Strike_NOR

@Asheara Hi, thanks for continuing to clarify and work with our feedback. I'm basically trying to make out what potential this component based system has for the community. I have read through the old guide, and tried to apply the knowledge there to the component system and I have a really simple setup to ask about. Consider the following setup: image hosting Am I correct to understand: Modders can now create as many new component and ammo types as they wish, and define how they interact? These new armor components can be stacked and placed freely as in the above image? Thickness of components are disregarded, but since speed and hit values are influenced this heavily influences the projectiles ability to penetrate the firegeometry? Vehicles can be set up so that penetrating fire-geometry does not damage global health, but an internal "hithull" firegeometry/hitpoint combo can simulate "ammo rack" (or other critical part) leading to instant destruction? I hope I made myself clear in the above points :) @x3kj It appears to me that the only weapon that simulates this correctly at the moment is the PCML. I am trying to get an answer from the devs as to if this will be the new standard for ATGM's, HEAT shells, RPG's, AT mines etc (anything that is anti-tank slow/no velocity projectile). It should be this way, realistically speaking. However, I fear that It may only be possible on the PCML due to the distance between the missile and target when detonation occurs. If the game has to: 1. Create an explosion to simulate the HEAT warhead HE element. 2. Create a submunition that simulates the Anti-Tank Jet (projectile per ArmA3 engine limitations). 3. Position this submunition at the point of impact, deduct velocity based on ERA presence and fire this through the vehicle. ...then it may become unreliable due to simulation speed, multiplayer network, etc.. Somehow RHS mods have managed to simulate HEAT warheads in an extremely impressive and realistic manner. Kudos to them. I was hoping BIS would copy that, and maybe refine it for optimization for Tanks DLC. So far, the PCML is the only hint towards this approach, and I hope more of the vanilla BIS weapons will follow (Macers, Scalpels, RPG's, AT-mines, Titan-AT, etc). On a side note, I noticed the turret model disappears from the tanks when they explode. Will you eventually account for it in game? :) (Popping turrets).

Is this executed from within the main .exe or the diag.exe version? Was looking for this on wednesday, but couldnt find it.

This is uplifting! :) Then hithull can work as a compromise and technically serve as ammo rack. Any news on the HEAT "projectile" as seen on the PCML? this warhead type should technically be found in ATGM's, mines, Air to Ground missiles etc. As for the modules "letdown" it's ok. Thanks for being honest. On a side note: Where can i submit my application for Arma4 consultant? :D

That's a clever engine workaround, but having dedicated ammo module could be used by modders more creatively :)

Okay, so I have come up with an idea that will improve on the current system, without becoming too difficult for the player-base to understand, and hopefully not unrealistic to program for you developers - given the timeframe until launch. My main gripe right now is primarily condensed down to two issues: Damage mechanic modules and tank destruction mechanic. HEAT simulation not being consistent across weapon platforms, but you have the recipe for it (PCML). To help illustrate the way I suggest it works, I have made some crude drawings and examples of how vehicles react to various attack types with HEAT weapons. Firstly, let's look at the MBT-52's real life counterpart, a Leopard: (no I couldn't find the Leopard 2SG internals, so a A4 will do). I have added some extra possible damage modules to it: As you may see, I have added three new module types: Optics Ammunition Electronics Optics and Electronics These two generally cause the same effects to happen. When taking damage, just like jets and helis, all displays/instruments/mfd's may start glitching/flashing. Additionally, it could disable the FCS of the tank, forcing you to use manual ranging and aiming. The external modules should be susceptible to damage from high-caliber ammunition and medium/large explosives. (Multiple hits from 12.7mm or 40mm grenades, very few hits from 30mm (autocannon) and up.) The internal modules are well protected, and only susceptible to damage from penetrating rounds (HEAT, AP). Ammunition This is a huge dealbreaker for many, I know. The absence of ammo-racks in the vanilla game, coupled with a unrealiable vehicle health-pool makes aiming your shots nearly pointless. However, if tank destruction was linked directly to ammo storage detonation (or engine compartment/fuel compartment catastrophic failure), it would make combat much more predictable and realistic. Learning the vehicle's weak spots in a game with relatively few armored vehicles, is no more difficult than to remember how to aim for the drivers window in cars. You learn it fast. I personally wish that this is the way you blow up vehicles. Think about it as the equivalent of a "head shot" on a soldier with full body armor. Destruction mechanic Please, get rid of the way that "everything" that hits a vehicle will add damage to it's global health. If it were up to me, I'd establish the following rules: non-penetrating hits that ricochet cause 0 damage to the vehicles global health. non-penetrating hits that fragment/stop on the armor cause zero-to-minor damage to the global health (simulating denting). penetrating hits that pass through the hull cause about 1-2% damage to global health (depending on caliber. 1-2% was a hypthetical value for 120mm - meaning you'd need 50-100 shots to turn a tank into swiss cheeze). explosive hit damage has to meet a certain minimum value (which is quite high for tanks) before dealing damage to the global health, but can damage internals at a lower threshold value (simulating shock inside a vehicle). A vehicle will only explode if: Ammunition detonates due to "ammo module" destruction. global health reaches "0" due to either extreme amounts of AP/HEAT penetrations, massive explosive damage (large IED, mines, air-dropped bombs, artillery), catastrophic fuel/engine failure or extreme velocity collisions (driving off a cliff?). Now let's look at how HEAT ammunition should/could work in ArmA 3: First of all here are some good examples on real life anti-tank missiles, that behave the same as ArmA3 missiles, in terms of warheads: The TOW-2A (direct attack missile. warhead style compares to Titan-AT, and RPG with Tandem warhead) And the TOW-2B (Overfly attack missile, comparable to the PCML in ArmA). As you can see from the images, the Tow-2A has a tandem HEAT warhead, that should effectively defeat ERA-equipped tanks, and must impact the target directly. The penetrating potential is directly along the missile's longitudinal axis (forwards). As such, hitting the sides of modern tanks is not really that desirable, since they are well protected here. This is why the Tow-2B achieves better results against armor, because it detonates above the target, where the armor is thinner. This is also why weapons with forward facing tandem charges, such as the Javelin, Hellfire or Titan-AT favor a "Top-Down" attack against armor, because during top-down attack, the shaped charges are facing downwards towards the turret roof. A third reference image from the Titan-AT equivalent (Rafael Spike AT missile) Now from what I can tell, HEAT is currently extremely inconveniently designed in ArmA3. Even with the latest update, both the RPG-7, Titan AT, tank cannon HEAT rounds etc do NOT produce a shaped charge jet, or "projectile". However, for some reason, the PCML does! So what you need to figure out BI, is how to incorporate that mechanic into the other warheads. The PCML "creates" a projectile submunition that travels through vehicles much like AP rounds do. This is the kind of compromise you have to aim for with the game engine limitations. I believe you can pull it off by using the same principles applied with the PCML. Simply put: make the missile/weapon explode on impact, then generate a submunition projectile that penetrates the vehicle. If you can do that, then we can finally have the following scenarios: I have drawn these crude examples to show you how improved HEAT and damage mechanics could work in ArmA: NOTE: Click the images to view them in a better size for reading/viewing. And finally, how different countermeasures to HEAT may react, where HEAT fails to penetrate the hull: Now taking all this into consideration, you end up with tanks that only explode when they should (ammo failure or engine/fuel explosion), better HEAT simulation both in terms of "behind armor effects" and countermeasures. And best of all, get rid of the poormans' solution with "indirectHit" spheres that are omnipotent to an area of the tank. I didn't squeeze in AP details, because there have already been so many tickets/reports on the AP behavior. Also, I did not take into consideration the following points due to complexity, performance cost and short deadline to DLC release: Spalling Internal fragmentation More modules (turret traverse drive, elevation drive, gun breech, gearbox, drivetrain etc). I firmly believe that most of the damage-interested community would agree with my point of view on these things, and also, that for the "ignorant community" (no offense) that just want to enjoy ArmA, it's not too overly complicated. Give it a like if you agree, quote and trash me if you don't :) Cheers!

For direct attack (DA) with the PCML, this indeed is a bug/undesireable feature, as the PCML works like a HE weapon in DA mode. @SuicideKing However for top attack, keep in mind that this may actually be a feature and result of how the HEAT warhead works. Because of engine limitations, @oukej explained that the PCML has to scan at an approximate 45 degree down angle for targets to be reliably detected. This also means the HEAT "projectile" will travel downwards at 45 degrees. Which in turn means the projectile will enter the upper closest side and exit the lower opposite side of the target (where the tracks are) and damage this area. Thats probably why the opposite tracks are destroyed and may very well happen IRL.

As of todays update, FCS is extremely unreliable. Anyone else? Fire up a game with a few targets that move back and forth. Lase and shoot a few times. Initally it works, but after a few shots I can't even range the targets. It just "sees through" the targets and gets me the background range. It's like the laser can't detect the vehicle object.

So here are my initial thoughts: Overall improvement of armor simulation. Nice to see individual pieces of ERA and SLATS take damage when hit. A good visual indicator of damage as well! Here are the points of potential improvements: HEAT ammunition (RPG's, Tank cannons, Titan AT) Currently does some kind of indirect hit damage, which is very sad considering the improvement made on the PCML warhead (which actually simulates HEAT). I was expecting a penetrating jet (projectile in arma engine), but instead it seems we got the indirect hit thing, which makes the final HEAT damage feel more like HE. My suggestion is to implement PCML type HEAT "projectile" into all HEAT projectiles/weapons to simulate a shaped charge "jet" penetrating the target (also damages modules and crew in its path). Slat armor Fun fact: Slat armor actually aims directly at preventing the RPG-7 warhead from detonating. The way the RPG-7 fuze is designed, when passing through the slats, will cut the wires/leads that connect the fuze to the warhead, effectively preventing detonation. For all other purposes, slat armor has actually proven to generally increase the effectiveness of HEAT ammunition (except RPG-7), because the standoff distance becomes better to focus the HEAT jet (how ironic!). If the HEAT warhead detonates (as it does ingame right now) the Slats do little to nothing against stopping the HEAT jet from penetrating. If we disregard real life though, I have the following suggestion: See if you can make the HEAT warhead explosion turn into a sparky puff of smoke instead of exploding, to simulate that the warhead was disabled (fractured) instead of detonating. It is also a gameplay-wise good feedback to the attacker that his shot failed to penetrate the slats. Also, when the HEAT warhead "fails", the slats should withstand multiple attacks (2-3) from this type of warhead before being damaged. Slats should not really be susceptible to damage from AP rounds, but rather very sensitive to powerful high-explosives. ERA Seems to be sensitive to AP and HEAT, but way too sensitive to HE. A nearby exploding vehicle (vehicle destruction) will trigger the ERA. I get it if you shoot a 120mm HE round at the ERA, yes it should go off. Also explosion radius seems to ignore line of sight, so hitting the rear of a Tank will detonate the frontal ERA (?!?!). Armorsimulation in general I still feel AP rounds do some very wonky stuff at times. They seem to more reliably penetrate in a straight path, but you really should rework ricochets. As an example, I fired a 105mm APFSDS round at the T-100 turret. The angle was so shallow, that the round completely bounced off (did not enter the vehicle mesh), yet the turret took immense damage and the gun was destroyed. What is the point of ricochets if they deal that much damage? Disappointed that there isn't a better destruction mechanic and that the vehicles still seem to draw from a health pool, instead of breaking down in modules. You basically still spam the tank with ammo until it "auto-explodes". Also, because AP is the only ammo that actually passes through the target, it is the only viable option to kill crew. If you fix HEAT though, things will be better! This is all I can think of right now, so far so good, but I hope you can take a look at the aforementioned points. Also, some documentation as to what is happening "under the hood" would be really helpful right now.

Technically speaking. The real life counterpart of the PCML (the MBTLAW or NLAW) is not continuously guided. It actually behaves a lot like tank FCS currently does ingame. You are supposed to track the target for 3 seconds while ranging it with a laser. This angular movement and range is fed to the missile 'guidance unit' and then fired. The missile exits the launcher and immediately corrects its course to a predicted impact point. Once it flies over the target, optical and magnetic sensors detonate the missile. In ArmA, the missile itself acts exactly like this in terms of flight path, but the lockon feature is a compromise as neither the missile or launching unit have a camera (irl). The visual model of the PCML missile in arma does not have a seeker either. Would be cool if BI pulled off this feature, as it can't be fooled by popping smoke, but changing speed/course will make it miss.

Right click vehicle. Go to Edit appearance (has a garage symbol next to it)

Just wait @Ziki_CZ. Modders will make this a feature soon. :) you heard it here first!

Speechless. This was the no1 thing I hoped for as a gameplay mechanic improvement. My prayers have been heard. My schedule has been cleared. I am prepared

*looks at devbrach log* SQUEEEEEEEEE

If the PCML is supposed to mimic the Saab NLAW, here is some info on it: Modes of operation The soldier selects top attack mode to engage tanks and armoured vehicles in order to strike the least armoured area on the vehicle’s roof. In the overfly top attack (OTA) mode, the missile flies at about 1m above the line of sight. The missile’s sensor initiates the warhead above the roof of the target. The soldier can select the direct attack (DA) mode to engage light vehicles, buildings and bunkers. In direct attack mode the missile flies directly along the line of sight towards the target. The missile fuse system is disconnected and the warhead detonates upon impact, after a short delay. Warhead characteristics The missile has an active magnetic and optical sensor activated proximity fuse. The sensor data is analysed to match the known relevant target criteria before warhead initiation. The missile warhead is activated even against aluminium targets and partially concealed targets. In conventional overflight missiles a keyhole effect resulting in reduced penetration into the target is caused by a shaped charge jet which develops during the missile flight. The MBT LAW warhead, similar to the BILL 2 missile warhead, incorporates a dynamically compensated shaped and copper lined charge to retain the penetration characteristics. The charge is 102mm in diameter. So to summarize: OTA (Overfly Top Attack) mode is used against armored targets. DA (Direct attack) is used against anything else. I can't find out exactly what "Dynamically compensated shaped charge" means in relation to the specific weapon system, but these warheads are typically mounted at a 90 degree angle, as to hit directly from above the armored target. The top armor is usually among the thinnest on the entire vehicle, and therefore much easier to penetrate. The interesting thing here (highlighted in blue) is that during direct attack, the sensor suite is deactivated and it simply relies on direct impact fuze with a short delay. This essentially means that it's designed to punch through unarmored stuff using the missile's kinetic energy, then detonating inside the vehicle. The explosives used in the warhead shaped charge will serve as a pure HE munition in this mode (no front-facing armor penetration value). In your helicopter scenario, it would probably be most destructive and accurate in direct-attack mode, but like @dragon01 already explained, it is not designed for AA capabilities. Just like the RPG-7 is not an Anti-Air weapon, even though somalians patented that. The effect of shaped charge munitions on lightly armored vehicles is less significant, since something called "overpenetration" occurs. Effectively, the armor is so thin, that the projectile (or in the case of HEAT, the "jet") simply cuts through without dissipating its energy into the target. This is very easy to imagine in a comparable situation: Imagine stringing up a cardboard target and shooting it with a pistol. The cardboard is so weak, the bullet just zips through without really causing the cardboard to move. If the target was made out of plywood, which is stronger, the bullet spends more energy to pass through, and transfers that energy to the plywood. This causes more damage to the area around the impact and pushes the plywood backwards. Anyways, the PCML missile in DA mode should damage the helicopter severely with just one hit, since it probably would perforate the aluminium skin and detonate inside the cabin. Cheers

Thanks for clarifying. I mean, it's not too obvious :) I guess you could say: It's not bad, it's just arma :p

Dear god look at mr mcruppert and miller back at it again already. You absolutely nailed the feeling of these games! Fantastic job man! What's next? A remake of Time Commando? :D

This weapon looks fantastic! Glad to see more anti-tank stuff coming into play :) If I may bring some constructive criticism, I think the right hand looks a little awkward the way it's angled. Look at the wrist joint, the angle seems too sharp. Could this perhaps be mitigated by cupping the hand a little more, then lowering the elbow so the angle doesn't become so sharp at the wrist? Other than that, absolutely perfect :)

Sounds about right. I hope we get to see some cfgarmorsimulation snacks soon :D Edit: Regarding today's devbranch update. What could possibly be the difference between " " and ' ' :) Maybe an indication of how serious these logistical issues are? I have yet to witness a case of '''logistical issues''' . I've been told those are a nightmare.

@x3kj @.kju Would make sense to make this into an AI skill slider parameter. "Reaction time". Could be the same parameter that influences aim time etc. Make that a base value, the eject time could be a coefficient of that base value. So for instance, reacting to enemies in CQB is generally fast, but as crew reacting to tank damage it gets an increased reaction time based on the initial level.

Thanks for verifying. I had this suspicion for ages.

@Beagle I have rigged 2.75'' rocket shaped charge warheads for demonstrational purposes IRL. If that TITAN-AT missile from my screenshot had ANY form of similar warhead, both guys would be dead from the pressure. It's like a HE grenade goes off 1 m from your head. Even without fragmentation, you are dead. Besides, my point is even if you dropped a 500lbs bomb 5 meters from the tank, the turned-out crew will not die in ArmA. Which is inaccurate. I think turned out crew are handled the same way as turned in crew when it comes to explosives. Only projectile hits will "directly" kill them. @dragon01 The molten metal jet has been debunked here as a myth already. Also my local EOD specialist confirmed. The liner (usually copper) is deformed by the explosive, but not molten. It does not melt any armor. However, the focused blast will force the steel armor to "give way". This deforms the steel so rapidly that the steel armor heats up and sends some steel sparks flying. The impact of HEAT looks like it makes the armor melt, but it's just being forced away by a focused jet of extremely high pressure. Yes, this creates high pressure and very hot steel spalling/fragments, which are likely to kill crew, destroy equipment and ignite ammunition. As for the HE potential, it's still enough to kill you at close range, but in no way a "general purpose" weapon. In my screenshot, the two tankers should be dead.

Some positive feedback on the Titan top-attack missile "homing" :) The missile now finds it's way to the nearest 'homies' much faster. Homing works as expected. image uploader On the flipside. About 0.1 ms after this screenshot was taken, neither of the homies were killed. The tank was damaged, but no crew killed. This is another gripe. Explosive weapons do not seem to damage turned-out crew. Neither do they really damage internal crew, even in cars, where a 40mm grenade to the drivers window "should" kill the guy(s) inside. Will this be tweaked for tanks DLC? :)

Monday will be a good day. I'm getting bi-weekly good vibes. And have a great weekend Bohemia Studios.

You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works. I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are: Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with). and More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc). @oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)

From a game standpoint this makes sense. Just like good old arcade bossfights. 3 hits to win over the boss. It's predictable and easy. However, from a simulation perspective this approach is faulty. Vehicles do not posess health. Therefore, saying a hit deals 33% damage to an APC health is a cheap way of designing damage. At best you could create a parameter called "structural integrity" that simulates hull deformation or collapse at a certain threshold (falling from great heights/getting slammed by something huge or very 'explodey'). But that will be the exception as to how vehicles get destroyed. Simply put: A tank does not explode because the shells damage it gradually. It generally only tends to explode if something explosive detonates inside it, such as an explosive chain reaction by hitting ammunition stowage or fuel/air mixtures. At this point the tank has switched roles from being an armored vehicle, into an expensive steel bomb. The pressure buildup inside will now either: - Escape through an opening extremely fast (like a rocket engine -woooosh). -Not escape and keep building until something gives away, such as the hatches, turret etc) -rarely, the tank can actually explode into bits and pieces. But more likely than any of the above, it will stop functioning due to dead crew, dead engine, knocked out weapons, tracked or other. I hope they alter the mechanics so that the likelyhood of effectively "killing" an unprotected tank with a direct hit from 1 advanced ATGM is about 50%, but a well aimed shot always kills it (critical part hit). For large aerial missiles such as macer, most likely 90% chance of kill. I would like to see more tanks get knocked out without exploding, maybe catching fire and brewing up to ammo cookoff. After all, it's often how these things go in real life. Set the tanks health to only take damage from extreme events, such as falling off a tall bridge or standing next to a 1000kg bomb. Make internal modules that can break. If ammo module takes full damage, have this cause total health loss of vehicle. Look to RHS armor and IFA3 for realistic approaches to vehicular damage. Etcetc :)