Full report on Armoury in ArmA

[Luciano 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not going to get them to want to listen to you, so all you're doing is ranting and raving

Aren't we all ranting and raving?

And no, BIS didn't rape the community. More like they raped themselves for buying ARMA.

[max power 21]

Aren't we all ranting and raving?

And no, BIS didn't rape the community. More like they raped themselves for buying ARMA.

No.

[CG Man 0]

I doubt a BMP 2 can sustain hits anywhere from 50cal rounds and 7.62 the GPMG and sniper rounds can penetrate side and rear armour on most APC's For a hummer to sustain hits from all sides from a GPMG  it would need tracks and 600Hp engine to cope with the weight of armour and go the same speeds.

Adding some damage physics to the game would have been good but perhaps would of needed a physics card or quad processor for it to be done for the vast amout of vehicles that are being hit at the same time. In ArmedA 6 in 2040 you will have one PC for the game AI and graphics and one next to it for the physics calculations till then we have to play ArmedA with some imagination.

[dr_eyeball 16]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Dec. 22 2006,22:27)]I will see if I can get in touch with BIS and make this testing for them officialy.

Cool tests. If you want to get official, you would need to tabulate the information into a spreadsheet to make it more readable. Plus for the items you've marked "(wrong)", perhaps add your recommended value.

Others say it doesn't matter if the values are out, which is true if it's out by a factor of 2, but if it's out by a factor of 10 or more, then it needs to be rechecked. So perhaps include a multiplying factor value to give a simple check of how far it's out. Unless I'm just misreading the data.

Nice effort.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

To keep this thread relevant the test should be done again with the latest version.

I recommend waiting for 1.5 unless you wish for more, possibly out-dated arguments.

Nice idea though

[4 IN 1 0]

well it is clear that the value is not correct, and lets hope that BIS wont need us to correct it by ourself(hear us BIS?)

now if BIS stop supporting ArmA then we are all being raped/ betrayed, but no they aint rgr? i mean how betrayed/ raped can we be if they could put out something that no others to even have a through about? and many ppl seems to forget that how limited other then GFX is OFP now(YES you can still make beautiful mod and YES you can still script it to what you like as long as the engine allow you to, but what the engine have allowed you to do on it had already being done).

so if anyone really like to being betrayed, or are so undersexed that they are willing to being "force to sex" then keep going, i wouldnt mind to mod the game for myself if i have time

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

Cool tests. If you want to get official, you would need to tabulate the information into a spreadsheet to make it more readable. Plus for the items you've marked "(wrong)", perhaps add your recommended value.

Okay I will re-do the job and probably add one or two more vehicles and make the test a pure test and not an accusation to BIS.

So people and BIS can rely on the data gathered and hopefully this brings us one step further to a even more realistic ArmA ?

Is that now politicicaly correct ?

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

so if anyone really like to being betrayed, or are so undersexed that they are willing to being "force to sex" then keep going, i wouldnt mind to mod the game for myself if i have time

I am aware of that fact that ArmA can be modded by the individual player as he likes... this fact and the vast freedom we have made us love OFP and ArmA isnt it ?

I never doubted that, and neither that FFUR or other mods would pay more attention to realism in the game. But as a games developer, military style, BIS has to ensure that the product has a certain fundament, something the community can build on.

Immagine a addons apperas, lets say the AMX30 ... to compete with other tanks and IFVs, this AMX30 must powerful and thus it has to accept the wrong armour and penetration values.

The simple theory is that we payed for a product, but the product has bruises, to put it short.

[4 IN 1 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Feb. 22 2007,08:18)]

so if anyone really like to being betrayed, or are so undersexed that they are willing to being "force to sex" then keep going, i wouldnt mind to mod the game for myself if i have time

I am aware of that fact that ArmA can be modded by the individual player as he likes... this fact and the vast freedom we have made us love OFP and ArmA isnt it ?

I never doubted that, and neither that FFUR or other mods would pay more attention to realism in the game. But as a games developer, military style, BIS has to ensure that the product has a certain fundament, something the community can build on.

Immagine a addons apperas, lets say the AMX30 ... to compete with other tanks and IFVs, this AMX30 must powerful and thus it has to accept the wrong armour and penetration values.

The simple theory is that we payed for a product, but the product has bruises, to put it short.

yes i like the way you test and retest it, and plz dont mind to post the result for all of us and BIS to correct mistakes an flaws

think in a way like "now i dont like that, it has to be changed, maybe just me but anyone agreed?" gain people support you view, share your idea on how to make it better without using that "we are F###ED!!!!11!!!11" putting someone out of business style comment like someone else did, many of us had had enought of this BS

edit: i mean take the bug tracker as an example, yes it might not be BIS to make the change first but sure as hell that someone is using it now rgr?

[Opticalsnare 12]

Im editing the config.cpp in weapons.pbo and changing some values for the weapons including the damage, so hopfully this should be sorted later on today and will post back. Im going thru the damage points atm and increasing them gradually.

Heres the damage stats now.

Humvee

5.56mm (Not Tested)

7.62mm (95 Hits = Destoryed)

12.7mm (50 Hits = Destoryed)

14.7mm (40hits = Destroyed)

20mm AP (15 Hits = Destoryed)

23mm Shilka AA (2 Bursts = Destoryed)

30mm AP (8 Hits = Destroyed)

57mm Rocket = (2 hit = Destoryed)

70mm FFAR Rocket = (1 hit = Destoryed)

80mm Rocket (1 hit = Destoryed)

BMP

20mm AP (50 Hits = Destoryed)

23mm Shilka AA (3 1/2 Bursts = Destoryed)

25mm (40 Hits = Destoryed)

30mm AP (30 Hits = Destroyed)

57mm Rocket = (2 hit = Destoryed)

70mm FFAR Rocket = (2 hit = Destoryed)

80mm Rocket (2 hit = Destoryed)

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

EDIT: Preview removed because the table is done.

Link to table: Click here!

[Opticalsnare 12]

Arma Weapons Mod

Should be fairly easy to install. Il update it when ive changed more shit

[andersson 285]

I`m looking forward to WGL. They had the most realistic values.

[rkos 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Dec. 22 2006,15:29)]I know what you mean... but we cant expect ArmA to be 100% real life.

Ofcourse we cant, but ArmA is still claiming to be the ultimate combat simulation and ofcourse some stuff have to stay unrealistic because this is a computer game but realistic weapons and a realistic damage model are in no way impossible. Vehicles should not be made out of healthpoints but instead they should be made out of components.

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

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Dec. 22 2006,15:29)]I know what you mean... but we cant expect ArmA to be 100% real life.

Ofcourse we cant, but ArmA is still claiming to be the ultimate combat simulation and ofcourse some stuff have to stay unrealistic because this is a computer game but realistic weapons and a realistic damage model are in no way impossible. Vehicles should not be made out of healthpoints but instead they should be made out of components.

That is exactely what I'm saying mate. Im the one that is testing the vehicles and want to reach that BIS comes to fix them issues.

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

I've changed the design and the art of presentation of the test on the HUMVEE.

The information can be found HERE

[jackass888 0]

Nice work guys! But i dont think BIS will change these values with a patch because this would make several champaign and single missions impossible. But yeah f*** these i want it realistic SP and MP... Not everyone would use a mod with realistic values for MP and this would suck, but a patch would force them

[max power 21]

I like the new format.

[guyguy1 0]

the main reason i'm against mods is because it makes multiplayer dead. like in OFP mp, almost every server will require diff mods and beacuse of this, its extremely hard to find a unpassworded server that has a lot of people (and therefore, a lot of fun). Sure we can play with 64 players, but realistically, will there ever be 64 players in a server with all those MODS out there? no. that's why I want BIS to fix the outdated infantry damage model and the skewed vehicle armor values. (so that it doesnt get replaced by like 10 mods claiming realism and thus screw up MP by making servers have 10-15 people at most).

[funnyguy1 0]

And that's why a guy started a topic in the mods distussion board about making an...aonother, pinned topic, where people could talk about how to improove ArmA's realism, post their configs, samples of their "mods", movies, etc.

Because? It's "the most realistic combat simulator", and people are buying it because of that, bitching that it's not realistic enough later. The thing called realism requires some tweaks. Unification of those things could prevent the situation when there's more mods, ranging from 100kb to 500mb and claiming to be the most realistic ever, than missions to play. With all respect to the makers, and those who want some diversity. Wouldn't it be just more comfortable?

Besides, BIS said that they will "sign" some mods' work so that it would be mp compatible!

So, skipping the lofty words like "it would be a next step in the community development", why that topic died?

[max power 21]

There is already a suggestions page on the Biki. You should focus your efforts there.

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

There is already a suggestions page on the Biki. You should focus your efforts there.

I reported this to the bug list and linked it to this forum thread.

The reason I put it here is that more people see it and can discuss on it and share opinions.

Of course MODs would solve the problem but I think this is mainly BISs job. BIS has to offer a platform on which everyone can rely upon and start their work according to the parameters given by that platform.

It would be a great pitty if all the realism we loved in OFP, and which we hoped to be even improved in ArmA, would get lost this way.

[MehMan 0]

I think the problem is that 6/5 years ago OFP was more realistic than anything, now we get the same thing with ArmA and we aren't happy. I expected the removal of the hit point system and another, more logical system put in place. 5 years ago it was OK, now it's not. Now it's not OK that you can shoot at the antenna of the HMMWV and the whole thing blows up. Well, I hope BIS sees this mistake and corrects it. For BF2 the hitpoint system is ok, but I expected much more from ArmA. But, meh, I'll live with it.

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

New table of BMP-2 armour values released.

Find it here