Bullet velocity - inaccurate ?

[pooroldspike 128]

Who can tell us about body armour? How good is the current stuff used by various nations at stopping bullets?

I presume it can stop pistol shots just like bullet proof vests which have been around for many years, but it can't stop rifle shots.

Why doesn't somebody invent body armour that can?

I'm sure troops wouldn't mind wearing very heavy armour if it made them invulnerable to all small arms fire including MG's.

[Beagle 684]

The current .22 calibers are usualy stoped by the heavy vest that are in use..the drawback is simply that such protected soldiers are nor agile nor very persistant in condition, overheating is another factor. The current vests with ceramic plates that can stop rifle rounds can weight 18 kg. The protection is designed for single hits in an area with standard leadcore ammunition...nothing in that class can protect you from automatic fire or ammunition with special penetrator cores.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Beagle

[pooroldspike 128]

Aother thing- the assassin in the 'Day of the Jackal' took a pot at de Gaulle with a funny little rifle that fired an explosive bullet, presumably at low velocity because there wasn't much noise from the muzzle blast (silenced?), and not much recoil.

Are such explosive-bullet-firing weapons pure fiction or do they exist in real life?

MELONS-

Edited March 22, 2011 by PoorOldSpike

[Inkompetent 0]

Aother thing- the assassin in the 'Day of the Jackal' took a pot at de Gaulle with a funny little rifle that fired an explosive bullet, presumably at low velocity because there wasn't much noise from the muzzle blast (silenced?), and not much recoil.

Are such explosive-bullet-firing weapons pure fiction or do they exist in real life?

MELONS-

Well, blowing up a melon isn't really hard, and explosive ammunition does exist for quite small calibers, although it is very expensive and of doubtful use. When you get to .50 caliber and higher explosive ammunition starts packing a punch though.

As for the sound of the weapon it's probably a later added sound effect.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Inkompetent
I spell like a goose

[max power 21]

I'm no expert, but it looked like he was using .22 extra long. In that calibre I think for certain there would be no such effect regardless of whether the bullet was explosive or not.

IMFDB claims that the bullets were filled with mercury and that's what gave them this explosive (read: expanding) potential. The onscreen effects still seem quite exaggerated.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Max Power

[icebreakr 3100]

Well not exactly "bullets" but guys... seriously check out Myke's GLT Missile Box addon that fixes the speed of missiles. Vanilla game has like supersonic AA misiles going 3+ mach, that is not realistic and usually you don't even have time to respond to a threat... How to test the addon: make a three AA soldier team and a BLUFOR "flying" chopper. Watch how your AI guys will launch, much better eh? ;)

p.s. Missile Box addon is included with my latest Duala 1.9 pack.

[Inkompetent 0]

Well not exactly "bullets" but guys... seriously check out Myke's GLT Missile Box addon that fixes the speed of missiles. Vanilla game has like supersonic AA misiles going 3+ mach, that is not realistic and usually you don't even have time to respond to a threat...

Uhm... In real life AIM-9 Sidewinder has a speed of Mach 2.5. AIM-120 AMRAAM has a speed of Mach 4, Vympel R-27 a speed of Mach 2.5-4.5, and Vympel R-73 a speed of Mach 2.5.

The Strela-3 and Igla have Mach 0.9 as speed, and the Tunguska Mach 2.5.

Think the missiles in the game match that quite well? Although it can be percieved as too fast considering the minimal view range and engagement distances in the game. At least for air-to-air combat.

[Beagle 684]

Uhm... In real life AIM-9 Sidewinder has a speed of Mach 2.5. AIM-120 AMRAAM has a speed of Mach 4, Vympel R-27 a speed of Mach 2.5-4.5, and Vympel R-73 a speed of Mach 2.5.

The Strela-3 and Igla have Mach 0.9 as speed, and the Tunguska Mach 2.5.

Think the missiles in the game match that quite well? Although it can be percieved as too fast considering the minimal view range and engagement distances in the game. At least for air-to-air combat.

This speed are maximum speeds at optimal altitudes, the missiles do not reach that speed, especially not in low altitudes die to higher air friction....also...the burn tim of a sidewinder is short...the speed beginns to drop again after a few seconds.

At impact a short range AAM may even be subsonic again.

AA Missiles in ArmA do not slow down or accelerate, they have always the same speed.

[Inkompetent 0]

That is true of course. Those short-range IR missiles only have a few seconds of burn time, but then again aren't really meant for longer than a 3km or so tail-shots, and double that in front-shots. Especially when firing upwards the range ought to be quite horrid due to fighting gravitation.

[Arksa 10]

I too have a feeling the bullets fly too slow. I've been playing this game for A LOT and I still lead my targets inappropriately, meaning that I don't lead enough, even fairly close.

[cartier90 0]

No- one was able to verify so il repost .

cartier90

Staff Sergeant

******

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Worcester UK

Posts: 387

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/8219

The issue appears to be 'fixed' according to .50 cal - can anyone verify this - with latest patch I assume ?

__________________

It is an interesting question how far men would retain their relative rank if they were divested of their clothes.

Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862), Walden, 1854

[maturin 12]

Bullet velocities were fixed a long time ago, at least with 5.56 and 7.62. I never heard of 12.7 having a problem, but I would believe devheaven.

[cartier90 0]

Thanks....

[cartier90 0]

Well, there are models for IRL-bullet flight and if the in-game bullet flight doesn't correspond with them it most likely doesn't correspond with reality either.

I made a very rough comparison between what was reported here and what the model would predict. The conclusion is that the bullets are too slow - if the reported times are correct. It might also be a good idea to disable wind when doing the tests.

So just posting that calculation should be enough - together with a test mission that confirms the reported times.

Here's a simulation (images show drag +-wind, no drag)

Trajectories are almost identical at 400m.

For 469m flight time is about 0.545 s. Far below 1 s. (Very similar to the results of that forumla I posted - which should be more correct).

I really hate to drag this topic up again but I dont believe that this velocity problem was 'solved' . The above quote is referring to what flight times should be for 5.56 mm rounds. The reaction of the dust script ( what I am going on to measure this time ) definataly shows a slower speed. Is there a delay in the dust script of where a round hit ?, if so , will AI enemy 'respond' top being hit when they should ?

.....

[maturin 12]

I really hate to drag this topic up again but I dont believe that this velocity problem was 'solved' . The above quote is referring to what flight times should be for 5.56 mm rounds. The reaction of the dust script ( what I am going on to measure this time ) definataly shows a slower speed. Is there a delay in the dust script of where a round hit ?, if so , will AI enemy 'respond' top being hit when they should ?

.....

The problem is solved and the dust and water plumes have a very marked delay.

I have little doubt that AI react to the actual hit, rather than the cosmetic effect that is visible only for the player. However, their reaction is usually quite delayed, perhaps by a few seconds, either by design or because of how much time the CPU is giving them.

[cartier90 0]

thank you maturin - really end of topic now ;) - i had never read it was actually down to delayed dust and good to hear the AI react to the 'actual' hit.

[fabrizio_t 58]

I have little doubt that AI react to the actual hit, rather than the cosmetic effect that is visible only for the player.

In my opinion does AI react to bullets fired from nearby.

AI does not react to bullets whizzling by nor impacting close if fired from distance (e.g. sniper shot).

This with the exception of explosive rounds.

[cartier90 0]

Fab - yes slightly different point that. I was referring to actual hits and whether calculations of bullet velocity were accurate.

[InqWiper 0]

thank you maturin - really end of topic now ;) - i had never read it was actually down to delayed dust and good to hear the AI react to the 'actual' hit.

Testing bullet impact was never done by observing dust if thats what you mean. The ballasitics were really off.