Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

PROPOSAL for improved armor penetration system without changing vintage system setup
Assigned, WishlistPublic


Ok, I know ya'll aren't keen on the HP system, but hear me out. This can easily be used to our advantage, and goes the same way as the body armor simulation I proposed elsewhere.

Divide vehicle hitbox from fire geometry. Place fire geometry to be hit -inside- the vehicle and assign armor values to external hitbox (ie, the vehicle as seen from the outside.) using rvmats.

When firing at the vehicle, the shell needs to penetrate the external hitbox. Inside the vehicle, roughly shaped fire geometry for the fighting compartement and all damageable components are placed.

If the attackers shell does not penetrate the external armor shell, nothing happens.

If it does penetrate, it strikes the internal fire geometry and does according damage to the vehicles HP. No change to the HP system. I detail the advantages I see immediately below. I will also draw a picture to illustrate my Idea and add it to this post.


Legacy ID
Steps To Reproduce

Divide HP damaging parts from armor parts. Use vehicles external geometry as armor and divide fire geometry into the internal parts only.

Apply armor RVmat to external geometry with appropriate values all around. By leaving openings or applying particularily flimsy materials, particular weak spots can be simulated. (Shot traps around the turret, very weak top and bottom armor, lightly armored hatches, windows, etc.)

Model the fire geometry where actual damage will be dealt according to distribution of internal parts on the actual vehicle. Assign degrees of vulnerability. What I imagine to happen is this:

Shot hits the tank, penetrates the externals through the RVmat RHA, and carries the damage into one of the internal hitboxes if it strikes one of them. Any strike should do some sort of damage, if only wounding the crew.

Armor should not degrade. Hull damage should simulate condition of internal hitboxes and not external state of the vehicle.

Additional Information


No immediate change to the HP system, only model and config changes to implement system.

Use the integrated and working material penetration system to simulate armor, no need for mega-extensive scriptwork or sciency stuff beyond what is there.

HP system can then be tweaked to deliver realistic responses to hits in coordination with the existing features (fires, explosions, vehicle component damage.)

It appeared nice when I thought of it and after an hour of pondering I couldn't find any immediate flaws that I as a non-programmer, graphical minded designer person could spot.

Pls input on dis comunity thx <3

Event Timeline

InstaGoat edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
InstaGoat set Category to Config.
InstaGoat set Reproducibility to N/A.
InstaGoat set Severity to None.
InstaGoat set Resolution to Open.
InstaGoat set Legacy ID to 901247311.May 7 2016, 5:11 PM

Well I do hope this gets considered, does seem like solid idea... Is it even possible to script a demo?

maturin added a subscriber: maturin.May 7 2016, 5:11 PM

This is actually almost exactly how it already works. Shots damage component hitboxes after penetrating armor. Take out the hull damage, and this ticket is finished.

What we're missing is crew damage based on the probabilistic threat of spall, shock, heat, light, fragments.

That requires scripted solutions, which BIS is too candy ass to use, even though it works perfectly in ACE.

So that also rules out ERA (hurray for WWII tech in 2035!), HEAT vs KE differences, LOA and angle of incidence simulation (partially), etc.

zGuba added a comment.Oct 18 2013, 9:29 PM

Quite much like what I described in my tank tutorial under DAMAGE section.

Thanks for input :)

I read the config guidelines, and I am not quite sure it is the same. However, if we're really that close already, wouldn't it be worth considering working on damage behaviour and adding more different components?

Compartemented Ammo storage (So when a Tank blows up, if it has an ammo compartement with blowoff panels, the explosion takes place but doesn't destroy the vehicle or harm the crew.), Damageable optics and sensors, things like that.

Also re: probabalistic simulation of spall, shock, heat, etc is unnecessary. Simulation is generally doing overkill simulation where you could use a simple system that looks like it is actually much more complex. All vehicles need is some kind of crew compartment hit zone, and some rule that asks what kind of weapon hit me, what's the effect, then apply a value from that effect to the damaged area. Base the damage value on research findings. Actually doing live armor penetration calculations is a waste of cycles, as far as I am concerned: as long as the system -feels- realistic and enjoyable, do we really care about what it does and doesn't do under the hood?

The damage system right now is still unsatisfying, which is why I am advocating for chänge :>

If I want to have damageable optics, I need to have way to make AI blind.
If I want blowoff panels and ammo storages, I need to remove rounds that have been blown up.

Without dedicated programming support and no scripts allowed in first place these are impossible. That's how the things are unfortunately.

Why aren't you allowed to use scripts anyway? It's not like those 0.1 FPS is more important than a better damage system for vehicles.

Because scripts are tack-on. I´m opposed to their use too, especially because I know how badly they can impact a low end rig like mine.

I see that the system is standing as it is for now, with tweaks, however I think that in the future and as the game matures, systems like that may be worth considering.

This goes along with infantry body armor. Individual tanks with more detailed damage modelling would make fighting them and fighting from them more interesting, because you can make the individual vehicle tougher without making them overpowered. Nice to know you are having an eye on it, though, the armor penetration systems is really getting good at the moment, and I really appreciate your hard work!

I played ArmA 2 with a laptop that was well below minimum reqs and ACE 2's armor system worked FINE. Just FINE.

You can't even use a single, one-time script to remove ammo? Possibly the simplest, least taxing function you could possibly conceive of in a videogame? WTF?! What do they think their missions are made out of?

ShackTac uses ACE's scripted systems in games with 200 players, it's stress-tested out the ass.

Sorry, but fuck whoever made that decision.