Idea for new armor system.

[mechastalin 0]

The current armor system allows for a handful of selections and lets us set their armor and some other values, this being the hull, turret, tracks, engines, etc. The current armor system on these parts isn't bad but the problem is with it being limited to these parts. If BI was to make a small adjustment allowing us to define custom selections in the armor section of the config you would have no limit on how detailed the armor of a vehicle could be.

This would allow us to set different armor for virtually every polygon of the tank and it would only be limited by how dedicated the addon maker was. You could even have an ERA system with each ERA block being a separate selection with very high armor that is deleted on contact.

I think this small adjustment by BIS would improve armor in the game 100 fold and make the game ultimately considerably more realistic.

[kevb0 0]

That's a good idea, I hope this somehow finds itself into a later ArmA version. Let's just hope it's as much work as you're making it seem.

Even if this doesn't get into ArmA, there will definately be workarounds, I'm sure.

[Rean 0]

This would be an extremely useful addition for those that want something a little more realistic when it comes to armor. The current system makes battlefield 2 look good. It is unacceptable for it to remain this way.

[fireship4 0]

yah this was an idea we had in the USTP project. SO do we know its not possible to add new definitions even with the tools?

[mechastalin 0]

yah this was an idea we had in the USTP project. SO do we know its not possible to add new definitions even with the tools?

The armor values are defined in the config by referencing a selection on the model. The system proposed above wouldn't require the tools to be adapted to armor addons.

[psycosmos 0]

Sounds like a good suggestion, would be interesting to see what the devs think about this.

[fireship4 0]

yes I have looked at the config - but do we need dev input on this? Once the tools come put shouldnt we be able to define new sections on any models we make? Then reference to them in the configs?

[mechastalin 0]

yes I have looked at the config - but do we need dev input on this? Once the tools come put shouldnt we be able to define new sections on any models we make? Then reference to them in the configs?

We can do it on the current models and programs, the problem is the game does not recognize the new sections in the armor config.

[psycosmos 0]

yes I have looked at the config - but do we need dev input on this? Once the tools come put shouldnt we be able to define new sections on any models we make? Then reference to them in the configs?

That was more meant as "Yeah, we can do that.", "No, because of...".

Not needed at all, I just like to know reasons, especially if a good and simple suggestion that imho has potential gets turned down.

[fireship4 0]

any chance the tools will mean the game will recognise new definitions?

[mechastalin 0]

any chance the tools will mean the game will recognise new definitions?

We have everything we need to test new definitions using the current system already, so no.

[fireship4 0]

is this something that can be implemented if BIS dont then? Or is it too deeply imbedded

[Guggy 0]

Does anyone know how DamageResistance works in a unit's config?

I imagine that the number displayed simply chops off whatever amount from a unit's damage number, but testing has proven that isnt the case.

[mechastalin 0]

is this something that can be implemented if BIS dont then? Or is it too deeply imbedded

No idea. But I'd hope BIS will put it in either way, the armor needs to be improved a bit over 6 years since OFPs release.

I'm not sure if damage resistance actually modifies the damage a unit takes but rather tells the AI what type of weapon to engage it with.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2559

[mechastalin 0]

http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2559

Good idea, thanks for posting!

[maddogx 13]

This definitely a great idea and something I would like to see in ArmA.

It isn't quite as easily implemented as some might think though. The current selections are hard coded to different functions of the vehicle, for example if the tail rotor section takes damage the tail rotor will stop working, or if the fuel tank of a helicopter is damaged it will lose fuel. Defining a new damage section would also mean having to tell the engine what to do with it, otherwise it would just be another selection.

Like I said, this is a really cool idea, but it requires a bit more work than just allowing new damage sections.

[mechastalin 0]

This definitely a great idea and something I would like to see in ArmA.

It isn't quite as easily implemented as some might think though. The current selections are hard coded to different functions of the vehicle, for example if the tail rotor section takes damage the tail rotor will stop working, or if the fuel tank of a helicopter is damaged it will lose fuel. Defining a new damage section would also mean having to tell the engine what to do with it, otherwise it would just be another selection.

Like I said, this is a really cool idea, but it requires a bit more work than just allowing new damage sections.

Of course, but it doesnt require as much as say completely redoing the armor system.

[whisper 0]

Did I dream or someone already used custom selection in OFP? I remember someone posting the technique to use custom selections...

[mechastalin 0]

Did I dream or someone already used custom selection in OFP? I remember someone posting the technique to use custom selections...

If you can find this I'll be really appreciative.