Vehicle Damage Model

[Dan Robertson]

How is the new vehicle damage model going to work, or for that matter is the vehicle damage model going to be changed?

The current vehicle damage model is a little crude as it gives all vehicles a rectangular turret with sides inclined at a given angle.

Thus it cannot simulate a vehicle like the Tiger II where the majority of the frontal surface of the turret was actually the sides of the turrets at an extreme angle. (hexagonal turret)

Personally I would love to see the attack of vehicles physically modelled rather than statistically modelled as they are at the moment.

So when a unit fires at a vehicle it would sight the other vehicle, aim off (using FCS if available) and launch the weapon. The weapons ballistic (or guided) flight would then be modelled and this would determine if the weapon strikes the target.

If the weapon strikes the target its impact position would be determined by the point where it calculated flight intersects with the wire frame model of the vehicle and penetration calculated by the estimation of the armour underlying the struck area. Additionally the same model could allow for instances where the round travels through an external object before striking the vehicle such as a building or a sand berm.

[aka_tom_w]

I think Steve said this aspect of the simulation will be improved upon in CM:SF.

I can't wait to see what they can do about this for the CMx2 ETO WWII game on the distant horizon.

-tom w

[c3k]

Gents,

I've lobbied in the past, and continue to hope for, an improved POST impact model fidelity.

As Dan mentioned above, the CMx1 statistical model was fine in its day, but for CMx2 a physical model would be better.

The internal layout of a vehicle would need to be modelled, using damage tolerance levels for each system. As a round penetrates the vehicle, it would lose energy as it damages/destroys/wounds the items it passes through.

"Panzer Elite" by Wings Simulations was a game that used such a behind armor system. Every vehicle system was simulated with a 3-D shape (for in-game calculations only; the visuals were quite good), and as they took damage, your vehicle was degraded accordingly.

I'm not suggesting to turn CM:SF into a tank simulator. Rather, just a fine-tuning of the model.

BF.C, any word on this subject?

Thanks,

Ken

[Other Means]

In the dropteam engine review they talk about the inside of vehicles being modelled quite accurately: linky

Even to the extent that if the radio gets shot through, the tank is out of contact. I'd expect the same sort of thing for CMx2.

[aka_tom_w]

This is COOL

INTERNAL COMPONENTS

PhysicalObjects may contain any number of embedded items called “InternalComponents.” These are items of interest that reside inside of the PhysicalObject, such as engines, ballistic computers, gunners, drivers, fuel tanks, ammo magazines, etc. When these items are inside of a PhysicalComponent and are functioning correctly, they imbue the PhysicalObject with capabilities that it wouldn’t otherwise have. For example, a ballistic computer inside of a turret allows the turret to automatically calculate trajectories for its guns. If the ballistic computer is destroyed, then the turret loses this capability.

InternalComponents have an actual position and size within the PhysicalObject that they are within, a rating of the component’s “toughness” and tendency (if any) to burn or explode when hit by a projectile, and certain properties related to its GUI display for a user who may be in control of the PhysicalObject containing that component.

To view some vehicle internal component schematics, click here!

PROJECTILE PENETRATION AND DAMAGE

When a projectile strikes a PhysicalObject, the engine first calculates whether or not the projectile is able to penetrate the object’s armor. If the projectile isn’t able to penetrate, then it will either ricochet off of the armor (potentially hitting something else afterward) or it will explode, depending on the type of projectile. If it does penetrate, the effect of the penetration is modeled in detail.

The decision about whether or not a projectile penetrates is based on 3 factors: the projectile’s penetrating power, the thickness of the armor being penetrated, and the angle at which the projectile has struck the armor, each of which is covered below.

PENETRATING POWER

There are 3 types of projectiles modeled by the engine: high velocity armor piercing slugs (AP), high explosive anti-tank (HEAT), and high explosive (HE.) Artillery and mortars combine multiple projectile types in one attack (their blast is modeled as HE and their fragmentation is modeled as a high number of small AP projectiles.) Each type of projectile has its own means of penetrating armor.

and check this out (just a NOTE here, looks like what you are asking for in the original post is now technically feasible in REALTIME as least for this game.)

web page

[c3k]

Other Means,

Thanks for the link. THAT is EXACTLY what I'd hope for in CMx2.

Regards,

Ken

[MikeyD]

This is usually the point where someone jumps in and berates us for confusing BFC 'published' material with BFC 'produced' material, and proclaiming that the Dropteam engine (or T72, or Grognards) is NOT the CMx2 engine. :mad:

The fact that they haven't jumped in and berated us may perhaps mean that Dropteam's modular damage model could be pretty close to what we're going to see in CM:SF.

Ah, and about Dropteam. Isn't that going to be a 'realtime' strategic sim in much the same way as the realtime play mode for CM:SF? The game might be worth looking over when it comes out (before CM:SF, I expect), if only to check out its playability.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by c3k:

Other Means,

Thanks for the link. THAT is EXACTLY what I'd hope for in CMx2.

Regards,

Ken

Me too.

[Dillweed]

I hope we get something better than the "droppy turret" after a tank is knocked out. The only thing I can think of thats better than blowing a big smokin hole in a T-72 with a javalin is seeing a big hole with smoke coming out where the jav hit.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the end product of CMx2 damage modeling is quite a bit like DropTeam's. The vehicle is made up of separate pieces that are simulated in a specific physical location with properties that match their real world influence on the vehicle's performance.

A turret penetration, for example, might render many of the offensive capabilities of the vehicle useless, but it might still be able to move under its own power. Likewise, a hit on the outside of the hull, that does not penetrate, could compromise the functionality of various systems that are largely external, like smoke mortars or night vision optics. The reduction in functionality can be complete or partial, depending on what the system is and how badly it is hit.

Systems can also go offline during the game for apparently no reason. I call these "system failures" to keep them separate from "system damage". We need to be careful to not make systems fail unrealistically often, though it will come down to guesswork since there is very little data to draw from. The most important aspect of "system failures" is to start out vehicles with things wrong with them before the game starts.

I've wanted this from the early days of CMBO when I read an account of the battles for Kommerscheidt and Schmidt. The US had several tanks that were not full functional due (mostly) to mechanical failures. I remember one M-10 that had its turret jammed and another that basically could only move at a snail's pace. These things are now, finally, possible to simualte in the new engine.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Yes, the end product of CMx2 damage modeling is quite a bit like DropTeam's.

um...

Does that mean, yes this feature will appear in that way in CM:SF??

or sometime in some future release of the CMx2 game engine

(ETO WWII hint hint) ???

thanks

-tom w

[Pvt. Ryan]

Will each Stryker come with its own R2 unit?

[Battlefront.com]

A cornerstone of CMx2's development philosophy, since before we started work on it, was to avoid investing in features that we already knew would be ripped out at the soonest possible opportunity. Detailed vehicle damage/failure modeling, as I just stated, has been something we've wanted since CMx1. It is something that we feel is necessary for CM:SF and beyond. Therefore, instead of investing time and resources into something that will be difficult and time consuming to rip out later on, we are instead doing it the way we want it right from the start. So yes, detailed damage modeling is going into CM:SF.

OK, so if this is our philosophy, then why are we saying that CoPlay is going in later on even though we say we already know we want it? Because we don't have to put in a substitute for CoPlay now, like we would with vehicle damage/failure modeling. We can skip CoPlay entirely and then add it later when we have the time to do it right. That is a very different thing.

In fact, this difference has been at the heart of many design decisions we've made. If something is considered critical for CM:SF specifically, and other games generally, it is on the current development schedule. If something is not, and we don't have to code up some sort of placeholder feature, then it is slated for the future. Considering that we have limited time and resources compared to our imagination and inherent capabilities, this is the sensible approach. Critical stuff done right and done now, "nice to have" stuff done right but done later. It's a good plan

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

OK then

Perhaps you need to talk to some Real Life Stryker Mechanics (somehow) who maybe (somehow) online line in Iraq right now so they can tell you how often Styker mechanical and electrical and digital components breakdown in regular use and service?

Its a good thought, but it might be tricky to actually pull off.

Somebody, somewhere that fixes those things on a daily basis could provide you with WEALTH of information about how why and when what breaks down and fails the Stryker.

(the concept being that at least if you talked to just one mechanic you would have an "instant source" and real world reply to all the folks who complain their equipement is breaking down WAY TOO often.)

Now this whole idea may be somewhat hard to pull off with regard to speaking to Syrian mechanics, but hey, we all know that stuff is going to break down all the time AND/OR get all shot up and destroyed before it has a chance to break down so talking to RealLife Syrian AFV mechanics shouldn't really be a big deal anyway.

thanks!

-tom w

[M1A1TC]

When one of more tires or destroyed, will the model show it?

[Battlefront.com]

System failures is going to be guesswork, no way around it. Talking to mechanics and what not for a specific vehicle will only give us a sense of what types of things fail, but probably not a great sense of how commonly. And even if they could give us that info, we wouldn't have it for many other things.

Fortunately, most of the problem areas for a vehicle are generally known. Delicate things tend to break, elaborate systems tend to fail, and thing which come into contact with physical force are prone to being compromised. The better the maintainence, the better the design, the more improved the equipment is over previous models, and the better trained the crew operating it means the less likely something bad will happen.

This is one thing the Syrians will have problems with. Some reports show that they can expect many of their missiles to fail, either to fire or to detonate correctly. Poor quality (RPG HE rounds), poor long term storage (Milan missile systems), and poor maintainence records (heavy vehicles) resulting from edemic shortcomings (poor funding) means that failures will be more common for the Syrian side than for the US side. This is not to say that an Abrams is without its flaws, rather it is to say that the US forces are more likely to identify a problem before it happens and to do something about it right there and then.

An example from the beginning of OIF was a Bradley that blew its engine. In the middle of a sandstorm a maintainence crew overhauled and installed a new engine within a fairly short period of time. Yeah, frontline... deep in Iraq.... and a spare engine was right there with a well trained maintainence crew. Pretty darned impressive. Unfortunately... changing out an engine in the middle of a standstorm is a very difficult thing to do and this particular crew didn't pass the test. The Bradley, I later read, broke down only a few hours later and had to be left behind. Sometimes being better isn't enough

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Damage modeling, in 3D respects, is still an unknown. We have the hooks to show damage of all sorts, but we aren't sure if we'll have time to hook them up for CM:SF or if that will have to wait until the next game. Unfortunately, visually representing damage is very, very time consuming. Having said that, basic levels of damage, such as a flat tire or a blown track, should be doable for CM:SF.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Meant to add that DropTeam ROCKS! I've been playing a lot of it, and I can tell you it is fun as heck and the damage modeling is a really cool aspect. Being able to aim at a guy's wheels and suddenly see them start to smoke is rather rewarding. Well, unless you're seeing your own wheels smoking... that sux

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Damage modeling, in 3D respects, is still an unknown. ...

snip

.... Having said that, basic levels of damage, such as a flat tire or a blown track, should be doable for CM:SF.

Steve

Wow! :eek: that says a lot right there

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is one thing the Syrians will have problems with. Some reports show that they can expect many of their missiles to fail, either to fire or to detonate correctly. Poor quality (RPG HE rounds), poor long term storage (Milan missile systems), and poor maintainence records (heavy vehicles) resulting from edemic shortcomings (poor funding) means that failures will be more common for the Syrian side than for the US side.

While I personally think duds are a good idea, we are dealing with an area which is totally guesswork, unless anyone has a study on this area. Are we talking about minor annoyance (i.e 1-5%), major annoyance (i.e 10-20%) or major malfunction? (i.e 30-50% of firings).

I would think a missile failure rate somewhere between minor and major annoyance would be about right. Anything higher would seriously neuter the Syrian side.

[ November 20, 2005, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, it is a tough call. In CMx1 we avoided this area with very few exceptions (high shatter rate of US 76mm AP for example). However, as systems become more complicated there is more possibility for failures. We felt that we simply can't avoid dealing with this topic in more detail.

The storage and maintainence issues are also ones we can't ignore, especially for the Syrians. There are some figures on the dud/flaw aspect of PRG-7 HE rounds, so whatever those numbers are (I have to dig a bit more) we will use them. We aren't going to water down realism just because it makes something more difficult for one side or the other.

Steve

[flamingknives]

PG-7xx, Steve, if you're talking about the projectile. RPG-7 if it's the launcher.

Mr. flamingpicky

[Battlefront.com]

Uh, yeah, what you said

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Steve,

Are the reports you mentioned about Syrian weapon failures available online and if yes, could you post a link?

the only thing I found is what I posted earlier:

"...Syria’s limitations will be further compounded by its problems in absorbing new equipment. These include the endemic corruption. They also include its politicized and compartmented command structure, inadequate military pay, poor manpower management, poor technical training, and poor overall training - particularly in realistic combat exercises and aggressor training. Syrian forces have inadequate combat and service support, equipment for night and poor weather warfare, long-range sensors and targeting systems, and mobile rapidly maneuverable logistics, recording, and combat repair capability. While individual Syrian officers have shown a keen understanding of many of these problems, Syria has never taken effective action to deal with them.

from here:

web page

[ November 21, 2005, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[panzermartin]

Dud RPG rounds? If there will be a high rate Syrians will suck big time. I cant think of anything else that can make them effective in MOUT situations.

On a second thought though, given the vast available numbers of those things, maybe a 10% dud rate wont make such a difference.

If there is no credible source I hope this is not going to be exaggerated. Anyway, we can always put molotovs back and give them at least a sporting chance