Still no destroyed models

[Törni 0]

Killing tanks with sustained MG fire is really stupid. Once you realize that this can be done it takes a lot of so called "realism" away from the game.

[Second 0]

- an angle is expressed 2D....so what angle do you pick? zx, xy, yz?

- you also didnt explained how to calculate the relative angle of the surface facing.

- neither you explained how can the AI distingue front, side and rear

X, Y and Z all can be checked by 'getposASL' of AT-guy and tank. Relative angle can be calculated, if you mean position of both and calculating angle which target is facing relative to shooter.

Vector of target also can be found to discover how tank lies on ground... If i recall correctly. I haven't used it ever, just setvector command which sets X Y and Z vectors of desired object.

Front usually points to direction what 'getdir' offers. Of course someone can introduce vehicle-addon where these two don't match (or can?), but i don't know is AI able to even use that vehicle. I dont' remeber can turret's direction be found, haven't much messed with vehicles with scirpting... Well it should because there are lots of scripts using smoke launchers in tanks (ad direction where they get hurled is defined by direction of turret).

Pulvizer's suggestion does work as far as i can gather. Not pretty or optimum solution, but doable alright. AI handles the targeting/shooting by itself, so when criteria of flank shot is met (with high enough exposeness of flank), he gets his AT-launcher mags and rest goes by built-in AI. Which defines on it's own can it hit tank and on which part (turret, hull or both).

Problem also comes from fact that if wishing to keep script addon combatible (or provide new "flankshot.PBO" file with every addon), all new armors and AT-weapons should be included to find out does AT-guy need to wait for flank shots. Ofcourse flank shots are always valued more than frontal shots because their change to kill or immobilize tank are better... But i don't know does that need to be included if keeping penetration model simple.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Looks like a good solution too... the best one should be the lightler to process.

Regarding AT-Rockets fixes wikipedia says that RPG-7 auto.detonate at 1.000m (if anyone can forward to corrovorate this...) so they should fix that too. I strongly believe that the path of the rockets is too tense and straight I think it should be more parabolic with a high drop at 400m.

@plaintiff: being cappable of a detailed damage system could be awesome if at least the parts were operational... ARMA 1 have good looking tanks but all of the systems are not operational... there is no aiming system appart from the player moving the mouse...for god sake...even the smoke dischargers dont work!

Another thing that should be taken into the account for the ballistics is that the tanks should carry more types of ammo because for example...if a M1 shoot a SABOT to a UAZ almost at any range it will cleanly pierce it side to side and if there are not any passengers on the LOS they almost shouldnt be affected.

[dm 9]

if a M1 shoot a SABOT to a UAZ almost at any range it will cleanly pierce it side to side and if there are not any passengers on the LOS they almost shouldnt be affected.

Apart from the fact its just been hit by ~4.5Kg of pentrator moving at ~1500 meters a second. Pretty sure thats going to mess your day up if you're sat in a UAZ.

(I dont disagree that the jeep would be cleanly pierced, and would not explode in a big fireball, but the passengers would most certainly be "effected" as would the overall structural integrity of the jeep - doors blown off, windows popped, any canvas ripped off)

[Lou Montana 101]

Regarding AT-Rockets fixes wikipedia says that RPG-7 auto.detonate at 1.000m (if anyone can forward to corrovorate this...) so they should fix that too. I strongly believe that the path of the rockets is too tense and straight I think it should be more parabolic with a high drop at 400m.

A friend of mine told me about RPG's 3 months ago... yes, they fall down after 400 meters (more or less). but I told him there was an automatic-destruction on each rocket (he didn't know) ; but he said he used to fire it 100-200m maximum, it's not a "sniper" weapon

[Benoist 0]

Actually it's 900 meters and it's already implemented.

Sit in South Sahrani mountain and shot one RPG, it will never reach the floor. Do it with an AT-4 and you will see the diferences.

And I really don't understand it, why the heck the developed the RPG that way? It's useless beyond 200 meters (against something with armor), the accuracy decreases too much.

[Second 0]

I don't understand either why BIS made RPG-7 as so strange weapon. But hey, BIS hasn't ever made realistic AT-weapons. Trajectory is always way too flat. Experienced gunner could take out armors from 400 meters in OFP as well with something like M72, probably needing one spotting round.

In ArmA that distance is pretty much nothing. 500 meters for AT-4 is quite simple, if player knows that he should cover target with sights and not aim with pole of front sight. Provided that target doesn't move.

Then again ArmA's terrain allows vehicles to use far too great speed. Tanks could move 60 km/h in any flat terrain (well not in forest) if i remember right, and AI gunner doesnt' have much trouble at keeping it's target in sights and score hits. So compensation in AT-weapons in that sense is more understandable.

[icebreakr 3157]

Try out our beta addon SBP Pack v0.93 with M80 Zolja launcher

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M80_Rocket_Launcher)

Addon is available here (28MB)

... you can find it in the crates along with FN F2000 rifle, mortar mines for m70ab1 rifle and stuff like that

and see how you like it compared to the real experience with RPGs

In new version gamelogic will make M80 a one-shot weapon and it will be dropped to ground after the launch.

[Second 0]

Can i carry multiple of those disposable weapons    That is my real-life experience.

Ofcourse another is that i can set sights to range which i desire, like 100 meters or 200 meters. that isn't present in ArmA, so if trajectories are realistic then AT-weapon itself is harder to aim to various ranges. Ofcourse launchers with optics or M72-like front sight (plastic plate with scale markings) are different matter as they have range's marked in to sights.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

if a M1 shoot a SABOT to a UAZ almost at any range it will cleanly pierce it side to side and if there are not any passengers on the LOS they almost shouldnt be affected.

Apart from the fact its just been hit by ~4.5Kg of pentrator moving at ~1500 meters a second. Pretty sure thats going to mess your day up if you're sat in a UAZ.

(I dont disagree that the jeep would be cleanly pierced, and would not explode in a big fireball, but the passengers would most certainly be "effected" as would the overall structural integrity of the jeep - doors blown off, windows popped, any canvas ripped off)

mmmm...maybe if it hits the engine...otherwise I still think it would go through like warm butter...especially in the not armored UAZ...I think even a .50 CAL round could do that if say it hits the trunk side by side.

[max power 21]

Yeah. The damage to the UAZ would happen more or less in a linear axis, but whenever you're piercing metal with high velocity stuff, the metal will splinter and fragment and spall all over the place. Also, the penetrator will also break up, especially if it's DU. DU is a pyrophoric material and so will spread burning uranium everywhere. So I think you can say it will pass through the UAZ but I don't think that you can guarantee the crew will be unaffected if they don't lie in the immediate ray of the path of the penetrator.

[dm 9]

mmmm...maybe if it hits the engine...otherwise I still think it would go through like warm butter...especially in the not armored UAZ...I think even a .50 CAL round could do that if say it hits the trunk side by side.

I'm not sure you're (generally, not just you) getting the significance of 4.5Kg and 1500 meters/second.

To help put this into perspective, when you're driving in a car to 70 miles per hour/112 kilometers per hour, you're travelling at a little over 31 meters a second.

Now consider the penetrator, is travelling nearly 50 times faster than that. Its going to be creating one hell of a shockwave.

Yes I agree its going to go through the UAZ as if it wasnt there, but it is also going to mess it up. I dont buy into the whole "sucked the crew out of the hole on the other side" nonsense, but it will do a significant amount of damage to the vehicle. Hell, get a round travelling that fast close enough to a flying helicopter, and it has enough shockwave to flip the thing!

Small arms are another matter - you're talking 10-100 grams, which is nowhere near enough to create the shockwaves when you look at 120mm ammo. So they will generally pass through the car without necessarily harming the occupants.

[max power 21]

I'm not sure you're (generally, not just you) getting the significance of 4.5Kg and 1500 meters/second.

To help put this into perspective, when you're driving in a car to 70 miles per hour/112 kilometers per hour, you're travelling at a little over 31 meters a second.

Now consider the penetrator, is travelling nearly 50 times faster than that. Its going to be creating one hell of a shockwave.

Yes I agree its going to go through the UAZ as if it wasnt there, but it is also going to mess it up. I dont buy into the whole "sucked the crew out of the hole on the other side" nonsense, but it will do a significant amount of damage to the vehicle. Hell, get a round travelling that fast close enough to a flying helicopter, and it has enough shockwave to flip the thing!

Small arms are another matter - you're talking 10-100 grams, which is nowhere near enough to create the shockwaves when you look at 120mm ammo. So they will generally pass through the car without necessarily harming the occupants.

A few round passed through some abrams tanks during Gulf War 1 without harming the crew. Most of the injuries were said to be from fragmentation. Others are said to be from the crew being rocked off balance and hitting their knees or some such thing, or being burned. None of them are said to be from overpressure (that I have seen).

Here are some links to documents regarding sabot penetrations of the crew compartments an abrams tank:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....002.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....002.htm

here are some documents regarding some sabot rounds passing through a bradley:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....001.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....001.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....002.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii....002.htm

These are only two incidents, and if you really look through the endnotes of this document

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm#back%20en%20375

You might be able to find an occurrence of wounding due to overpressure but judging by the overview, it's not mentioned.

And thus, I have my doubts about the claim that a tank shell can flip a helicopter by passing close to it since it has not been demonstrated by these documents (these BDAs, or on wikipedia) to have caused harm to a person. If you have any documents to the contrary, I would love to read them. I am interested in getting to know more on this subject.

[dm 9]

And thus, I have my doubts about the claim that a tank shell can flip a helicopter by passing close to it since it has not been demonstrated by these documents (these BDAs, or on wikipedia) to have caused harm to a person. If you have any documents to the contrary, I would love to read them. I am interested in getting to know more on this subject.

I dont recall where the actual source was, and ofcourse google isnt helpful at all.

I do recall that it was presented as part of a very long discussion of smart ammo vs rockets/missiles shot from the barrel vs traditional high velocity ammo.

There were test videos of OH-58A's being shot at with all 3 types of ammo, and the results were pretty catestrophic with all 3.

It seems that the overpressure injuries, much like the "crew being sucked out the exit hole" is somewhat of a myth. I stand corrected.

[max power 21]

It seems that the overpressure injuries, much like the "crew being sucked out the exit hole" is somewhat of a myth. I stand corrected.

Much to the relief of brave tank crews everywhere!

[icebreakr 3157]

If I reply to Second's comment about M80 Zolja:

I got following info from author:

In order to simulate carrying multiple launchers, you can pick multiple "rockets" that store in your inventory. When you fire first and tube falls to the ground, next one spawns on your back until you run out of launchers in inventory.

To be more realistic, author also claims that ~15% of shots will fail. 3% fins won't open properly and will fly off wildly to other direction, ~7% will fail on impact with a little bang and very little damage to vehicle.

And on a separate topic about (khm..) penetration, a cool shot of a SUV accidentally hit by F16 M61A1 20mm cannon around 70 rounds were fired and here are the results:

image & article (both passengers in front had been lucky and survived)

[Michael_Wittman 0]

If I reply to Second's comment about M80 Zolja:

And on a separate topic about (khm..) penetration, a cool shot of a SUV accidentally hit by F16 M61A1 20mm cannon around 70 rounds were fired and here are the results:

image & article (both passengers in front had been lucky and survived)

That was exactly what I was saying

[7 0]

If I reply to Second's comment about M80 Zolja:

And on a separate topic about (khm..) penetration, a cool shot of a SUV accidentally hit by F16 M61A1 20mm cannon around 70 rounds were fired and here are the results:

image & article (both passengers in front had been lucky and survived)

That was exactly what I was saying

look! it didnt explode!

[mr.g-c 6]

If I reply to Second's comment about M80 Zolja:

And on a separate topic about (khm..) penetration, a cool shot of a SUV accidentally hit by F16 M61A1 20mm cannon around 70 rounds were fired and here are the results:

image & article (both passengers in front had been lucky and survived)

That was exactly what I was saying

look! it didnt explode!  

Thats because there is no "hitpoints-model" in Real-Life  

It looks like it didn't even catched fire....

50 cal penetration... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTXqeUoVZN4&feature=related

[wipman 1]

Hi, the main problem that i see with do destroyed/damaged vehicle

models is to represent what really did happen in the field; i mean...

if you shot an APC/IFV with an RPG weapon in the tracks and you

disable it's movement... then you'll have to have a model of that X

vehicle with that side's track/wheels damaged; if you hit it in the

turret... then that's another model to add/do and if you destroy it

completly... then that's another one, which means alot of work.

But, i'll really like to have a single fixed dissabled/destroyed model

for each vehicle instead the ridiculous and outdated system that

BIS keep using from the OFP in the ArmA and seems that they gonna

keep that annoying über sucky crap of system in the ArmA2 too.

Really, i think that we (all the players) will preffer to see a static

destroyed model with (usable) passengers and crew seats (for

cutscenes and intros pourpouses) than the current damaged or

destroyed vehicles representaion that we've. Let's C ya

[Second 0]

If I reply to Second's comment about M80 Zolja:

I got following info from author:

In order to simulate carrying multiple launchers, you can pick multiple "rockets" that store in your inventory. When you fire first and tube falls to the ground, next one spawns on your back until you run out of launchers in inventory.

To be more realistic, author also claims that ~15% of shots will fail. 3% fins won't open properly and will fly off wildly to other direction, ~7% will fail on impact with a little bang and very little damage to vehicle.

Interesting