Armor Ratings Discussed?

[Polish GI]

As anyone heard anything on how armored vehicles are going to be treated?  I would like to see different armor ratings to different areas of the vehicle that are based on real armor type, thickness, angle as opposed to just a flat rate armor point rating.  I think it would be more realistic to have to hit a vehicle just right, or hope for the best as opposed to just wearing down the armor point rating?  

(Example:  (old), M1A1 Abrams has an armor rating of 900 pts); (new) M1A1 Abrams, Hull Front- ?, Side- ?, Read- ?, Turret Front- ?, Side- ?, Rear- ?...)

Perhaps come up with a penetration value for AT weapons based on round type, actual penetration at different distances.  (e.g vehicle weapons, ATGM, infantry AT weapons etc)

I think this would help all the mods stay on the same page as far as armoring their vehicles.  If the mods know the weapon or armor rating equation, they can include these on their models.  This will eliminate the confusion and differences between someone's PzKw VI Tiger I and another Tiger I.  I have seen models that look great but when a T-34 can take 6 hits from a Tiger, and the Tiger can only take 2 hits from the T-34 (supposedly a 76mm gun, not the 85mm), there is something wrong!

Does this make sense?  What is everyone's thoughts on this?

[colossus]

Sorry for quoting this:

Quote[/b] ]It really is very simple - there is no point suggesting new features for ArmAS, and no point speculating about features, release date, distributor etc  etc. We have a pinned topic on what discussion is allowed.

So, no suggestion or speculations about the how the armor is. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

I would think that BIS has adjusted the armor since last time, don't worry.

[Espectro]

Well, atleast we can discuss how we would like it to be, and maybe plan on making it ourself. I find the idea pretty interesting.

It doesnt even have to be so advanced. We allready have different armour ratings on choppers (window/no window), so why cant we have differet ratings on the tanks as well?

Its pretty simple, just have 1 lod for the full tank, and then add different layers of lods on the places where it has more armour. For instance, the tank would have 4 lods on the front, 2 on the sides and 1 in the back. So the tank can take 4 times as much damage on the front than in the rear.

Would this work?

[Polish GI]

For the WWII guys, I noticed a formula that was applied to vehicles. I believe it was called the "Universal Armor" something or other! Pretty indepth, but it gave you the ability to go through the config file and alter it giving different sides, different ratings.

The only thing I would like BIS to stay away from is the idea of an M1A1 being destroyed by a weak weapon (small arms?) because it has already sustained damage from the 3 ATGM hits prior.

Try and shift the idea to "Does the round penetrate the vehicle's armor or not?" and if not, go about your business as usual. Or heck, even go one step further and come up with system damages (e.g. computers, range finders, turret mechanism, throw a track, damage a wheel etc).

I hope they change it! Everything else is very detailed, why not this? I can only assume that with OFP 1.0, they did not (obviously did not) think it would get this big. From what I read, flying (plane/helo) and driving an armored vehicle will be much different.