Strike_NOR

Not at all. It's your weekend. Although poor @oukej was trying to hold the fort after midnight a couple of times (bedside browsing on the phone maybe? Huge mistake! :D ) As you can probably tell, the interest is humongous. It's really bringing forth many interesting solutions to improvimg the current/old system as well as sparking interest in the new component system. Perhaps..... it would be an idea to create a fire/brewup effect that occurs when this random destruction timer is initiated. Not only realistic - but a good indication to abandon vehicle, or if you are the opponent, stop shooting the dying tank.

If you read some few posts back, there are several of us @lex__1, @x3kj, @scavenjer, @dragon01 and more that are advocating change in this direction. I am trying to get through to the devs, but allthough many ideas we have are fantastically thought out, it may not be feasible due to hardcoded game mechanics which we don't have full insight to. After all, noone knows the game better than the devs. But fear not, there are ways to prevent indirecthit from reaching parts of the vehicle that would damage it, but it's more of a workaround. I think the devs are at a very critical point right now, because they are about to lock features for internal beta testing. Also, they are working on multiple new systems and weapons that interact with the damage simulation, so changing the damage mechanics will affect all the other systems that interact with it. I hope they at least experiment with our suggestions, and I'd be open to test the heck out of it before release to ensure quality and consistency across the platform. The goal has to be to make it so, that the mechanics work differently on the micro scale (i.e penetration mechanics), while the end result is as equal as possible (tanks are still disabled, albeit not destroyed - yet makes all scenarios and missions play the same). Backwards compatibility with missions and community addons must not be completely destroyed.

However his question is directed at whats going on in Arma. And yes, as of now some shells deal full damage even if they fail to perfor/penetrate the armor. I am campaigning towards fixing this issue and I approve of this message.

It's more a matter of consistency and quality. If the colors vary too much, then it easily becomes noticable and a distraction. Hopefully, it's just a matter of tweaking the texture file RGB/brightness of either passenger or crew compartment - to match the other.

This is simple. Blow out panels vent gasses and fire out of the tank to avoid A. Dead crew B. Further detonation I've spent a fair amount of time reseaching this as well, and quite frankly the M1 is the only tank I can actually say seems to be safe in terms of ammo rack cookoffs, because all the ammo is seperated from the crew. None of the other patents really work in modern times.

And hopefully not like "Aww sweet, an enemy tank. Got it in my sights... Solid lock, let 'er rip" *Click* *FWWWWOOOOOOSH* .... *tense waiting*... ...any moment now.... *crickets chirping* "Dude, where's my Titan?"

Good intel! I think the javelin/spike (Titan) has a pretty wide FOV for the IR seeker, and this allows it to track the target through the entire envelope, adjusting to the target "on the fly". Noticed that the titan AT has the state "seeking" for most of the flight, while PCML state is "locked"

@SgtMirkyWater It's not very long ago, that the sound dept in ArmA3 received a major overhaul. It is nothing like ArmA2. That said, I also own squad and agree that they are probably the benchmark when it comes to combat audio. I have also served for 10 years, but I lack the privelege of experiencing what an incoming RPG-7 sounds like. I find ArmA 3 generally sounds quite good, but the bullet cracks are too boring (no variation) and the explosions don't sound powerful/violent enough to me. Standing next to a 30mm chaingun firing IRL sent chills down my spine. It is amazing how loud it actually is. Anyhow. There are many talented modders that make good sound replacements. Their possibilities were also increased with the audio overhaul, so.. Try out JSRS for instance. I recommend that!

I'm starting to get the feeling that the purpose of applying damage multiple times as the projectile passes through was to ensure that vehicles blow up after 2-3 penetrations. Strictly for gameplay reasons, and probably because noone was looking at Arma as a tank simulator at the time. The interesting part is that it really looks like ArmA contains all the necessary ingredients to make it a realistic armor simulation, it's just that their potential isn't fully exploited. @scavenjer has pointed out some very good ideas on how to do fix internal damage distribution, and I think we could be on to something here. What would be the best way of rethinking the damage mechanics, without completely destroying compatibility? Maybe the following points are a solution: Keep the original hitpoint classes, and rather repurpose the hithull class for simulating ammunition storage. Make sure hitting the physical hull (vehicle armor) transfers zero damage to the vehicles health, unless the caliber size or energy is exceptionally high (for instance being clobbered by a non-explosive howitzer shell (150mm ++). Or fictional railgun (insane kinetic energy). Make APFSDS rods and HEAT jets deviate very little when penetrating (only a few degrees) and create a conical shape area (about 2m long/1m wide at the end) where it exits the firegeometry that causes damage based on how much speed the projectile has lost (simulates spalling). In case if hitting unarmored vehicles, this ensures minimal spall damage, while heavily armored vehicles suffer spalldamage. For each time the projectile exits firegeometry, the speed and power of the projectile suffers greatly (to simulate it shattering along the way). This also reduces the amount of damage subsequent spalling can do. Also, make certain firegeometry/hitpoints immune or highly resistant to spalling (massive parts, such as the gun, gun breech, armor) and keep hithull (ammo), crew, engine and fuel vulnerable to it. Now afaik, every vehicle would need 1 modification to make this work, which is resizing the hithull firegeometry and hitpoint to match the areas where ammunition is stored. This should be a very straightforward task and is easily understandible for modders. For damage calculations some things would have to change: APFSDS and HEAT jets either penetrate or don't. In the event they don't sparks will fly off (as per now) signifying the round was stopped. This deals 0 damage to vehicles health. In case of penetration, spalling occurs when exiting firegeometry based on speedloss, and the projectile deviates minimally. Ball ammunition or conventional AP shells can and should still ricochet, but should deal 0 damage in this event. Spalling should not be individually generated particles (performance drop, as sometimes witnessed in RHS), but could better be a conical shape. The size/length/damage of the shape could be calculated in numerous ways, but for simplicity, a 2m long, 1m wide cone seems plausible, where the only variable is damage. The damage in real life largely depends on how much energy is transferred from the projectile to the armor, so basing it on speed lost during penetration is a good estimate, and capping it off at a non-lethal speed of maybe 5-10 m/s (in case projectile has 1400 m/s, and happens to penetrate with 10 m/s left, it would result in gargantuan spalling damage, while technically barely making it through the armor). The result should now be that a clean penetration into a vehicle passes more directly through until it either loses momentum or exits the other side. For each internal "wall" it passes through, a spalling field is created based on how much energy is lost through it. Crew, ammo, fuel and engine are susceptible to spall damage, as well as direct damage from the projectile, but NOTHING transfers to the vehicles global health, besides critical parts. I think this will make tank combat way more representative of real life, where the main objective of any tank is to: See the enemy before he sees you. Make sure the enemy can't reach your weak spots (hull down, use cover). Coordinate well with your team and crew. Tanks ARE in fact, sitting ducks on a battlefield. But they are VERY deadly when used correctly.

Hello again! Having an awful lot of fun with the Shots diag tool! The tool is amazing! So I have some feedback for the missile flight improvements: First off, the PCML in overfly attack mode is extremely well made. Bravo! It's pure joy to send that thing downrange! The Titan-AT in top-attack, seems to be missing one final adjustment to make it on par with the PCML in terms of guidance, and that is predicted lead. The Titan seemingly always lags behind the target in "lag pursuit" which happens when the missile always tries to fly directly at the target. The PCML does not suffer from this, as it immediately after launch compensates for target velocity, and heads on a predicted impact (or lead pursuit) guidance path. Is there a way to incorporate lead pursuit to the Titan AT? At least for the horizontal axis. Here's a picture that clearly shows the difference between Titan-AT top attack and PCML top attack: Is it possible to make the titan AT fly in a lead pursuit motion too? I can only imagine this is how the real thing works, both Javelin and Spike AT missiles. Now, some errors. The PCML really struggles in Direct Attack mode against ground vehicles. It dips so low, it couldn't even fly over a snake in the grass. You need to insert some minimum altitude threshold (maybe about 1,5 meters over the ground) so that the missile will never do this: Also.. the flightpath in Direct Attack seemed a lot more wobbly (snake-like). (Hey- maybe that's it... maybe the missile thinks it's a snake!) Also, here is the HEAT debacle again. I absolutely LOVE what you did to the overfly attack on the PCML. This is huge, so huge... as Trump would say. But the "projectile" seems to make a lot of indirect hit damage? (Is it counted as semi-explosive)? Also.. in terms of nitpicking... The NLAW (PCML RL counterpart) does not have anti-tank capabilities in Direct Attack mode. Yet, in the game, the projectile will fire straight forwards during DA mode, and angled down at overfly attack. This requires the missile to have a mechanical solution that adjusts the warhead angle in-flight or before launch. Which afaik, doesn't exist. yeah yeah, I know it's a 2035 model PCML, but still. It would be neat if the warhead was purely HE in DA mode, and made the projectile in Overfly attack only. For you know.. realism purposes :) So this should not happen in real life: So that is all for now :) let me know if you want more information like this. I know I have been "mildly put" active recently. Just very excited for the DLC :) Have a great weekend!

True, but this only works for vehicles without PIP. In the Marshall, for instance, you can actually use the first person cockpit view to fight. It would probably be more backwards-compatible and safe to have it as an actionmenu thing (lock controls). It could act the same as when the gunner turns out. Just centers the gun and keeps it there. Would be especially useful on vehicles where the barrel has a collision model!

@scavenjer... First off. I think you have made many accurate and great observations, and shown a lot of good, positive criticism towards Tanks DLC. I personally respect and value your opinion and I think you make many great contributions to the devs in terms of feedback, but this right here is not one of them. Actually, you are on the verge of campaigning ignorance. You are taking science, applying your understanding of it and claiming it to be true. I have some very good advice for you at this point, and that is to recognize when you are wrong. Do some research, find out for yourself and prove me otherwise if you can. But right here, I am confident you are wrong, and I have both the experience and research to back it. Also, while so eager to debunk my argument, only based on it being a reddit post ... You absolutely fail to realize that the two RPG videos you posted to debunk my facts.... ....are actually made by the SAME GUY who wrote that very reddit post, which is in total agreement with what I have been saying the entire time. Which is that SLAT armor is developed to counter the RPG-7 due to the very way the RPG-7 fuze is designed. And as such, it is NOT effective against an RPG striking the actual bars in the SLAT armor, it actually enhances the focus of the shaped charge JET. To clarify, look at these examples I made specifically for you: So I hope that clarifies things now once and for all. SLAT is purposely designed to counter the RPG-7 (PG-7VL and similar mainly), because that happens to be the most used AT-weapon by insurgents, terrorists, third world armies etc. This is why you see them on so many modern vehicles, because they mainly fight a war against ill-equipped enemies that frequently sport the RPG-7. It does, due to construction differences, not defeat other HEAT warheads, but on the contrary, increase their effectiveness - just like with the RPG-7 hitting a bar. @scavenjer... I have some really good advice for you, and not in a patronizing way. When I am right, and you are wrong, you are not losing. You are not defeated. You simply learned something new! Finding out you are wrong, learning about it and moving on is a quality most people do not possess today, especially on the internet. I am 30 years old now, and trust me, I am wrong often. Just ask my wife. But more importantly, and relevant, I am even wrong on these forums sometimes. And I'm thankful that we have a positive community that can learn a lot from one another. So please, think about this as we move forward. THE ACTUAL TOPIC.... and reason why I started this argument is due to something @fn_Quiksilver said back in the day about game balance. He raised a very good point, something which needs to be addressed: Why would any player chose NOT to use the SLAT armor - seeing that it defeats HEAT, but has no drawback. That's where I used my opportunity, to think about a realistic approach to the issue: Namely, that SLAT/Cage armor is not a countermeasure towards HEAT in general, but the RPG-7. So why not make it so that it slightly increases effectiveness of other HEAT weapons, while decreasing effectiveness of RPG's? As far as I know, these things are made to be lightweight and have MINIMAL influence on vehicle mobility/weight. The only disadvantage I can think of besides the HEAT debacle is worse visibility, harder maintenance access, and probably wider/larger vehicle area. Both of which don't really matter in ArmA that much. So I encourage more people to think of good ways to balance this feature, besides leaving it all to the mission maker. That's all.

@R3vo there has been an epic discussion about pros and cons of SLAT armor ^^. To summarize: they primarily aim to defeat the RPG-7 (most common anti tank weapon in modern asymmetric warfare). They create a probability of denying RPG-7 from functioning. About 50-70% chance of success. However, in the case of failure to stop them, they are actually worse. Against most other HEAT weapons, they have little to no effect, with a high chance of increasing the weapons penetration. Therefore this is a natural drawback. It would make sense that players opt for RPG SLATs against third world armies/insurgents and opt for ERA/plain against modern/high tech HEAT weapons.

Thanks for being cool about it. Actually, if you don't mind, could I have a look at it? I am by NO means an experienced coder, but I'm highly motivated :) Worst thing that can happen is that I fail. Best case? Someone else improved it for you :)

It's a good reddit post, and thanks for pointing that out. An EFP is not the same as a shaped charge (RPG). Explosively formed penetrator creates a slug (projectile) while shaped charge focuses the explosive pressure into a narrow point, basically hydrodynamically (in terms of physics) forcing its way through material. Like I said. The RPG cant have a 50cm standoff because the rocket would be impractically huge. 15cm standoff is NOT optimal for the RPG, but just enough to penetrate most armor. If you increase this range a certain amount, the penetration capability also increases as per the chart in my last post. I also have way more credible sources to this but the reddit post was well written and accurate, that's why I chose it. If you are not convinced, ask anyone with experience that is not related to SLAT manufacturing/promotion. Rpg's are being developed with a second impact fuze that will detonate if the cone is pushed back (hits slat). This will make slat armor virtually obsolete against this new rpg type. In WW2 slat/skirt armor was more successful, due to poor HEAT designs. HEAT shells from tanks were spinning (rifled barrels) and this destabilized the jet, meaning increased standoff = less penetration. But these are modern times friend...

No. Contrary to popular belief, the slats work by protecting the piezo electric fuze of the rpg so that it detonates too close. Post Just read this post, it has some graphs that show for missiles with a built in standoff range, the penetration increases with increased distance up to 1 meter. Before losing effectiveness. Most SLAT armor is at approx 50cm or less from the main armor. Which means it actually makes the rpg hurt you more if it strikes the slats with the fuze first. Dont worry it's a common misconception.

You are missing the point. Besides the first video showcases slat armor doing its job. The RPG hits between slats, disabling the fuze. So the warhead doesn't detonate at standoff range (as can be seen in the video) but rather too close, so the shaped charge cannot form. The two lower example videos are grid-style armor and due to their structure the air-to-metal ratio can be higher than conventional SLATs, increasing their chance against RPGs. If in any of the SLAT or Grid style examples, the tip were to touch the slat or grid, it would cause the RPG to detonate at standoff distance as normal, but further from the main armor. This allows the shaped charge to develop even more and be more efficient than if it hit the side of a vehicle without slats. Ideally, the RPG HEAT warhead would be better if the rocket nose cone was way longer (increasing standoff distance) but then the weapon becomes difficult to handle in the field, so a compromise is made, and the rpg nose cone is as long as it practically can be. Standoff distance is Alpha Omega in HEAT warheads, and further away is often better (look at Tow 2B, NLAW etc in top attack. These are several meters away from target when detonating, yet super effective - and costly)

Well yes, theres technically a reason you would not use this IRL. And you raise a valid point. The easy way: remove freedom of choice. For gamemodes like KOTH, the Slat-equipped vehicles could be more costly. The way I see it, bis are implementing it as a means to counter all HEAT ammo, while IRL it is only designed to defeat the widely used RPG-7. Even against the RPG-7 it only has about 50% success ratio, because the RPG still has to hit between the slats. If the RPG hits the slat armor directly, the impact fuze will function as normal and the shaped charge will actually have more time to form into an even more efficient jet, increasing the RPG penetration. If the RPG hits between the slats, the nosecone is crushed, cutting the wires that connect the fuze to the detonator. So it's not really a wonderful countermeasure, because most other HEAT warheads are designed so they will function even when hitting the slats, or between them. The effectiveness these warheads also gains a boost to penetration, due to the increased standoff distance provided by slat armor. Alas, I can't imagine BIS going through all that trouble to simulate the differences of an RPG-7VL rocket vs all the other weapons. Therefore, it becomes more of a "must have" as anyone with a HEAT weapon will be at a slight disadvantage, and you as vehicle operator have no disadvantages. If they did, however, only make it useful against low-tech HEAT weapons, such as RPG-7, and make modern HEAT weapons gain effectiveness against SLAT-equipped vehicles then you would use SLAT for asymmetrical urban/CQB combat only and ditch them when facing high-tech enemies. Just mah two cents

That's really impressive x3kj. I mean amazingly impressive! Pretty much every detail I could hope for from a damage model is there. Give me a hint if you need someone to help with testing/statistics etc. The new shots diagnostic tool is proving to be really helpful! Speaking of which, I fired up a simple scenario in the Virtual Reality map to test the new armor mechanics. I hope you won't regret adding the shots diag tool @oukej, because here comes the "i know how to make your game better than you" critic (take this with a pinch of salt :D as we say where I come from). First of all, there is one major discrepancy in the damage simulation against tanks, that can only be what I call a genuine bug. If the system was designed to work this way intentionally, then I fear the creator was not really sure how to handle damage in a realistic manner, or a compromise was made to make the damage "arcade" or "game-like" (predictable). No hard feelings though, this system has been around for ages in the arma series, but I believe it can be corrected fairly simple. NOTE: For the following examples, I'll use spoilers to minimize the post size. To view the images just open the spoilers. Example 1: All shots conducted with Slammer UP vs Varsuk. Ammo used: 105mm APFSDS. Note: It appears that the maximum damage a hit will do with 105mm APFSDS vs Varsuk is .1310 (regardless of where it hits, I could never score higher than .1310.). Example 2: Note: same setup as Example1. Same tank. Vehicle health before shot = 0.6597 (~33% hp). Example 3: Note: same setup as Example 1. New tank. Vehicle health previously reduced from direct hit behind, dealing a total of .6898 dmg. My idea was to hit a "glancing" strike, along the side of the hull, only hitting the tracks. Example 4: Note: same setup as Example 1. New tank, vehicle in perfect condition prior to shot. Vehicle angled 45 degrees to try and cause ricochets. Example 5: Note: So here I am bored with 105mm APFSDS, and I switch to HEAT-MP. For initial testing, I shoot the front/right/inner ERA panels with HEAT, and get some consistent results, mostly. But then some weirdness happens, and finally I concentrate on shooting the gun barrel of the varsuk. Hilarity ensues: Conclusion? More testing has to be done, but... please. Can you consider the following: Remove the way vehicles receive full damage by ricochets Remove the way penetration of "Parts/armor" (armor plates, external things, barrel, tracks, wheels etc) draws from the vehicles global/total health. Make the juicy hitpoints (that DO draw health from vehicles global health) inside the tank at sensible locations (ammo rack, engine, fuel). Can't see how this will possibly break backwards compatibility. It will add more realism, more variation. Also it will allow for higher likelyhood of crew kills and other immobilizing kills. And did I mention it before? Look at HEAT. It's more realistic to have it be a pure projectile than a indirecthit explosion. (If the submunition approach doesnt work out) Thanks! :)

With regards to Tanks DLC and the recent discussion about cookoff in this thread. I know you have a cookoff script/effect in your mod (probably came from AGM mod back in the days). Please forgive me if I'm stepping on any toes, but, what happened to the cookoff from ACE 2.0? Wasn't there any way to scavenge that and reuse it? To date it is the best cookoff script I have ever seen in a game. Period. I believe nouber made it. That's my personal opinion, sure, but really it was something else and very randomized and, most importantly, spectacularly violent. Now don't get me wrong. The effects in ACE 3 are nice (for instance, the flames look better quality). It's just that they are too consistent and predictable. It would be nice with some randomization, intermittent brew ups, varying size etc. @noubernou Seems to have moved on to other things (RL), but it would be a godsend to have this amazing script back in ArmA 3. Especially with Tanks DLC coming up :) I guess the key point here being, more variation in cookoff types. Instead of one long woosh every time. Peace out.

I see. Obviously I have not taken much interest in vanilla A3 tanks ammo until recently. Good thing that has changed. Always felt that HEAT simulation was entirely flawed in vanilla since it apparently doesn't penetrate, but just damages with a sphere of influence from the impact point.

Well he specifically asked for HEAT. I can't remember seeing HEAT in the Varsuk or Slammer UP prior to wednesdays update. I know the Kuma and Slammer only have APFSDS and HE now. Besides, the devs have already teased us with some hints of SACLOS so i suspect it's coming.

Check the Varsuk and slammer UP ;)

Yet, there it is in the game. So either the devs chose to make the turret disappear (disintegrate), or it's a placeholder until it can pop off (new turret wreck model appears ingame during the explosion), or they need to put a wrecked turret model on the tank chassis wreck. Fires aren't modeled in ArmA3, prior to vehicle destruction. So extinguishers serve no purpose here. As for preventing ammo cookoff, well.. it's so utterly random. If the fire is in the ammo compartment, sure an extinguisher will make a difference, but if the ammo itself has been compromised (gunpowder burning), its too late. It would be the equivalent of trying to stop an armed hand grenade from exploding by spraying it with a fire-extinguisher.

All vanilla tanks are fictional (yet, based on real life tanks) - so they can have ammo anywhere they want. Secondly, what matters isn't necessarily just where the ammo is stored, but whether or not the ammo compartment has built-in blow-out panels. The M1 abrams, for instance, has a blast-door that separates the crew compartment from the ammo storage. The ammo storage, has panels that "give way" in the event of an ammo-rack failure, to prevent pressure buildup within the tank. It looks like a spectacular cookoff, but the crew and rest of the vehicle are unharmed. If the ammo is stored inside the crew compartment (like the Leopard), then the pressure buildup will be equal inside the entire compartment. Given that the turret ring sometimes have relatively weak locks to hold it down (generally, the weight of the turret itself keeps it in place, but some clamps/seals are fitted to keep it snugly attached), this may break during cookoff, and make the turret come off. It doesn't necessarily "fly" off, but fall off, or get displaced on top of the tank. See pics in spoiler :) Either way, there should be some randomization to this effect. I guess it could best be done by varying the turret velocity between 0 m/s and about 5 m/s and some directional randomness. (At low velocities, the turret will just sit on top of the wreck/slightly misaligned - at higher velocities, it will visually leap off to the side, maybe even landing upside down. Just a suggestion :)