Armor Warfare

[Dvich 0]

Hi,

I wish to know how realistic will armor warfare be in ArmA 2, in ArmA 1 (and OFP) it was VERY unrealistic in terms of the systems and systems operation (no fire control computer with laser range finder and modern sights), ammunition and ballistics (sabot rounds explode etc, rounds hit in the exact spot you aim to and in zero time) and armor penetration (armor has damage points where in real life it's either penetration or no penetration where penetration means that if systems or mechanical stuff get hit they cease to work, if the crew get hit they die and if ammunition get hit it's very likley that it will explode).

Will it be different this time?

[max power 21]

There's been no information on that. We've been told to expect no sweeping changes in the vehicle sim. Moreover a preview video depicts a UAZ exploding after it is hit with a number of machinegun rounds. My guess at this point would be that there will be no significant changes.

[mr.g-c 6]

Moreover a preview video depicts a UAZ exploding after it is hit with a number of machinegun rounds.  My guess at this point would be that there will be no significant changes.

Yes, i sadly have to agree.

Judging by this footage alone,

BIS seems to still not got it what the community wants and that people are ready for and even demanding such realism-stuff.

The "main-problem" at the mentioned UAZ exploding Footage is not mainly the "penetration" itself, because in fact a 7,62mm Round WILL penetrate thin skin of a UAZ/Car, but problem are IMHO the "After-Penetration-Effects".

Cars do not explode in RL, even when loaded with Ammo/Fuel - only in Hollywood they do.

Where is the Problem in making a slow getting stronger Fire, instead of a explosion? This could simulate/indicate of hitting the fuel-storage and the car catches slowly fire until being full on fire after some minutes.

I'm sure even the Arcade-Kids would like that kind of effect.

On the other Hand they are advertising this time "Realistic Penetrations" on the Arma2 Webpage, as well as mentioned in the Feature lists printed in Magazine-Articles.

But no worries, if this will be really the case then i personally would expect realism Mods such as ACE will introduce a "scripted Damage System", like that famous WorldWar2 Mod for old OFP1 did it already. This is by the way a very awesome system and makes IMHO a large difference in gameplay/teamplay into the right direction.

[Dvich 0]

That's a very bad news, MBT play a very big role in warfare and the way they work in ArmA (1/2) and OFP is just lame, unrealistic and just plainly ruins the fun, I don't think that scripiting this stuff would be very hard, the only big issue is getting the most authentic information because most of it is classified.

My biggest hope for ArmA 2 (along with better AI, physics and proper campaign) was a decent armor warfare realism in a non dedicated MBT sim, guess I won't find it this time.

I'm so disappointed!

[max power 21]

I don't think that such things ought to be accomplished through scripting.

Now remember that we're operating under some general statements and views of alpha builds. We have no current information, so speculating about specifics at this point is crystal ball gazing.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

[mr.g-c 6]

I don't think that such things ought to be accomplished through scripting.

Well, either you do Penetrations like NonWonderDog did it with his TankFireControlSystem (he added afaik some penetration "layers" in some special LODs) or you do it by pure Scripting like in the LiberationMod for OFP.

NWDs works great, but has AFAIK no After-penetration effects.

The Way from LibMod is working very cool with some awesome after-penetration effects.

So when you hit the tank for instance in the engine-chamber and you Projectile was able to penetrate that side/part of the vehicle, it is very likely that the engine catches Fire, Fuel is leaking, etc. etc. and finally crew disembarking.

Similar effects for different parts. This system is way ahead of its time.

So this changes Focus rather to "disabling" a tank, rather than to fully destroy it with a childish mega-Hollywood-explosion.

Quote[/b] ]

Now remember that we're operating under some general statements and views of alpha builds. We have no current information, so speculating about specifics at this point is crystal ball gazing.

You are fully right of course.... who knows maybe we will see it finally....this would be a awesome feature...

[Maddmatt 1]

Well, either you do Penetrations like NonWonderDog did it with his TankFireControlSystem (he added afaik some penetration "layers" in some special LODs)..

There was no penetration there. It was just reworking the model to get better damage for individual parts and raising the overall armour value, so you would end up more often with parts being disabled instead of the whole tank being destroyed. As well as some other tweaks.

ACE has some effects for different parts of the tank being hit (seperate fuel and ammo explosions), although it's far from perfect (And in ACE 1.01 a bit buggy in MP, but that will be fixed by the next patch).

[max power 21]

I don't think that such things ought to be accomplished through scripting.

Well, either you do Penetrations like NonWonderDog did it with his TankFireControlSystem (he added afaik some penetration "layers" in some special LODs) or you do it by pure Scripting like in the LiberationMod for OFP.

NWDs works great, but has AFAIK no After-penetration effects.

The Way from LibMod is working very cool with some awesome after-penetration effects.

So when you hit the tank for instance in the engine-chamber and you Projectile was able to penetrate that side/part of the vehicle, it is very likely that the engine catches Fire, Fuel is leaking, etc. etc. and finally crew disembarking.

Similar effects for different parts. This system is way ahead of its time.

So this changes Focus rather to "disabling" a tank, rather than to fully destroy it with a childish mega-Hollywood-explosion.

Just to clarify, I was saying that these things ought to be hard coded into the engine in the first place. I think that that would be optimal. This was in response to Dvich whom I interpreted to say, 'it shouldn't bet that hard for BIS to script in some semblance of a basic tank warfare sim'.

[mr.g-c 6]

@Maddmatt: Do you remember this: http://www.acemod.net/forums/project.php?issueid=550

Look in the attachment on the Right side, for me this looks like some layers of additional armor above....

@ plaintiff1: Roger that!

[Maddmatt 1]

@Maddmatt: Do you remember this: http://www.acemod.net/forums/project.php?issueid=550

Look in the attachment on the Right side, for me this looks like some layers of additional armor above....

No. What he has done there is move the hitpoints further out from the tank. This gets around a "bug" (feature?) where if one part is a hit, all parts up to 2.5(?) meters away will also take some damage - even when the ammo has no splash damage.

This basically ends up with individual components being damaged without affecting the parts around them.

It's a pity he's not still around, would be good if he could help BIS with the damage system...

[Commando84 0]

yeah some basic custom optics for tanks would be cool, its been almost the same in both Ofp and Arma 1, hope they change it so its a bit more cooler, would be awesome with IR but i guess it could risc eating away at the graphics card if used for longer periods like say in a game of warefare where you might survive for a long time inside a tank.

Imo remembering about old interviews I think Bis is worried about putting in stuff that could make the game perform bad.

[Rak 0]

At least they should introduce a FCS of some kind, so don't aim World War 2 style with the state-of-the-art tanks.

It doesn't have to be realistic as long as it creates the ilusion. Just make a damn aimbot script. NWD's Tank FCS is dead, because it was far too complicated for it's purpose. It was more like a realistic study, than a game addon.

Is it really so hard? Model one shiny vehicle less and add something valuable to gameplay.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Yeah Rakgitarmen because irl tank crews can lean back enjoy clicking on colored buttons and rely on aimbots....

If its really that easy someone had already found a walkaround. Imho most people here dont like to use aimbots or similar scripts.

[mr.g-c 6]

Thanks for that Clarification Maddmatt!

@Rakgitarmen:

NWDs FCS to complex?

This is/was so easy.... My little Brothers could use it live after 30minutes of Practice in Editor.

Modern Tank FCS are in RL really something "Arcade".... You lase the Target, the Ballisitcs-Computer calculates some Values like Wind speed, air-humidly, air density, distance to target, movement-speed of target, your speed, used ammunition, etc. and then you press the trigger on the Joystick - BAM Hit!

Where is the Problem in doing something inbetween?

Like having a Laser, you press TAB for 1 second while having the enemy Object at the cursor, then you press fire and the projectile hits at that Spot.... Thats at least better than that total WW2 (or even worse) we had since OFP.

[Dvich 0]

Thanks for that Clarification Maddmatt!

@Where is the Problem in doing something inbetween?

Like having a Laser, you press TAB for 1 second while having the enemy Object at the cursor, then you press fire and the projectile hits at that Spot.... Thats at least better than that total WW2 (or even worse) we had since OFP.

That's a great solution for meantime untill next installment, it is also possible to make a simple logic for penetration (or no penetration, just not armor hitpoints! based on the type of ammunition used, speed (if we take mr.g-c solution then it would be measured by distance) and where the projectile hit (because the type and thickness of armor is different on different points), this solution is very far from being prefect because you can't calculate the angle that the projectile hit on the Y axis (because of lack of ballistics as if we take mr.g-c solution) which is a very big factor in armor penetration, as opposed to all of those disadvantages those two solutions are FAR better than the uber-acradish and very disappointing MBT warfare we have now.

Another crtical issue is what happens after penetration, determining where from the projectile penetrates (and with what force if we talk about a kinetic penetrator) wouldn't be so hard as we would only have to measure the angle between the firing tank and the tank that got hit, but the big issue is that we wouldn't be able to know if it hits anything because systems and internal ammunition (etc..) aren't modelled in the tanks 3D modell, I also think that caculating a flying object (not graphicly, just to calculate what the penetrator hits after it penetrates) inside a tank is not supported in the engine as well as clipping (means if the 3D shape is solid), that is a big issue that would require some work.

[Rak 0]

Yeah Rakgitarmen because irl tank crews can lean back enjoy clicking on colored buttons and rely on aimbots....

If its really that easy someone had already found a walkaround. Imho most people here dont like to use aimbots or similar scripts.

IRL a FCS is doing the targeting for you, nothing wrong with that representing it in-game to give proper immersion.

You shouldn't compare my words "aimbot" with those cheats around.

Quote[/b] ]Thanks for that Clarification Maddmatt!

@Rakgitarmen:

NWDs FCS to complex?

This is/was so easy.... My little Brothers could use it live after 30minutes of Practice in Editor.

Modern Tank FCS are in RL really something "Arcade".... You lase the Target, the Ballisitcs-Computer calculates some Values like Wind speed, air-humidly, air density, distance to target, movement-speed of target, your speed, used ammunition, etc. and then you press the trigger on the Joystick - BAM Hit!

Where is the Problem in doing something inbetween?

Like having a Laser, you press TAB for 1 second while having the enemy Object at the cursor, then you press fire and the projectile hits at that Spot.... Thats at least better than that total WW2 (or even worse) we had since OFP.

You completely miss my point.

NWD's FCS is complex from the coding standpoint. I suggest you to read his thread to see what he has gone through to get those real-life targeting data and optical specifications, not to mention painfull process of finding workarounds in current ArmA mod tools to create that mod.

It was hard, because he had to build it from scratch. If the devs just included a simple FCS in every tank(actually like you said, lase the target for a few secs, then shoot), something universal, then modders could build upon it and maybe even bring it to real-life specifications. I just want devs to lay the foundry for better immersion this time.

[mr.g-c 6]

@Rakgitarmen

Ok now i understand.... i agree to what you said of course!

[chappy 0]

NWDs work was possibly the most important mod for armed assault and it never got to a state that was considered finished. It simply doesnt work in MP which is a real shame.

but what is a bigger shame is the likelyhood that arma2 will NOT have realistic Tank and IFV fire control systems modelled in their vehicles. this fact alone makes their claim to be the most realistic sim around utterly false. The current arma optic sights on the MBTs is a joke, as is the damage model. You can kill an MBT with enough 50cal in arma. If they dont have realistic tank damage models and fire control systems i seriously doubt i will fork money out for it.

[wipman 1]

Hi, what's more shamefull for me, it's that im sure that (again) we

can't use the APC/IFV hatches and shot from the cargo possition

on any vehicle; cars, light armoured vehicles, helicopters or what

ever. That's something that we can do in arcade games like the BF2

but that we can't do in what should be a more serious game that

try to be more than an arcade, that's a true shame; not only the

leak of weapons systems that work in a more closer way to the

reality than what we already had in the OFP eight years ago, or in

the ArmA two years ago. Thant's my main complain about the way

that the vehicles work. Let's C ya

[NoRailgunner 0]

Rakgitarmen ok sorry thought you were speaking of such aimbots cheats.

Imho Arma2 isnt going to be the "ultimate hardcore simulation". Guess more something between mainstream and simulation trying to attract sim "fanatics" and non-sim players. Look around how many people have the time to learn sth. for a game and how many people dont care and want a simple (+fast) gameplay.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]....and how many people dont care and want a simple (+fast) gameplay....

Well those people are clearly wrong at BI-Games since OFP then....

Also neither for a (simple made) Tank FCS, nor for shooting out of non-gunner positions is any long learning phase required.

Read my example with the "Tab-key - Lase - Fire" Idea. That would be for me already enough and modders could then extend it

[CarlGustaffa 4]

On the tank aiming issue, a more realistic FCS *is* easier gameplay. Having to aim WWII style *is* tough as hell and more likely to waste ammo.

Why doesn't NWD work in multiplayer? Never checked how the mod works internally, but I suspect firing over large distances causes the same issues as when operating as a sniper against moving targets -- lag and update issues causing the target not to be where they are expected to be. If this is the case, the problem lies deeper within the ArmA engine than just the aiming procedure.

I don't see a problem of having to laze the target first before each shot to make the projectile automatically hit where the laser target was, without the need to do any reticle magic. But it doesn't guarantee a hit in ArmA because of its underlying long range issues.

[Second 0]

Also neither for a (simple made) Tank FCS, nor for shooting out of non-gunner positions is any long learning phase required.

I agree. I've played few tank sims and after learning how it works, ww2 style system just doesn't work in modern tanks.

Sure in close engagment distances i'd still might go for ww2 style (aka emegency sights) as they are fast: Target to cross hair and BAM! Target dead. I remeber in T-72 Balkans on fire i many times toggled emergency mode on as i could do that shooting process about 2 seconds faster than with "Lase and Lead"-system. From distances less than 500 meters... then again my joystick was bad (and cheap) so that really didnt' help to get proper lead. Moving fast moving targets at + 1000 kilometers bacame problematic as joystick had tendensy to add it's own spices to soup.

And it shouldn't be too problematic to include this FCS into game.

1. Distance

2. Movement speed and direction

3. Adjust projectiles angles by results of 1. and 2. and take ballistic of particular round into consideration (this way barrel doesnt' get adjusted only projectile when it starts it's flight)

4. BAM we have dead carcass of vehicle if formula is correct.

I really can't say is it this simple or is there something more needed. But if this is correct then most problem is to include ballistic data of all projectiles in game. Which to developers and modders shouldn't be too hard

Making it more complex and sure it gets bigger and more complicated, but as far as i can see this already works pretty fine.

[alpha125rbf 0]

TANKS are in fact unrealistic. But not only the targeting system.

This can be improved: A laser rangefinder and weapon angle with "green" light when the gun is aimed on target would be enough realism for me.

But the real tank and APC also fights different than the Ai in the game!

Moving from cover to cover, keeping distance to the enemy and use the advantages of your weapons is the key to survavial and victory in every battle. Losing the advantages is death to eyery tanker in this world. No matter what tank you have; T-72M, Merkava, Abrams.. they all burn the same. There is no "tank rush" in modern warfare. Just tank fire from superior positions and advance on them. With charge tactics, support, fast, deadly.

If hostile tank has seen you - you die. Instantly. If you see  well planed enemy tank assault (and they are kind of successful cuz. tanks are expensive) your life is in the moust cases over. Thats why IMHO BIS don't improve the "tanks".

I have a bad feeling about ArmA 2:

The BIS have not fully understood that there are kids pirating games for kids (like CoD), and there are adults with different tastes and demands who buy the games that ArmA II should be.

The sale results of GTA IV are based on adult customer group, not on kids. Thats why they are high. But in GTA you are kind of action hero, in military sim it is the best way to lose serious customers.

There is no point of making games with good graphics and "I kill them all" action - or "fair" shooter balance like BF or CSS. There is still no good infantry - warfare sim (since OPF). Only shooters.