Armed Assault weapon ballistics

[Dwarden 1125]

before You think about adding balistic first add weapon resting feature and deploy of bidpod,tripod etc ...

it's already problem to aim now on anything beyond average distance ...

[Second 0]

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.

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.

No. shells fly there... They are created let's say forexample 500 meter before impactzone: if we want them to fall down in 45 degrees, then they are created to spot 500 meter high and 500 meters away from impactzone to direction where firing units are... then setting with 'setvelocity'-command their velocity to right values. i converted one script to work that way in few hours (made it for three different angles), someone from BIS could spent a day or couple in calculations for more realistic values than i used and add somekind "mountain detector" so that shells aren't flying thru mountains... If it's fake then it's damn good fake, i would say.

That vest thing is a good point thou... But still i would have properly working AI in defence before ballistics... It takes hours in rural terrain with platoon sized force to do that, and they are only positioned to their correct spots, not even fortification-works are done yet.

Infact BIS could present us foxhole-kit covering desert, woodland and mountain terrains, as at the time there are nothing but lousy sandbags...

So not many realistic infantry-missions out there...

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

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.

Second that. I would even set down the range of 600meters.

The 5.56 Rem tends to tumble when it hits something, over far distances this round has some kind of advantage compared to the 5.45x39 which is smaller and thiner and lighter but still none of these rounds would be able to penetrate a class III vest at 150 or 200 meters (no AP!.

[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.

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.

I don't buy games in order to code them myself. I look for the pre-coded ones.

If you enjoy making mods and you want to, go ahead.

No one is stopping you. Do whatever turns you on.

I enjoy playing games.

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.

There you go assuming it's easy again. And *I'm* the ignorant one. Let's break down that assumption, shall we?

You say:

Other games have more advanced ballistics.

They own code that has more advanced ballistics.

Therefore, altering arma's game engine is easy.

While you might not have any interest in game development, I do. There is nothing know or have heard about games or programming that would lead me to believe that chopping out some part of the program and replacing it with another is easy.

So therefore, if you think it's so easy, go right ahead and try it.

[TrunkzJr 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.

Is VBS2 a mod for Armed Assault? Or is this a complete different game that you gotta buy?

[Baff1 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.

There's a VBS 2 features video in the news forum.

Well worth a look.

It pays particular emphasis to the tracers.

Check out a video of Red Orchestra and you will see them doing the exact same thing.

Other games have calculated ricochet's before, but with the tracers you can see where they are all going.

[max power 21]

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.

Is VBS2 a mod for Armed Assault? Or is this a complete different game that you gotta buy?

It's a parallel development using the same engine. It's not a game, it's a piece of military training software. It costs $1500 american dollars per basic unit!

[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.

I don't buy games in order to code them myself. I look for the pre-coded ones.

If you enjoy making mods and you want to, go ahead.

No one is stopping you. Do whatever turns you on.

I enjoy playing games.

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.

There you go assuming it's easy again. And *I'm* the ignorant one. Let's break down that assumption, shall we?

You say:

Other games have more advanced ballistics.

They own code that has more advanced ballistics.

Therefore, altering arma's game engine is easy.

While you might not have any interest in game development, I do. There is nothing know or have heard about games or programming that would lead me to believe that chopping out some part of the program and replacing it with another is easy.

So therefore, if you think it's so easy, go right ahead and try it.

Call me ignorant as many times as you like.

Be as intrested in games development as you like.

The code exists and already works on this game engine.

No one needs to invent the wheel.

You can try and make out that programming is some mighty arcane art if you like.

But from what little games modding and programming experience I have, I can safely say that I often chop out and splice in other parts of compatable programs.

It's the norm in fact.

If I can do it, I dare say you can, and without question the professional coders who wrote this game can.

Now if you really want me to do it for you, send me the code and I'll give it a go.

On the otherhand if all your doing is flaming me because I disagreed with you....use your imagination.

I understand it's a sister development.

And I understand that ported code may need to be debugged.

But honestly, most of the work has already been done.

(It's not like it was such an immensely difficult concept to begin with).

The core engines are pretty much identical and in the unlikely ciurcumstance that any of the code in VBS is copywrighted by someone other than BIS, they can always just buy it off them.

What it costs to buy individually is irrelevant.

1,500$ x 500 sales isn't likely to be as profitable as 50 $ x 500,000 sales.

As I said, it's not like the actual code is so advanced they couldn't just do it themselves, but the point is moot.

They clearly don't have to.

They have the resources. They could capitalise on them.

[frederf 0]

No. shells fly there... They are created let's say forexample 500 meter before impactzone: if we want them to fall down in 45 degrees, then they are created to spot 500 meter high and 500 meters away from impactzone to direction where firing units are... then setting with 'setvelocity'-command their velocity to right values. i converted one script to work that way in few hours (made it for three different angles), someone from BIS could spent a day or couple in calculations for more realistic values than i used and add somekind "mountain detector" so that shells aren't flying thru mountains... If it's fake then it's damn good fake, i would say.

That's not really a good fake. The angle of decent is dependant on range and trajectory, so you'd have to go calculating it every shot. It's not just the same as the firing angle because of height differences and because shells do not follow a parabola.

You can't hear or get hit by the shell along the way (aircraft, mountains unless detected). The shell doesn't appear on any sort of radar since it's not there.

You need the entire path to compare if it intersects an object/terrain and angle of decent (God help you for MOVING objects in the path) and the time of flight which is probably some God-awful integral. By the time you do all these calculations you might as well put the shell through the calculated path. If you want Coriolis forces, changes in flight with respect to air density (temp, altitude) then the fake solution is more of a headache than the real one.

Mod makers are already shouldering the future of ArmA, making them jump through the same 100 hoops every time they add in a long long range weapon is cruel.

If instead they could specify a 3-value array for ballistic coefficient (coefficient at zero speed, coefficient at max speed, and an in between speed) and let the game get a quadric regression from those values so you'd have a coefficient vs speed function and just let the game figure out what to do with a shell tossed in the air by itself. You'll make a lot of people much happier.

I'll remove the soapbox from under me now. I understand you are purporting the values of a workaround and workarounds are good since the perfection bus will never come. Something I never understood is what happens when you throw a shell (with enough TTL) in ArmA today? Is the trajectory wrong? Does the game crash?

[Baff1 0]

sorry doublepost

[TrunkzJr 0]

After watching a video it seems very nice with all the features, i don't understand why ArmA can't do it, it would take time but it would be totally worth it ^_^ I'm sure theres alot a factors to making the bullets go right, they should just call them up and ask them about how to get it right :P Maybe buy some code of them for $$$ or a slice of the profit lool

[max power 21]

Noone is saying it can't be done. I'm just saying there's no reason to assume it can be done with the flick of a switch! It certainly can be done, but there's a lot more contributing to the likelihood of it happening than if it can be done and how easy it is!

[4 IN 1 0]

again compare a training soft that worth $1500 to a $50 gaming soft that have atless 3 times in size different in developing power and a fully military support plus the fact that they are some half a planet apart orthrough they are under the same shareholder........

[Baff1 0]

Half a planet a way is a very short distance on the internet. The code can be emailed, the coder telephoned.

A training software isn't worth $1500. It's worth $1500 per sale.

Similarly A video game isn't worth $50, it's worth $50 a sale.

Operation Flashpoint has sold millions of copies. It's worth much more than VBS ever will be.

I don't know if the development teams are larger or smaller for either product, or the development budgets either.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that VBS has the larger budget and a larger team simply because the individual product costs more.

A product costs the maximum the market is willing to pay. It's retail price bears no particular relation to the cost of production.

Further to this, military involvement in this regard is much similar to player involvement.

The end user is requesting specific features and possibly providing visual models as reference material.

@ plaintiff, as far as I'm concerned there is every evidence to suggest this can be implimented at "the flick of a switch".

I've already seen it functioning on the same game engine. To my mind there couldn't be more conclusive proof.

I'm from the can do culture. I'm not looking to hear excuses of why something that can easily be done isn't going to be, or shouldn't be.

I'm here to encourage it to happen.

BIS dev's have a history of community responsiveness that is the envy of many a games company. It's always worth mentioning things that you believe may reasonably be improved.

[max power 21]

Well, that's the thing about discussion forums isn't it, Baff1? People get to discuss differing opinions. Your opinion may even be correct, but the evidence you use to come to your conclusion is . Good luck with your wishful thinking!

[quiet_man 8]

major problems might be multiplayer and scaling

if you "simply" calculate were the bullet would impact, i will be a very complex formula (I think an integral) even today CPU would take a while to solve. You have to remember that from pulling the trigger the PC has only very few time e.g. to check if an airplane might cross the flight path. A delay of more than 1/10 second would look odd to the user.

If you take the simulation approach (calculating forces step by step) the formula gets much simpler, but you need a very very short time intervall to get an realistic result for a bullet traveling ~800m/sec.

I think currently an combination is used, a pice of fligth path is calculated and checked if the bullet hits anything. If not the bullet is move to the end of the path and the next calculation round starts.

Reasons to select a simplistic approach are

1. CPU load (a squad with automatic weapons can create lots of bullets)

2. Multiplayer synchronization

I think 2. is today the most limiting. Calculating an realistic flight path and distribute the updates over the network would kill the bandwith.

QuietMan

[Iron+Cross 0]

HANG on here.. dident old flashpoint have Ballistics? & the bulltes/shells/rpg's lost hight as they began to loose speed?

Well if it wasent when i was playing around with configs Why the hell was it when i made a round with 900ms init with a capp of 1200ms it went about 300-400 meters & curved wildly to the gorund yet with a pistol round set at 500-750ms & a cap of 900ms it curved off at 100-225 meters??

now im not an config expert but what have these damnd crazy czech's done???!! as i just fired an M9 at 700 meters & a PKM at 700 meters only dif was the sound from gun but they both went same damn speed & & got killed 1st hit by M9.... whats happend here?? (BIS guns used)

WTF i dont like this bis....(not progress..)

[whisper 0]

Genuine question : what do we know exactly about VBS-2 ballistics?

And has any1 made the list of missing ballistic features in ArmA?

I've only 1 really important that immediatly jumps in my mind : speed decrease over distance, which is not rendered in ArmA. sideAirFriction or airFriction should have an impact ALSO on projectiles using shotBullet simulation.

[4 IN 1 0]

i thing the wind thing is just a bit too much for the engine to handle

[whisper 0]

i thing the wind thing is just a bit too much for the engine to handle

That's what I want to know about VBS-2. If such behavior is known to be functional in VBS-2, then it may scale good in ArmA, as you should be able to simulate the same fight sizes in both softwares.

If it's not in VBS-2 either, then before thinking of applying something done in other games, the scale question must be raised. The large scale nature of ArmA is very important when you talk about coding of routine events of the game (and a shot is a routine event of any FPS), because these routine events can happen in HUGE numbers. 100 AI vs 100 AI fight is easily done in ArmA. Not in many of other games.

[4 IN 1 0]

i thing the wind thing is just a bit too much for the engine to handle

That's what I want to know about VBS-2. If such behavior is known to be functional in VBS-2, then it may scale good in ArmA, as you should be able to simulate the same fight sizes in both softwares.

If it's not in VBS-2 either, then before thinking of applying something done in other games, the scale question must be raised. The large scale nature of ArmA is very important when you talk about coding of routine events of the game (and a shot is a routine event of any FPS), because these routine events can happen in HUGE numbers. 100 AI vs 100 AI fight is easily done in ArmA. Not in many of other games.

not sure, but wind didnt affect ballistics in VBS as far as i know, while other things should have done right, but again, just guessing

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm from the can do culture. I'm not looking to hear excuses of why something that can easily be done isn't going to be, or shouldn't be.

I'm here to encourage it to happen.

Basicly, you bought the cheapest edition of the software and then ask for the features from a product that costs over 40 times more as free updates. While it might technically be as simple as a single copy+paste, it's not gonna happen, get over it.

[icebreakr 3140]

Metal Heart: ballistics show be something normal for a game that currently wants to lead the mil-sim PC market.... only ballistic that works well (in a realistic way) is currently Shilka unit....

[whisper 0]

right, so apart from friction for bullets, what is missing?

I'm seeking explanations Why is Shilka correct and nothing else?

[Average Joe 0]

I would like to fire a minigun on a blackhawk in a straight line, not through 6 barrels which BIS seemed to think