Jump to content

Armor modelling: Hitpoints, minimum thickness or probability?


Avimimus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading this article:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

 

It would seem to me that the best way to model armour would be an almost totally probability based system.

 

For instance:

(Probability to hit at a given range) * (Probability to get through countermeasures) * (Probability to get through ERA) * [(Warhead penetration / Armour effective thickness ratio)*(Constant Multiplier)] * (Probability of doing internal damage after penetration).

 

Of course, to do it well you'd need to have separate values for front, side, rear, top, and turret. You'd also need values estimating the effectiveness of each weapon vs. each type of countermeasures.

 

Finally, it looks like it'd be important to have a separate critical hit roll for weak spots ...and you'd want a separate roll for surficial damage (e.g. knocking optics out).

 

Anyway, the point is - you can remove hitpoints entirely (replacing them with a single 'probability of doing internal damage' with multipliers for each weapon and receiving vehicle). It would look like 'A T-90 can take three shots on average' but the possibility for a one shot kill or surviving three shots without any serious damage would exist. Basically, it'd turn it into a 'knocked out' vs. 'still functioning' damage system based upon layered probabilities.

 

What do you guys think? What is the best way to simulate modern armour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually get a bit of a probabilistic model from hitpoints when you have different hitbox regions just from weapon accuracy and target movement.

 

The biggest issue with DCS damage model is that all weapons do the same kind of damage. When that is fixed, damage would be substantially improved. We wouldn't need super inflated attack values anymore.

 

I don't think that removing HP is necessary, it's not really source of any problems. There are probably a variety of ways to get a good damage model though.

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally, I'd like it to be more or less similar to what Men of War series do. Different weapons & rounds have different penetration capabilities, for kinetic energy penetrators range, therefore energy of round at impact matter, round's angle of impact on armour matter, and of course thickness of armour itself again, matter. For chemical energy rounds, range comes out of equation, but angle still matters. Non catashthropic hits cause damage to vehicle systems like mobility, firepower etc, but if a hit successfully score a penetration : no damage amount, no hit point or anything, it just goes boom.

 

Of course, this would be A LOT of processing overhead in a flight simuation. So, some simplification should be taken.

 

But probability stuff doesn't sound right to me at all. Such systems are good for report and statistics alright. But what we have here is a physics simulation of actual hits / misses and their effects, so in my opinion above probability formula shouldn't be the way forward.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think probability works for somethings. Just having a raw 50% kill chance per round is obviously a bad idea, but using probability for specific things can not only be convincing, but quite realistic. Counter measure modeling is probably such a place, as the effectiveness of a flare or something can probably be modeled well with a probability of it attracting a seeker. The probability can even change based on other factors.

 

Other things should be pure physics, in the first post I don't like the idea of probability based accuracy. That's handled by how well the player shoots or for AI how how precise the gun is.

 

Having probability based damage could be nice if it helps avoid excessive repeatability (example, it always takes 50 rounds exactly to kill a certain vehicle) but even non probability based models can achieve that if set up correctly.

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Ideally, I'd like it to be more or less similar to what Men of War series do. Different weapons & rounds have different penetration capabilities, for kinetic energy penetrators range, therefore energy of round at impact matter, round's angle of impact on armour matter, and of course thickness of armour itself again, matter. For chemical energy rounds, range comes out of equation, but angle still matters. Non catashthropic hits cause damage to vehicle systems like mobility, firepower etc, but if a hit successfully score a penetration : no damage amount, no hit point or anything, it just goes boom.

 

Of course, this would be A LOT of processing overhead in a flight simuation. So, some simplification should be taken.

 

But probability stuff doesn't sound right to me at all. Such systems are good for report and statistics alright. But what we have here is a physics simulation of actual hits / misses and their effects, so in my opinion above probability formula shouldn't be the way forward.

I could take that in simplifactions like 15° steps for hit angles, a penetration values between 25-50 steps and then some random damage changes for parts in 5-10% steps like lose a track or kill infantry because spelling behind IFV.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...