An observation about tanks.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

If I remember correctly. Where there HEAT & SOBAT rods in OFP?

[frederf 0]

Yes there were. This has been interesting reading about the various tanks. I knew most but it's hardly my forte.

[RedRage 0]

@RED Rage: Got any video examples of this 'fantastic ballistics engine that is unmatched' which you speak of?

Just download the demo of one of Combat Missions, preferably Shock Force since it deals with modern topic and has all the armor included in A2, and try it (although do not get freaked out by graphics, it is a strategy/wargame after all, and by wargame standards it is simply stunning). No other game provided me with moments like sneaking an RPG team around a parked enemy tank for 15 minutes just to get that rear or side shot where the armor is weak. Tanks have workable ERA modeled in as well, meaning that when a tank round (or small caliber cannon burst) hits an ERA brick (or module with Kontakt5), it will most likely be stopped (depending of course on the type of warhead that was fired) and the ERA brick disappears from the model in the exact spot the round hit. System is so detailed that certain tanks even have "weak spots" included into them based on real-life analysis.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

HEAT & SOBAT rods in OFP?

Yes there were/are.

But not simulated like that. I remember how WGL and DVD spend endless hours.....not hours, months! to somehow achieve similar results as in reality but with the existing functions.

But a tandem-warhead vs. a reactive armor is still not simulated in a good way.

And not at all the fact that your 2nd hit at the same point would do the job because the counter-package was blown off to deflect the previous round.

[An Fiach 10]

Just download the demo of one of Combat Missions, preferably Shock Force since it deals with modern topic and has all the armor included in A2, and try it (although do not get freaked out by graphics, it is a strategy/wargame after all, and by wargame standards it is simply stunning). No other game provided me with moments like sneaking an RPG team around a parked enemy tank for 15 minutes just to get that rear or side shot where the armor is weak. Tanks have workable ERA modeled in as well, meaning that when a tank round (or small caliber cannon burst) hits an ERA brick (or module with Kontakt5), it will most likely be stopped (depending of course on the type of warhead that was fired) and the ERA brick disappears from the model in the exact spot the round hit. System is so detailed that certain tanks even have "weak spots" included into them based on real-life analysis.

Sounds interesting. Graphics are not a factor for me. I'll have to check it out but what you describe isn't necessarily a ballistics engine. How detailed is it exactly, do they calculate impact angles and force with penetration and spalling plus after effects? Does it calculate and track fragments produced by impact until they lose lethal velocity? How much of the internal components is modeled and vulnerable to damage? Do the munitions have proper ballistic values and behave as they should physically (i.e. Sabot and HEAT, etc.)?

[galzohar 31]

Look, the rough system is very easy to make, and doesn't take much mathematics at all. All you need, for a start, is to change the damage from HP to specific system damage (up to full destruction), and then make the chance for X system to be damaged depend on the penetration ability and thickness+type of armor where the tank was hit.

If you don't want to have a "hit area" for each "part" of the reactive armor, but rather an entire "hit area" for the front armor etc, you can still make every hit that has enough penetration to blow it up reduce the "reactive count" by 1 and followup hits will have a chance to encounter reactive armor equal to <reactive count> / <max reactive count>.

The idea is that anything that is too hard to simulate accurately can be simulated by randomness, which would be a lot better than the current hit point system that ignores the armor those tanks have IRL, while still being very easy to implement. After that is done (which would already be great, IMO), you can look for improvements by modeling the random effects in a more deterministic and realistic way.

I'm pretty sure M1 Tank Platoon from 1989 had something similar to the above, and it worked AMAZINGLY great for such an old game.

[Baldman 10]

Sounds interesting. Graphics are not a factor for me. I'll have to check it out but what you describe isn't necessarily a ballistics engine. How detailed is it exactly, do they calculate impact angles and force with penetration and spalling plus after effects? Does it calculate and track fragments produced by impact until they lose lethal velocity?

And then some. Just get the demo and go have a look. Go for combat mission: beyond overlord first. It has text explaining what happened during a hit. Probably the best examples in there.

[TangoRomeo 10]

Even if someone is not into armor or high fidelity physics calculation, the damage system in ArmA/OFP leaves alot to be desired. Pickup trucks/UAZ`s whose passengers were forcefully removed, explode for no apparent reason in the campaign. Secondary explosions are a nice touch, though i believe they do not work as intended. These often last for mission duration - that BRDM you destroyed 1 hour ago looks like it has been rotting there for years in the landscape, it's not burning or smoking. Yet it can kill you if going anywhere near it.

I think something similar to Steel Fury`s physics/damage modelling would be fit for the purpose. It´s a WW2 tank simulation with quite noteworthy graphics, yet having an straightforward approach towards simulation, with good vehicle physics, ballistics and damage calculation. Decent visuals and high fidelity physics/damage modelling are not mutually exclusive.

Edited June 18, 2009 by TangoRomeo

[An Fiach 10]

Ok soI checked out Combat Missions;

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, not witty I know but that was the first thing that came to mind. That thing has an algorithm not a ballistic engine, also an RTS is hardly comparable.

I'll look into Steel fury though.

[wipman 1]

Hi, NoRailGunner, i was talking about game/gaming pourpouses in the ArmA2, the real life

things are not really taken in account by BIS, so we're (i was) talking about the... equanimity?

in the game?, because neither the tanks, APCs, cars, choppers or planes are made in a realistic way.

Their weapons are not well represented, the armour!? it's not even closer; and well, i was

talking about gaming pourpouses, here there isn't anything that works like in the real life. Let's C ya

[An Fiach 10]

Steel Fury is better but it doesn't support your point. Tiger vs T-34 is better imo but none of them really have a true ballistics engine, I do like their vehicle physics though, they are not bad. They are good examples though of what could be possible in the ArmA engine and not sap much cpu power.

[TangoRomeo 10]

SF may not be the "be all end all" to ballistics/ damage calculation. I´m sure there are projects out there that do have a no-compromise scientific approach to the topic. However, SF`s system is heaps &bounds above what we have in the OFP/Arma world, and it still manages to deliver visuals that do not require an abstract imagination of the player. That's basically why i wrote that good graphics & high fidelity simulation are not mutually exclusive.

[Flanker15 0]

The ballistics model for Steel Fury was surprisingly detailed I found when poking around in its files. It takes into account shell mass/velocity angle (with capped shells being modeled aswell), internal pathing (with flaking and deflections) and various effects of blast and fragmentation for bursting charges. There were allot of other things too, it was very detailed (proably why my comp stuttered whenever I got a penertrating hit).

The model in Combat mission: Shock force is even more detailed (the older WW2 games used calculations instead of a ballistics system though). As mentioned before being able to set off individual ERA bricks is quite impressive.

I would be quite happy with a ballistics/penertration system in ARMA(3?) that does half of what these ones do.

[RedRage 0]

The model in Combat mission: Shock force is even more detailed (the older WW2 games used calculations instead of a ballistics system though). As mentioned before being able to set off individual ERA bricks is quite impressive.

I would be quite happy with a ballistics/penertration system in ARMA(3?) that does half of what these ones do.

Arma 2 + Shock Force's ballistics and armor modeling would quite possibly be the best game ever made (at least for those of us who are detail freaks).

[An Fiach 10]

Detail freaks would consider it falling far short of the mark.

[ta.maximus 10]

I haven't read the full thread yet but it seems that those wanting improvements to vehicle damage would at least want different front, side, back and top armor strength properties on the various armored vehicles. I feel that if Red Orchestra, the WWII sim based on the Unreal Engine can achieve this, then so can Arma II.

I don't pretend to know the Arma II engine but surely the various projectiles have different damage ratings, and that combined with the armor strength on the different sides of a vehicle should be easy to calculate. Even if it is very simplistic (i.e. not taking the penetration/hit angle into account) it would still be better than a simple 0-->X hitpoint system?

[galzohar 31]

Anything would be an improvement, but honestly it shouldn't be that hard to have a "400mm penetrating round" have a "very high chance to do no damage to 450mm armor", and a "very high chance of fully destroying the vehicle or at least cause massive system failure when hitting 60mm of armor".

[Baldman 10]

Ok soI checked out Combat Missions;

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, not witty I know but that was the first thing that came to mind. That thing has an algorithm not a ballistic engine, also an RTS is hardly comparable.

I'll look into Steel fury though.

Only game I know of with a ballistics engine on the level you're asking is, again, WWIIOL.

[ACF 0]

Here's an observation about tanks: Bug 1744

I tend to agree with:

... The problem with poorly, no that's unfair, over simplified vehicles is when they enter the mission they behave in highly unrealistic manners (sniper BRDMs, tanks that the chase you round buildings and up mountains, have turrets that spin like round like Darleks...well, I'm sure we all know about this stuff) and it killls the immersion and thus the fun of playing as an infantryman.

... and believe that a better simulation of AFV 'behaviour' is needed ahead of a better damage model.

On the plus side, I'm glad to see that HEAT and sabot effects now match the HEAT and sabot ammo!