new damage system

[dentist guba 0]

i have thought of a way to make the damage system(mainly for vehicles) work better. it would basically involve separating different parts more so e.g have the engine as one (part) and each part would have code for the effects of damaging it. this could also work well with Deanosbeano's mod for visible damage and wouldn't need a massive engine overhaul. i posted it here because i'm not sure whether it would have to be modded or not. discuss the possibility of it.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Game 2. As reference check lock-on damage model, I like it, but I am not a dev hence can`t judge what this approach would do to the CPU/GPU/RAM utilization.

[Pierrot 0]

dentist guba, it has already been realized in OFP and of course in ArmA. The problem is that;

-User mods cannot define new damage parts.

-Each part simply accumulates even a damage caused by rifle bullet. That means you can destroy tanks even with rifles.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

So we can't make this way shooting to the right leg,the red texture would appear just on the right leg not another part of the body.

[dentist guba 0]

Quote[/b] ]Each part simply accumulates even a damage caused by rifle bullet. That means you can destroy tanks even with rifles.

surely with the new penetration system the rifle bullets could be made so they wouldnt get through the armour and maybe the damage and armour values could be tweaked.

Quote[/b] ]User mods cannot define new damage parts

thats why i thougt of leaving it to BIS or maybe they could allow modders to define parts.

Quote[/b] ]dentist guba, it has already been realized in OFP and of course in ArmA. The problem is that;

i meant it should just be improved a bit. at the moment vehicles are still defined as one thing with stuff attached so you can kill a car(and all its occupants) by shooting the roof.

[nephilim 0]

the thing you are refering to is already possible to realize in ofp.

but its tedious work and not THAT practical.

ive tried it with some test models and it worked pretty good

apart from some things you simple cant avoid.

you really have to live with some cutbacks im afraid

arma has some advantages but im no scripting guru so i cant give any deep insight into that.

but it surely is possible or will be possible at some stage,

actually im pretty sure it already is :P

but we simply need to get accustomed to the arma engine

to take maximum advantage of its possibilities

[desertfox 2]

There have been a couple interesting discussions already concerning the damage model of vehicles.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

One workaround to avoid the possibility to destroy a tank with small arms fire would be to assign to tracks and fuselage and turret a script that checks after each impact event how much the damage was increased. If it was just a very tiny increase it would is set back to the previous value. But as usual this might have some odd side effects and it might cause laag if I imagine that a complete rifle squad of 60 soldiers equipped with M249 started fire on a T72 and for each impact the damage is increased and decreased again.

[Col.Flanders 0]

It's a shame the way it is. 3 frag grenades on a BMP should not cause the crew to bail out and run for the hills. Same goes for machine gun nests hitting a M113. The crews should feel toasty in there and laugh at attempts like these.

While we're speaking about vehicle damage - I'm sure it's been mentioned many times before but why oh why is there no sound of an AT round impacting on armour? <-sp. (I'm South African )...even HEAT or sabot from other tanks make no sound. If I don't see the source from one of these rounds I have to completely rely on my "damage indicator" on the hud. Enyone else experience this or is it just a sound issue with me?

[SeppSchrot 0]

Enyone else experience this or is it just a sound issue with me?

I experienced this in the 1.02 vanilla ArmA.

But either upgrading to 1.05 or the FinMod Soundpatch solved this problem for me.

[TiGGa 0]

Why don't they just increase the hitpoints for heavy tanks to 1000000, while leaving the amount of damage for handguns and rifles as it is now?

You just have to increase the damage of AT weapons too.

By that, small firearms don't have an effect on tanks anymore.

[Heatseeker 0]

It's a shame the way it is. 3 frag grenades on a BMP should not cause the crew to bail out and run for the hills. Same goes for machine gun nests hitting a M113. The crews should feel toasty in there and laugh at attempts like these.

I've heard that M113's armor is not that thick, i remember hearing from some friends that even 7.62 could go thru (i have 3 friends who drove M113's). Its likely that newer upgrades use thicker armor but i think 50 caliber could easily rip thru.

[messiahua 0]

I think, that is should be easy to solve those things like throwing few grenades at T72 and it explodes or N rounds from M249 at M1A1 and it will also explode. They just need to add some parameters, which define what ammunition type don't penetrate vehicle armor and that's it. No need to add some high armor values to 1000000, just set "invincible mode" against certain types.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why don't they just increase the hitpoints for heavy tanks to 1000000, while leaving the amount of damage for handguns and rifles as it is now? You just have to increase the damage of an AT weapons too.

Then a hit from AT weapon would send vehicles to low earth orbit. If you increased vehicle masses to prevent this, a dozen other things would break etc.

[Col.Flanders 0]

It's a shame the way it is. 3 frag grenades on a BMP should not cause the crew to bail out and run for the hills. Same goes for machine gun nests hitting a M113. The crews should feel toasty in there and laugh at attempts like these.

I've heard that M113's armor is not that thick, i remember hearing from some friends that even 7.62 could go thru (i have 3 friends who drove M113's). Its likely that newer upgrades use thicker armor but i think 50 caliber could easily rip thru.

Could very well be! - I think it is/was only around 12-14mm thick?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

One workaround to avoid the possibility to destroy a tank with small arms fire would be to assign to tracks and fuselage and turret a script that checks after each impact event how much the damage was increased. If it was just a very tiny increase it would is set back to the previous value. But as usual this might have some odd side effects and it might cause laag if I imagine that a complete rifle squad of 60 soldiers equipped with M249 started fire on a T72 and for each impact the damage is increased and decreased again.

That capabilty doesn't exist for scripters.

The simplest way at this time (without redesigning the damage system or using laggy workarounds) is probably to give vehicles a single config entry that defines a minimum hit value, where any single hit with a lower value is ignored. Yea, it's far from perfect but it's probably the fastest and easiest solution considering the developers' situation and runs little or no risk of removing any functionality for modders (since it can be removed with a value of 0).

Doing it by the ammo's simulation type won't cut it because high caliber bullets will penetrate armor, and even if they didn't some modder might want to use that simulation to fake a different kind of armor peircing projectile.

[max power 21]

In reality, most of the ifvs, armoured cars and apcs should be able to penetrate each other (I'm not sure how the stryker is). They should all be penetrated by the 12.7mm bullets except the bmp, which should be immune to them from the front. The bdrm should be able to turn all of those vehicles into swiss cheese with the 14.5mm cannon, and all of those 20mm cannons and higher should do the job admirably from any angle. I'm not sure, though, what penetration necessarily entails. I know that the way that the bmp is laid out that penetrating hits were very dangerous. Shooting at those armoured cars like the hummer and the bdrm, it should be much easier to kill the crew if ArmA was seeking to give you a closer view of reality.

[twisted 128]

This would be so good.

In fact i cannot believe that BIS has not done something like this already. I am a Arma fan. But the damage system needs more tweaking in the regard that shooting a tank with bullets should just result in you running out of bullets.

suggestions here are all mostly good. and it would really give vehicles tactical advantages over each other.

[fasad 1]

The intersect command might be combined with a hit eventHandler to remove/reduce damage caused by specific rounds to specific sections of a target.

It's not an ideal "low-level" solution but it might work with some slowdown.

[<>Sharpy<> 0]

It's a shame the way it is. 3 frag grenades on a BMP should not cause the crew to bail out and run for the hills. Same goes for machine gun nests hitting a M113. The crews should feel toasty in there and laugh at attempts like these.

I've heard that M113's armor is not that thick, i remember hearing from some friends that even 7.62 could go thru (i have 3 friends who drove M113's). Its likely that newer upgrades use thicker armor but i think 50 caliber could easily rip thru.

I served in a BRDM2 as a gunner. Ak-72B(variant of AK-47) , was able to penetrate the armor of that bloody metal coffin. at most points of the vehicle. If you have armoured tipped bullets, than its good bye charlie, was nice meeting you.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Quote[/b] ]The simplest way at this time (without redesigning the damage system or using laggy workarounds) is probably to give vehicles a single config entry that defines a minimum hit value, where any single hit with a lower value is ignored. Yea, it's far from perfect but it's probably the fastest and easiest solution considering the developers' situation and runs little or no risk of removing any functionality for modders (since it can be removed with a value of 0).

Doing it by the ammo's simulation type won't cut it because high caliber bullets will penetrate armor, and even if they didn't some modder might want to use that simulation to fake a different kind of armor peircing projectile.

Wouldn`t it do the same? Hence I am fine with that. But it is a CR to BI

Quote[/b] ]The simplest way at this time (without redesigning the damage system or using laggy workarounds) is probably to give vehicles a single config entry that defines a minimum hit value, where any single hit with a lower value is ignored. Yea, it's far from perfect but it's probably the fastest and easiest solution considering the developers' situation and runs little or no risk of removing any functionality for modders (since it can be removed with a value of 0).

Doing it by the ammo's simulation type won't cut it because high caliber bullets will penetrate armor, and even if they didn't some modder might want to use that simulation to fake a different kind of armor peircing projectile.

I guess it requires a lot of research and config tweaking to respect all armor upgrades that for example a BMP could come with.

And as usual, since there is no "normal" or "zero" set by BI, you need to assemble a complete config for all items to used together on a map to be sure that they interact in the right way like DVD or WGL is doing it.

[max power 21]

you could have the armour do some damage reduction.. like, it subtracts a certain amount of damage from each hit.. then you could have the vehicle have few actual hitpoints, so you wouldn't need to have huge numbers for any armour or weapons values. So , if you hit a bmp in the crew compartment, the damage less the damage reduction would be transmitted the the hull and crew... same with engine, etc.

[fireship4 0]

Can someone (knowlegable) confirm for sure that it's not possible to add more hit areas to a vehicle (ie hithull hitltrack)? Even one which you create yourself? What about with the tools BIS will be releasing?

The USTP team (of which I and plaintiff1 am part) have been having discussions along the same lines as a side-project, and it would be a shame if this capability is not there in-game.