Armed Assault weapon ballistics

[max power 21]

Of course! Will they be modded as much as the m4? Of course not!

There was that sweet ak from the mission in resistance where you play the kid on a little island defending against spetznasties. I think it was called the ak-101 but I've no idea what the scope was. Some weird flattened affair with a big flat crosshair. Seemed more powerful than the aug's or H&K's anyway.

Would this be a spoiler? :/

I don't recall the ak101 being in OFP: Resistence. I assume you mean some ArmA mission called resistence.

[l mandrake 9]

It does not have to be balanced at all. War is never balanced.

It's a game, not war; it needs balance or it's too easy/hard.

Quote[/b] ]You've never played Armed Assault, have you? There is almost no "cover" to move between and the grass is pure

eye-candy; it doesn't "conceal" you in any way at all!

Yes I've played the demo. On the CTF map it's almost possible to move from one camp to the other undetected if you are patient enough (moving between bushes or crawling through the grass). In OPF you couldnt do this so there is certainly more cover available in ARMA (at least in some parts of the island).

Mandrake

Balance has nothing to do with a combat simulation. Simulated combats can never be too hard/easy. They are what they are.

A scenario involving defending against an ambush would be a -hard- simulation. A scenario involving executing an ambush would be an -easy- simulation.

Balance has NOTHING to do with a combat sim.

You cant say "Hey guys. Dont use that rifle - its imbalanced" in a realistic combat situation, so dont expect to say it with this game.

Hell, id push for an entire anatomy system to be implemented to better chart/display wound effects (Liver hit, muscle but no organs, etc). Realism>Gameplay in THIS game.

What so in multiplayer team game (sorry 'combat sim' ) if one team has far superior equipment (= massive tactical advantage) that's gonna be fun for the other side? Which team would you pick, the shooters or the turkeys?

Agree to disagree here I guess - I'm sensing some profound confusion about the product we're all discussing  

Mandrake

[Kruniac 0]

It does not have to be balanced at all. War is never balanced.

It's a game, not war; it needs balance or it's too easy/hard.

Quote[/b] ]You've never played Armed Assault, have you? There is almost no "cover" to move between and the grass is pure

eye-candy; it doesn't "conceal" you in any way at all!

Yes I've played the demo. On the CTF map it's almost possible to move from one camp to the other undetected if you are patient enough (moving between bushes or crawling through the grass). In OPF you couldnt do this so there is certainly more cover available in ARMA (at least in some parts of the island).

Mandrake

Balance has nothing to do with a combat simulation. Simulated combats can never be too hard/easy. They are what they are.

A scenario involving defending against an ambush would be a -hard- simulation. A scenario involving executing an ambush would be an -easy- simulation.

Balance has NOTHING to do with a combat sim.

You cant say "Hey guys. Dont use that rifle - its imbalanced" in a realistic combat situation, so dont expect to say it with this game.

Hell, id push for an entire anatomy system to be implemented to better chart/display wound effects (Liver hit, muscle but no organs, etc). Realism>Gameplay in THIS game.

What so in multiplayer team game (sorry 'combat sim' ) if one team has far superior equipment (= massive tactical advantage) that's gonna be fun for the other side? Which team would you pick, the shooters or the turkeys?

Agree to disagree here I guess - I'm sensing some profound confusion about the product we're all discussing  

Mandrake

Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer team game. So is Counter-Strike. This is more than that.

Furthermore, depending on what you would want to be experiencing/simulating, either situation could be entertaining.

Why do you think people want to play the Germans in Normandy maps for FPS games? Its all about the seige, baby.

I rather like getting raped by a tank while spawning, only to have it screw up, allowing my team to "lift the seige". Makes you feel like you've accomplished something.

[Scrub 0]

Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer team game. So is Counter-Strike. This is more than that.

Furthermore, depending on what you would want to be experiencing/simulating, either situation could be entertaining.

Why do you think people want to play the Germans in Normandy maps for FPS games? Its all about the seige, baby.

I rather like getting raped by a tank while spawning, only to have it screw up, allowing my team to "lift the seige". Makes you feel like you've accomplished something.

Agreed.  This is the only game that allows you the freedom and capacity to overcome insurmountable odds through your creativity (and a smidge of luck).  It would be a bit insulting to lower all of it to a 'balanced' type game, where everyone has the same exact abilities with different skins and sounds.

Been there done that.. very tedious and boring IMO, but that is why I love OFP/ArmA.

Of course the mission editor has all the freedom to balance, alter, flip or whatever the gameplay to their desires.  

[znashin 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't recall the ak101 being in OFP: Resistence.

No, I did mean resistence. I remember it quite vividly for some reason. It's in the same memory block in my brain as that freedom radio Fox or Jackal or whatever his name was. No wait! Trauling through my memories I think it actually was that kid on the radio. I think Vic tells him he's going to get company and to get out of Dodge. Maybe I picked the gun up off of a spetz commander.

My memory isn't what it used to be and it used to be bad

[Pierrot 0]

Well, do weapon ballistics of ArmA have advantage over OFP?

I cannot tell it because weapon ballistics of OFP is enough realistic for me.

[ThePredator 0]

Distance is now a factor...energy loss over distance was nothing I experienced in OFP. I may be wrong with that, but I read somewhere, this was introduced in ArmA ballistics...

[celery 8]

Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer team game. So is Counter-Strike. This is more than that.

It's always hilarious to see people bringing up those games when the topic is about versatility of ArmA/OFP while the game is just for that, versatility of doing anything you want. Some game modes simply can't tolerate a clear advantage of the other side, C&H and CTF in public games are the prime examples. The commies really should have some better equipment and USA needs woodland clothing, right now the solution in maps seems to be the usage of mixed equipment that creates confusion, and in CTF the default weapon is the ever-so-original G36 instead of side based armament.

Armed Assault is so much more than a "war simulation" for "big boys", the realism caters for many other types' needs too but some things have been left unfinished.

What was the original topic again...? Oh yeah, the ballistics should be improved a bit.

[Pierrot 0]

Distance is now a factor...energy loss over distance was nothing I experienced in OFP. I may be wrong with that, but I read somewhere, this was introduced in ArmA ballistics...

Hmm...So we get superior ballistics to that of OFP.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer team game. So is Counter-Strike. This is more than that.

It's always hilarious to see people bringing up those games when the topic is about versatility of ArmA/OFP while the game is just for that, versatility of doing anything you want. Some game modes simply can't tolerate a clear advantage of the other side, C&H and CTF in public games are the prime examples. The commies really should have some better equipment and USA needs woodland clothing, right now the solution in maps seems to be the usage of mixed equipment that creates confusion, and in CTF the default weapon is the ever-so-original G36 instead of side based armament.

Armed Assault is so much more than a "war simulation" for "big boys", the realism caters for many other types' needs too but some things have been left unfinished.

What was the original topic again...? Oh yeah, the ballistics should be improved a bit.

And it's even funnier when people think C&H and CTF are important gameplay elements to shape the game around... Besides, who said those games have to be balanced anyway? I'd much rather play a "realistic C&H" (there is no realistic CTF no matter how you look at it) than a balanced one, one force has the advantage and it's up to the players to counter it. Besides this eliminates the advantage of all the good players joining the same side, something that when happens in a "balanced" game totally throws off the so-called balance, and god forbid someone suggests handicapping. I also like to question why all "victories" need to end with you winning. A lot of people give their lives fighting and sometimes they give 100%, facing enemy forces far greater than their own, and don't make it out, even when they know there's no way they can survive they still fight courageously - why can't we have this in our "war sim?" Hey just look at the Resistance ending.

Anyway that's offtopic, and I don't want to be responsible for this thread going (further) offtopic... so... about ballistics. The only thing I really care about is if the bullets come out of the barrel in a relatively straight path (no bullshit that changes the weapon's dispersion when you move and stuff), are pulled down by gravity, and don't travel at light speed.

[Frantic 0]

Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer team game. So is Counter-Strike. This is more than that.

It's always hilarious to see people bringing up those games when the topic is about versatility of ArmA/OFP while the game is just for that, versatility of doing anything you want. Some game modes simply can't tolerate a clear advantage of the other side, C&H and CTF in public games are the prime examples. The commies really should have some better equipment and USA needs woodland clothing, right now the solution in maps seems to be the usage of mixed equipment that creates confusion, and in CTF the default weapon is the ever-so-original G36 instead of side based armament.

Armed Assault is so much more than a "war simulation" for "big boys", the realism caters for many other types' needs too but some things have been left unfinished.

What was the original topic again...? Oh yeah, the ballistics should be improved a bit.

And it's even funnier when people think C&H and CTF are important gameplay elements to shape the game around... Besides, who said those games have to be balanced anyway? I'd much rather play a "realistic C&H" (there is no realistic CTF no matter how you look at it) than a balanced one, one force has the advantage and it's up to the players to counter it. Besides this eliminates the advantage of all the good players joining the same side, something that when happens in a "balanced" game totally throws off the so-called balance, and god forbid someone suggests handicapping. I also like to question why all "victories" need to end with you winning. A lot of people give their lives fighting and sometimes they give 100%, facing enemy forces far greater than their own, and don't make it out, even when they know there's no way they can survive they still fight courageously - why can't we have this in our "war sim?" Hey just look at the Resistance ending.

Anyway that's offtopic, and I don't want to be responsible for this thread going (further) offtopic... so... about ballistics. The only thing I really care about is if the bullets come out of the barrel in a relatively straight path (no bullshit that changes the weapon's dispersion when you move and stuff), are pulled down by gravity, and don't travel at light speed.

hmmm...what are you trying to say?..

C&H is realistic?..never seen or heard of 2 sides fighting for some places to earn points...

CTF is the most realistic scenario out there...military bases are doing training operations against each other and the target is to get the flag of the others...just watch some military movies and you will for sure find one with CTF in it!

I think the whole realistic talking is totally useless, cause we are playing a computer game and that can be never realistic.

Go and join the Army and let you send to Iraq, then you will have realism!

BTW: I think the most realistic gameplay is in Counter Strike. Police has to stop the terrorist in placing a bomb. That happens every day, every hour in the world.

So maybe you should go and play CS instead of ArmA to have your realistic game-mode!

Back on topic: The ballistic of the weapons in ArmA needs really improvement. For example the G36 is too weak now, cause just a small wound by a highspeed ammunition of a G36 can kill you, cause of the blood shock.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think the whole realistic talking is totally useless, cause we are playing a computer game and that can be never realistic.

I think you need to know what the word realistic means. Realistic is an adjective, just like big, green, and smelly.

Is the grass green? Yup. Is it the greenest thing in the world? No.

Is the mountain big? Yup. Is it the biggest thing in the world? No.

Is the rotten egg smelly? Yup. Is it the smelliest thing in the world? No.

Is ArmA realistic? Yup. Is it the most realistic thing in the world? No.

[Locke@Germany 0]

When comparing OFP's and ArmA's ballistic the only differences i can see are the richochet's and the slight change in trajectory when a bullet has passed through an object.

There is no wind that influences long range shoots.

Bullets don't loose speed over distance, they don't even loose speed when penetrating an object or richochet of the ground.

Apart from the slight change in bullet trajectory the penetration system seem's to be the same as in OFP, objects either let a bullet pass or not, regardless of caliber, material thickness or bullet speed.  

I would have atleast expected that bullet's loose speed over distance, but seeing how little has changed in the physic's department i don't expect any miracles to happen with the next patches.

Locke.

[max power 21]

Back on topic: The ballistic of the weapons in ArmA needs really improvement. For example the G36 is too weak now, cause just a small wound by a highspeed ammunition of a G36 can kill you, cause of the blood shock.

LOL. Bloodshock. It that where you blood is so shocked by the high speed impact that it retreats to the inner most recesses of your body and refuses to move?

There is no such wounding mechanism. I'm willing to go out on a limb here and assume you're not a battlefield medic. Fortunately, there is a lot of information on the web available to armchair experts like you and I. I would suggest combing through a few articles if www.firearmstactical.com and then coming back with your altered and polished opinion.

[Pierrot 0]

There is no wind that influences long range shoots.

Bullets don't loose speed over distance, they don't even loose speed when penetrating an object or richochet of the ground.

Kinetic energy of bullets has relation with bullets speed. But bullets in ArmA loose its kinetic energy over distance without loosing their speed?

[Frantic 0]

Back on topic: The ballistic of the weapons in ArmA needs really improvement. For example the G36 is too weak now, cause just a small wound by a highspeed ammunition of a G36 can kill you, cause of the blood shock.

LOL. Bloodshock. It that where you blood is so shocked by the high speed impact that it retreats to the inner most recesses of your body and refuses to move?

There is no such wounding mechanism. I'm willing to go out on a limb here and assume you're not a battlefield medic. Fortunately, there is a lot of information on the web available to armchair experts like you and I. I would suggest combing through a few articles if www.firearmstactical.com and then coming back with your altered and polished opinion.

No im not a specialist, but i asked one and he told me that, so what is your information about this fact?

I cant remember how the whole blood shock thing is going on, but if i remember well it was cause of the red blood particles which are collapsing after getting hit by a highspeed ammunition...and that mostly ends up with the death of the one being hit.

I asked a guy from the military about the G36, cause i wanted to know if its realistic to die after getting hit into the leg by a G36 in OFP.

So where are your informations about your idea such a thing like blood shock does not exist?..that link you posted does not work and i prefer informations which i get from a real person instead of the www.

It can be that the word blood shock not exists, but i just translated the word which the soldier told me.

[ThePredator 0]

Talking hypostatic shock = Urban legend.

The US Armed Forces developed a high-speed projectile named 5,56x45 mm NATO, which in theory will cause the victim to die even if you hit a leg.

The idea was that the shockwave caused by the bullet entering at high speed will move through tissue and the nerve system and cause an overload with death as its result.

Nonsense, that is.

The temporary wound cavity and shockwave to behave quite different in human tissue than in pure water, which was the base for this theory (US shooters still show off their firepower by shooting on water jugs -> they explode due to the shockwave -> they think this is what happens to the human body if hit with the projectile).

Nowadays the ballistic gellantine replaced this medieval method to evaluate terminal ballistics.

Even the german Bundeswehr used to talk about the hydrostatic shock and still tell fairytales about 800 m effective range of the "uber" G36.

Everyone who seriously shot a 5,56x45 knows what a single leaf or bush will do to the small "high speed" bullet....it deflects.

Effective range: 80% of the shots have to hit a human shaped silhouette.

This is nonsense again. On 800 m the bullet drop is enormous and the energy too low to inflict serious wounds. A hunter could confirm this.

Ballistics in ArmA: Due to the body armour, soldiers have a good chance to survive center mass hits.

But many weapons will just penetrate even if they won't on the given distance.

For the 5,56x45 mm bullet 530 Joules are necessary to inflict lethal wounds and penetrate the ballistic vest (80 J in the target, 500 J to penetrate). The projectile has 623 J on 400 m and only 464 on 500 m. (Cartridge M 193)

The 7,62x51 mm projectile needs 580 Joules to neutralize the target. The effective range is 850 m.

For unprotected targets the maximum effective range is 1000m and 2000m respectively.

I thought this was implemented in ArmA already, since the distance IS a factor.

[Locke@Germany 0]

There is no wind that influences long range shoots.

Bullets don't loose speed over distance, they don't even loose speed when penetrating an object or richochet of the ground.

Kinetic energy of bullets has relation with bullets speed. But bullets in ArmA loose its kinetic energy over distance without loosing their speed?

I know that BIS has told us that there would be "kinetic energy" but you can easily try it out yourself, i've made a little addon i used for testing. It's simply a soldier with a little script that attaches a camera to the bullet's he fires and gives you the speed of the bullet in m/s and distance from shooter.

As you can see, if you try the Addon or already made some similar experiments youself, the bullets don't decelerate, if the flightpath is clear it fly's for 3 sec. with it's v0 and then diapears, i haven't tryed if the timetolive value works for bullets or if it's still hardcoded for simulation = "shotBullet"; like it was in OFP.

Locke Test Soldier - Rapidshare

Locke Test Soldier - MegaUploads

[icebreakr 3159]

oh my god.... serious problems for a "mil sim" here. Can we do some more tests, what about line of shot, straight line like laser ??

[ThePredator 0]

No, ballistc trajectory is present but way to less impact on the actual flight path.

Issue is the constant speed. No transition to subsonic speed, which actually sucks big time.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

I have just read the info on VBS2, and watched the 230 min video.

VBS2 is advertised as using the same engine as Arma, so my question is this.

Q :- As the weapon ballistics in arma & the associated tracers are pants, way off and unrealistic in every way possible, yet BIS say they are working on it, why dont they just inport the Ballistics model from VBS2, its obviously working ( allong with other things in Arma that dont work, yet do work in VBS2 ) ?

[Second 0]

I have just read the info on VBS2, and watched the 230 min video.

VBS2 is advertised as using the same engine as Arma, so my question is this.

Q :- As the weapon ballistics in arma & the associated tracers are pants, way off and unrealistic in every way possible, yet BIS say they are working on it, why dont they just inport the Ballistics model from VBS2, its obviously working ( allong with other things in Arma that dont work, yet do work in VBS2 ) ?

Is there going to be better ballistic model in VBS2? I think that military doesn't much care. VBS2 is most likely used on command&teamwork-training (improving cohesion of unit aswell), not sniper-, firearms-training.

I once made a rough list to what things computer-simulators can be used efficently, when talking about basic-infantry stuff... There were only one or two from about 20 skills/trades... Using laser in combat-training is far better choice.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

The Balistic model in VBS2 is clearly superior to Arma.

Dont have the video link to hand but vist http://www.vbs2.com

There is a link to the 30 min demo video there through google video ( saves having to download the 400mb video listed elsewhere on the bis forums )

[canukausiuka 1]

The video clearly states what's improved about VBS2's ballistics: it includes the ballistic coefficient of the bullet, so each type of ammunition in game can be matched very closely with the real thing. Right now, we have no control over the bullet's ballistics except for its initSpeed.

Sure would be nice to see the VBS2 ammo, esp. those tracers. Ain't gonna hold my breath though.

[mchide 0]

No, ballistc trajectory is present but way to less impact on the actual flight path.

Issue is the constant speed. No transition to subsonic speed, which actually sucks big time.

there is no constant speed mate... try it with script and you will see....