Is the damage model for armor based on hit-points?

[Beltfed 0]

Just curious if that is true. I thought it was more sophisticated than that?

Thanks,

Belt

[hoz 0]

Moving to ArmA General...

[icebreakr 3157]

Beltfed: fire guns into BMP-2 for few clips with 2-3 guys and you'll see that it explodes

[max power 21]

It's based on hitpoints but it's more complicated than just that.  It's a little from column A and a little from column B.

There are a number of hit locations on vehicles, each with their own set of hitpoints and armour values, and there's a global hitpoint value.  Reducing a hit location to zero hitpoints has different effects for different areas.  I think destroying the engine will make the thing explode, wheels or tracks will disable its ability to drive (this effect is gradual)... and, reducing the whole thing to zero will make it explode.  The different armour values of the different areas of the tank will transfer different amounts of damage to its global hitpoints.  This may make for some strange behaviour sometimes, like it's easier to blow up some vehicles if you shoot it in the windscreen (so I hear) because the windscreen has a lower armour value.

[Beltfed 0]

Thanks guys. So, is it correct to say that if I had enough rounds I could kill an M1A1 by shooting a pistol into its frontal armor?

Belt

[Second 0]

It is correct.

But for your mouse's and your finger's shake: You need to shoot much less if you aim for engine.

[Misfit Leader 1]

Yes that is true, bullets can destroy a tank. But with pistol you will need at least some hour.

Try with machine gun, it's faster. 3 or 4 clips of M249 on rear back for example.

[NoRailgunner 0]

It works only at ease with empty vehicles.

[scruffy 22]

Thanks guys. So, is it correct to say that if I had enough rounds I could kill an M1A1 by shooting a pistol into its frontal armor?

Belt

It would be quite a life-task, but yes

Try it with a trigger telling you the overall damage: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">hint format ["%1 damage", damage tank]

tank is of course the name you have given the tank. For extra fun try it with "this setdamage 0.9" and shoot one round of something at it

[Rak 0]

I think there should be a better system years after OFP and ArmA, why not just adjust the armor zones that some zones would be "invincible" to small arms fire? I mean, tanks/APC's should be invincible to small arms fire rather than taking damage. It would be more realistic and makes more sense.

I'm a new player, and trying to love ArmA, but learning small quirks like these putting me off.

[benreeper 0]

This does not affect the gameplay in any practical sense unless you specifically try to exploit it.

What circumstance would afford you the opportunity to destroy a tank with a rifle, much less a pistol? If the tank isn't empty, you would be dead and if it is empty, why would it matter?

--Ben

[Beltfed 0]

I understand your point Ben, but just the possibility of it happening puts a good size dent in my like for this sim. Simulators simulate reality. A pistol killing an M1A1 is very far from realistic.

[Second 0]

System could be more comlex. Question is: How much stress that puts to CPU?

I could easily live with smaller (unit)scale than currently ArmA can do, if that would be the cost. Does dev team want that or community in overall? I overall doupt it: freedom, openess and big scale is what generally are valued over other things.

And remember there is not such thing as not able to penetrate: I've seen pictures of what happens when 30mm BMP-2's burst go thru T-72's frontal armor. There are weak points which are easy to penetrate.

[Rommel 2]

Unfortunately, its something I do exploit a lot in multiplayer, only because we're out of rockets .

Clear a Shilka site, but no one can reach the shilka because its blowing apart anyone that moves, hence I get one team to flank round, and make a racket, shooting and distracting the shilka, whils't I run up, and nail 30 rounds in the rear mudguard, then I hide under it while my mates nail the crew that jump out.

Its quite the teamwork effort

[benreeper 0]

The game is an infantry simulator not a tank simulator.

Also most of us that play this game (from the OFP days to now) want the large scale and freedom. All the other games have the small intricate scale and that does not appeal to me.

I don't play Arma for how well it simulates everything but how I am able to do everything. Besides, what tank or flight sim allows you to also fight on foot alongside 400 soldiers. This is a fair trade-off IMO.

--Ben

[Beltfed 0]

I was thinking ArmA was a combined arms sim of sorts. Oh well, the infantry part is damn good at least.

[benreeper 0]

I think of the vehicles as a bonus.

--Ben

[max power 21]

I was thinking ArmA was a combined arms sim of sorts.  Oh well, the infantry part is damn good at least.

But does this mean that everything is simulated down to the physics and systems or does it mean that the combat dynamics are simulated?

[code-red 0]

The game is an infantry simulator not a tank simulator.

I thought it was the ultimate combat simulator.

Including tanks

I play this game a lot, and i like it a lot.

But i still think it is not so strange that some one finds it unrealistic that you can shoot tanks with a rifle.

The man has a point.

[benreeper 0]

Would you be happier if they removed the tanks from the game?

It can't do everything. We don't have the supercomputers at home to run the "Ultimate Simulation" so there has to be compromises. The devs hope that we understand this, if not they might start making only "pretty corridor shooters": the types of games that people have no expectations to be "everything".

--Ben

[max power 21]

The game is an infantry simulator not a tank simulator.

I thought it was the ultimate combat simulator.

Including tanks  

I play this game a lot, and i like it a lot.

But i still think it is not so strange that some one finds it unrealistic that you can shoot tanks with a rifle.

The man has a point.

It's certainly up there. Can you think of a game that simulates combined arms operations from a first person perspective better?

I haven't played world war 2 online, so I don't know how that is, but ArmA is certainly in the top 3, I'd imagine.

[Second 0]

The devs hope that we understand this, if not they might start making only "pretty corridor shooters": the types of games that people have no expectations to be "everything".

I dunno, i could take ArmA which would have much smaller maps (what Farcry has or half of Everon), more microterrain, better AI (combat drill part atleast, with fast reflexes and evasive moves), better penetration model for vehicles and objects, upto 200-300 troops on map.

But i doupt that BIS will do that. And i'm getting offtopic (again)

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I thought it was the ultimate combat simulator.

But i still think it is not so strange that some one finds it unrealistic that you can shoot tanks with a rifle.

The man has a point.

It's a toy soldier game - not a "combat simulator". The game

experience (in SP anyway, and I suspect in most cases in MP

too) isn't nearly a faithful enough model of the reality (yet)

to merit the "simulation" title. It is a very good toy

soldier game, however.

The AI do not engage armour with small arms. Only human

players do that, and it requires a shed-load of (virtual) ammo

to do any damage (although I believe there is currently a

bug where in certain circumstances you can disable a

vehicle easily - presumably this will be fixed in due course).

If one tries to get into the proper spirit of the thing when

playing then this is really a non-issue.

Having mentioned the AI, for myself I'd prefer to see the AI

programmed to prefer avoiding tanks rather than to rush

towards them in a kamikaze RPG frenzy.

But I do agree that a basic armour penetration model (even if

greatly simplified) would be an improvement over the "collect

enough hit points and you win the jackpot" mechanism.

[Beltfed 0]

I was thinking ArmA was a combined arms sim of sorts.  Oh well, the infantry part is damn good at least.

But does this mean that everything is simulated down to the physics and systems or does it mean that the combat dynamics are simulated?

That is an interesting point Plaintiff.

[Heatseeker 0]

With all honesty i think the vehicles need to be developed much further (im talking about future instalements, not the current game).

I dont think system resources are much of an excuse here, GTA games have a more complex damage model, physics model, etc, etc.. its ofcourse extremely exagerated but you should get the point.

As for Arma.. i dont think they could have done better, even with the small amount of vehicle improvements over OPF the vehicles were/are full of issues.

I wouldnt mind having less but much better vehicles in Arma II.