Armed Assault weapon ballistics

[max power 21]

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 ) ?

I think that that might be adding more complexity and hastle than they want. Adding more calculations and a more complex simulation *will always* affect the performance of the software- not to mention to tear out their current ballistic simulation and put in the simulation from another piece of software would no doubt have effects on the engine that noone could predict.

[churnedfortaste 0]

btw, sniper rifles are sometimes used defensively, I saw a video on liveleak of a group of US soldiers armed with an assortment of standard issue guns and one guy was shooting with an m24 SWS at whoever was attacking.

[Second 0]

btw, sniper rifles are sometimes used defensively, I saw a video on liveleak of a group of US soldiers armed with an assortment of standard issue guns and one guy was shooting with an m24 SWS at whoever was attacking.

Wouldn't be supprise... Being in optics of sniper is one of worst nightmares to grunt. But, was that guy sniper or designated markman?

I don't know how US uses snipers (do they have these marksmen atall, or are all just called snipers?)... We have pretty many classes for those and terms aren't always clear: Some of them works in platoon/squad level, some little bit higher level and in little bit different tasks.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

btw, sniper rifles are sometimes used defensively, I saw a video on liveleak of a group of US soldiers armed with an assortment of standard issue guns and one guy was shooting with an m24 SWS at whoever was attacking.

Wouldn't be supprise... Being in optics of sniper is one of worst nightmares to grunt. But, was that guy sniper or designated markman?

I don't know how US uses snipers (do they have these marksmen atall, or are all just called snipers?)... We have pretty many classes for those and terms aren't always clear: Some of them works in platoon/squad level, some little bit higher level and in little bit different tasks.

Yeah they also have the difference between DM (desig. marksman) and Snipers. As far as I know they have a DMR (desig. marksmans rilfe) for the DMs which is basically a longerbarreled, accurancy increased M4 with magnification.

Range of those DMs is supposed to be max. 600 meters, so just the Dragunov principle... only that the ruskies had the idea back in 1965 and the US in 2003

[Col. Faulkner 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 21 2007,10:18)]

Range of those DMs is supposed to be max. 600 meters, so just the Dragunov principle... only that the ruskies had the idea back in 1965 and the US in 2003  

Starting in the 1920s a standard British infantry section

included what was termed a "sniper". He was basically just

an above-average shot with the standard service rifle (no

optical sights or any fancy stuff like that) and his task was

identical to that of the later "designated marksmen". So the

British had the idea in the 1920s, the Russkies in 1965 and

the US in 2003.    

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 21 2007,10:18)]

Range of those DMs is supposed to be max. 600 meters, so just the Dragunov principle... only that the ruskies had the idea back in 1965 and the US in 2003

Starting in the 1920s a standard British infantry section

included what was termed a "sniper". He was basically just

an above-average shot with the standard service rifle (no

optical sights or any fancy stuff like that) and his task was

identical to that of the later "designated marksmen". So the

British had the idea in the 1920s, the Russkies in 1965 and

the US in 2003.

Okay, Agree Still the US are the last ones

[KaiserPanda 0]

It'd be awesome if we could find out of any of those ballistics improvements from VBS2 will make it in to ArmA. I also found it nice that the ARs don't spray out spouts of popcorn smoke. -and those tracers! folowing a realistic ballistic flight!

Cross your fingers!

[majoris 10]

Adding ballistics isn't just a random decision that BIS decided to make for the heck of it.

There's a lot of complicated programming and work behind it. I've seen "realistic" ballistics attempted with just about every game, most importantly the HL2 engine, which is probably the most capable of it if I had to guess.

It's more doable for singleplayer than anything.. but you need to work with prediction times, speed, wind, a bajillion other variables, etc. Not to mention how the game would work with really low FPS or MP lag (a whole set of problems in itself).

Ballistics aren't just an on/off switch. Sure, it would be more realistic, but for the target audience, would BIS spend that much time and effort on something only an actual military simulator like VBS/2 would require?

[Baff1 0]

Why not, Red Orchestra has it. That's not a military simulator, and it's not single player either.

It looks great.

Gamers want simulation.

And in all honesty, how hard can it be?

It's not like my computer would particularly notice the difference, and they already have a working model on the same game engine.

It's been done before in a few games.

Armed Assault is a pretty rough looking product, it could use all the improvements they can muster.

[Baff1 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 21 2007,10:18)]

Range of those DMs is supposed to be max. 600 meters, so just the Dragunov principle... only that the ruskies had the idea back in 1965 and the US in 2003  

Starting in the 1920s a standard British infantry section

included what was termed a "sniper". He was basically just

an above-average shot with the standard service rifle (no

optical sights or any fancy stuff like that) and his task was

identical to that of the later "designated marksmen". So the

British had the idea in the 1920s, the Russkies in 1965 and

the US in 2003.    

I think the the first battlefield use of sharpshooters was in the American Civil War.

[Second 0]

I think the the first battlefield use of sharpshooters was in the American Civil War.

Usually sharpshooters were big units (regiment-batallion sized) armed with long accurate rifles at that time, almost all countries had them. They weren't that type of snipers or designated marksmens of these days, but let's keep in mind that i'm not expert. (mostly stick in 1900-1999 although someones say that i'm still living in trenches of -39)

[shataan 1]

THE best ingame ballistics I have ever seen, was in Novalogics Delta Force 2. Wind effected bulletdrop trajectory, and fully adjustable sniper rifles, and ACOG scopes for the rifleman Class.

Don`t anyone go shpieling on about how hard it is to code yadda yadda yadda, especially inlight of ALL the freaking code already packed into Flashpoint and AA.

That is just insulting to make petty excuses. If Delta Force 2 had it all those years ago, there is absolutely no reason NOT to have it in Flashpoint or ArmA. Hell by now hitboxes should be a thing of the past, and per pixel hit detection should be the norm imho. Rant over.

[max power 21]

Why not, Red Orchestra has it. That's not a military simulator, and it's not single player either.

It looks great.

Gamers want simulation.

And in all honesty, how hard can it be?

It's not like my computer would particularly notice the difference, and they already have a working model on the same game engine.

It's been done before in a few games.

Armed Assault is a pretty rough looking product, it could use all the improvements they can muster.

Do not make a shopping list of features present in other games then assume it's easy to do in ArmA. If it's so easy, why not try to do it yourself? I think you should, and I wish you the best of luck with your mod!

Furthermore, I think that there are more issues than this that need to be addressed. If I never see the ballistics model changed on ArmA I won't miss anything. Spending effort at this point on ballistics would be an excercise in diminishing returns. I don't agree that this game needs any work on the ballistics model at this point.

[KaiserPanda 0]

I'd think the Armed Assault engine is quite a bit more robust than UT2k4.

"Furthermore, I think that there are more issues than this that need to be addressed."

The ballistics are the most important part of the game. It controls the combat more than anything! For example, the range that accurate rifle fights occur in Armed Assault is a lot different than in real life.

"If I never see the ballistics model changed on ArmA I won't miss anything."

You'll be missing a lot. If you've had some time with a rifle, you'd know the ballistics in ArmA aren't true at all. They aren't bad, but other games have done it much beter. From the VBS2 video, it looks like BIS Australia got is perfect.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Wikipedia states that atleast there were some snipers (not just sharpshooters) during American Civil War, and before. I remember reading that some hunters used as scouts use their rifled hunting rifles with far better results than normal riflemen with their smoothbores. Might been the Independence War of America, though.

[max power 21]

I'd think the Armed Assault engine is quite a bit more robust than UT2k4.

"Furthermore, I think that there are more issues than this that need to be addressed."

The ballistics are the most important part of the game. It controls the combat more than anything! For example, the range that accurate rifle fights occur in Armed Assault is a lot different than in real life.

"If I never see the ballistics model changed on ArmA I won't miss anything."

You'll be missing a lot. If you've had some time with a rifle, you'd know the ballistics in ArmA aren't true at all. They aren't bad, but other games have done it much beter. From the VBS2 video, it looks like BIS Australia got is perfect.

Nothing about arma is true at all. The primary objective of the game isn't to mirror real life in every detail. I have spent time with a rifle- I was on a range team. I repeat that I won't miss much. There are other problems with this game that are more severe than implimenting ballistic minutia for gun fetishists. I agree that having a more accurate ballistic model would make it much easier to create and use realistic weapon sights, but let's not assume it's an easy feat.

[majoris 10]

Summed up.. I basically think BIS has better things to worry about.

[frederf 0]

Ballistics used to do high range artillery as well as how lethality of 5.56 decreasing over distance are both major tangible benefits that aren't "fetishist minutia" but rather major.

[Second 0]

Ballistics used to do high range artillery as well as how lethality of 5.56 decreasing over distance are both major tangible benefits that aren't "fetishist minutia" but rather major.

Artillery-ballistics has been made by COC or create-shells, i've made one create-shell script that roughly calculates trajectory of shell/mortar and creates shells to fall down in ceratin angle. So no problem there. If 5.56 hits a guy, most likely guy is no longer in fighting fit, even if distance is long. I don't see a point in that kind of minor ballistical effects...

There are better things to add to ArmA, like defence-formations and tactics. Which both aren't present in ArmA's waypoints or in AI, they have to be made by missioneditor and because of that nearly nobody makes them: i haven't seen but couple of mission which uses them... and digging foxholes is missing. Suppression is thing that has major effect on battlefield and it's missing from code.

[fireship4 0]

Actually at long range a 5.56 can go through and not tumble, without causing much damage if it does not hit vital ogans etc. The soldier can then fight on.

[MisterXY 0]

Actually at long range a 5.56 can go through and not tumble, without causing much damage if it does not hit vital ogans etc.  The soldier can then fight on.

Mister "I got hit severel times and I fought on" is speaking.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]Artillery-ballistics has been made by COC or create-shells, i've made one create-shell script that roughly calculates trajectory of shell/mortar and creates shells to fall down in ceratin angle. So no problem there.

I must admit my knowledge on this issue is lacking but correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like you're suggesting "fake artillery" and not the actual shell flying through the air.

Quote[/b] ]If 5.56 hits a guy, most likely guy is no longer in fighting fit, even if distance is long.

If I get hit in the vest at 600m by 5.56 I don't expect to die or even feel the effects after a minute.

[quiet_man 8]

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

this is not good. I already wondered how easy it is to hit over high distances.

Maybe they dropped it for bigger scale battles?

Calculating bullets can easily eat your CPU time.

QuietMan

[Baff1 0]

Why not, Red Orchestra has it. That's not a military simulator, and it's not single player either.

It looks great.

Gamers want simulation.

And in all honesty, how hard can it be?

It's not like my computer would particularly notice the difference, and they already have a working model on the same game engine.

It's been done before in a few games.

Armed Assault is a pretty rough looking product, it could use all the improvements they can muster.

Do not make a shopping list of features present in other games then assume it's easy to do in ArmA. If it's so easy, why not try to do it yourself? I think you should, and I wish you the best of luck with your mod!

Furthermore, I think that there are more issues than this that need to be addressed. If I never see the ballistics model changed on ArmA I won't miss anything. Spending effort at this point on ballistics would be an excercise in diminishing returns. I don't agree that this game needs any work on the ballistics model at this point.

Sorry but what utter tosh.

VBS 2 has almost identical ballistics to Red Orchestra.

It clearly can be done in this game. It already has been.

Why would I want to do it myself?

It's off the shelf technology. It's already been made. I enjoy playing games not making them.

I'll just do what so many other people will do and buy a different game.

Why don't you make a mod?

What an ignorant comment.

When I buy a game, I look for one with uptodate features. Lots of people do.

The game doesn't "need" any extra work at all at this time. But it certainly wants some.

I agree that there are other features I would also like to see, and possibly some that I would like to see more, specifically some of the other easily implemented VBS ones too. I won't bother mentioning them here, each one has it's own thread already.

I don't really see it as an "either, or" situation. Updated ballistics and updated other stuff.

Ballistics is a no brainer. They already own the code, it looks good, people like it and much of the competition has been offering this feature for years.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]VBS 2 has almost identical ballistics to Red Orchestra.

Only the thing is, VBS2 isn't even out yet (for the general public). You couldn't possibly tell this from a video with no emphasis on the subject.