every X cm ( I used X cos I cant remember the exact length ). With Millitary weapons and some handguns they now deliberately destabalise the round a bit by under twisting the rifeling just a tad. The round causes more damage on impact that way apparently.

[frederf 0]

I don't see what the problem is, it seems accurate enough to me:

Looks like a parabola to me... which is wrong.

[whisper 0]

I don't see what the problem is, it seems accurate enough to me:

Looks like a parabola to me... which is wrong.

yes because air friction is not implemented.

What else?

[d3dsh33p 0]

im confused as to whats wrong with them now besides the scoped weapons being off center and generally confusing

[frederf 0]

I think the picture is not taken by the firer, otherwise you wouldn't see the arc very well. He stood off to the side to get the picture to show us the side of the arc.

Quote[/b] ]yes because air friction is not implemented.

What else?

Nothing else really. Air friction is missing and that's the main difference between ArmA and real life right now.

[Daniel 0]

How would Kyle's pic look differnt if air friction was implemented?

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

It wouldnt look all that different.

what would be different would be the damage inflicted as the futher the round travells the slower the velocity = less impact = less damage ( greatly simplefied explenation )

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't see what the problem is, it seems accurate enough to me:

Looks like a parabola to me... which is wrong.

Then what should it look like? Disregarding air friction the round has a proper trajectory according to real life. Air friction would slow it down a little but it other than that it's properly modelled. The distance the round drops is determined by its initial vertical speed and the time it spends in the air. The projectile accelerates downward at 9.8m/s/s, acceleration due to gravity (OFP and ArmA use this realistic gravitational acceleration). The greater the horizontal speed the less time it takes to travel the distance (thus less time for the round to drop). Air friction would decelerate the round, changing both vertical and horizontal speeds, but it still follows the same general parabolic trajectory. Calculating a trajectory when considering air friction is harder to do, since friction varies (where gravity is for the most part constant) depending on the condition of the air and the shape and material of the projectile.

And yes I did take the screenshot from off to the side a bit because standing directly behind it, the closer particles would block your view of the more distant ones, but I still fired it myself and I only stepped about half a meter to the side.

[frederf 0]

It should look like .. a bullet trajectory. "Except for this inaccuracy it's perfectly modeled" is kinda.. well duh. The effects of air resistance are hardly negligible! The range suffers at the same angle and the damage suffers at long ranges. I can kill you with a MP5 at 1000m in ArmA if I aimed high enough

Air friction depends on the air and round of course, but that could just be a constant number in some database. What air friction really depends on is speed.

Until bullets start slowing down at range, ArmA will never get the lethality vs range stuff down proper. I suppose for everything else you can sort of "fake it" and just pretend it's in a vacuum artillery, bullets, etc.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

It should look like .. a bullet trajectory. "Except for this inaccuracy it's perfectly modeled" is kinda.. well duh. The effects of air resistance are hardly negligible! The range suffers at the same angle and the damage suffers at long ranges. I can kill you with a MP5 at 1000m in ArmA if I aimed high enough  

Air friction depends on the air and round of course, but that could just be a constant number in some database. What air friction really depends on is speed.

Until bullets start slowing down at range, ArmA will never get the lethality vs range stuff down proper. I suppose for everything else you can sort of "fake it" and just pretend it's in a vacuum artillery, bullets, etc.

Well, ArmA's ballistics are based on real world physics. The problem is there's no way to properly calculate air resistance in ArmA. It would have to be faked, so you wouldn't get very realistic results anyway. And it matters so much to you it can always be done with a very simple script (the fake way of course).

[eihort 0]

The reason behind BIS not implementing this sort of thing into their games has a little to do with the laws (even though I haven't searched for them at all, wouldn't surprise me if there were, especially in the EU) and a lot to do with marketing.

With VBS2 on the market and the going rate for the base set $2000, the last thing they want to do is provide a "cheapy" version of the software through ArmA. The whole problem with modding as has been described earlier in the thread is simply verification of what the simulation is actually doing. So the modder author says it's accurate, but is it really? Has the modder put in hours and hours of research at a range with recorded and repeatable results? Or are they relying on user experience and doing that "feels" right? There's also the whole problem of software version unifcation once you add something external not tested by BIS themselves.

Those are things that governmental agencies require in their software. They also need a whole slew of tools to evaluate their soldiers' performance during and after the simlation and a whole slew of tools to alter the simluation as it's running. Those sorts of things don't really have a place in entertainment software as it does, inherently, leave a lot of holes for hackers and other ne'er-do-wells to exploit in online play. Something a closed military run LAN doesn't worry about.

Often, as is the case with Steel Beasts Pro, militaries will ask the developers to include custom content for their version, including localized vehicle and weapon sets and languages. Perhaps even specific scenarios and/or geographic locations. They will sometimes provide classified or otherwise secure information to the developers to make it as realistic as possible. Again, these items CANNOT be transfered to a retail version in any way shape or form, as it would compromise the performance of said militaries.

Also, some of the elements that get included into such hi-fidelity simluations won't necessarily make a title intended for commerical release any more fun, and might even be considered a drawback by your standard civilian game player. Not to mention the extreme disparity in gaming hardware that exists on a consumer level, with low to high level rigs. When militaries are building rooms full of custom rigs, they aren't going to skimp. They're going to get hardware specifically designed to run VBS2 at max settings. Instead of having to make sure that VBS2 runs on a variety of of setups and hardware, BIS can spend time in other areas. You also don't have to develop all the single player content and missions that are included in a retail release. The "game" is never really going to be played that way when used as a training tool by a national military.

I think that ArmA might actually be a version of VBS2 that BIS "dumbed down" and tailored for a commerical release. Steel Beasts Pro has done something similar by offering their high-fidelity software toned down slightly to the consumer market. The only difference is that they offer Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition for $100 at least instead of the standard retail price point of $39.99 as ArmA did. Personally, I wish that BIS had done something similar. I'd be willing to pay more for something a lot closer to VBS2 than what ArmA is.

ArmA is a combat simulation. It's all really a question of fidelity. You can ask for them to implement VBS2 content all you want, and they will probably never provide an official answer. But I'm concinved they almost assuredly will not.