Massive Bug with T-90 Armor - might be beta related [Archive]

Helmut_AUT

Dec 14 2009, 14:20

Hi all

While the Betas tried to improve the "Hitpoint System" for tanks so small arms ammunition would not damage them...

[59691] Improved: Small hit be ignored by hitpoints (configurable by minimalHit)

...there is still something very wrong with the T-90. Namely that at least in Beta 588, it gets easily blown up by HUMVEE or Avenger .50 cal MG

Try it yourself - a single mag or two from an M2 12.7cal MG will destroy a T-90.

It doesn't happen with the M1A1, so maybe it's vehicle specific. I currently can't test if the bug is present in 1.04 already, or if it was introduced in the beta.

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

More testing done by someone at simHQ - also applies to the T-72, using the latest Beta patch.

Right now, the Russian MBTs can be taken out by HUMVEE with a flanking MG attack before a human player might even react. This is seriously screwing up all kinds of gameplay and pretty much means the Russians have no truly survivable MBT.

maturin

Dec 14 2009, 14:58

Heavy machine guns do tons of damage in this game so they can take out light APCs and choppers. They probably overrun the minimalHit and do full damage to the tank.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 14 2009, 15:25

You are of course correct, but it doesn't happen on the US Tanks, so there should be a way to solve it for the Russian ones.

It really totally threw me in a WARFARE game against AI yesterday that my 12.000$ Tank Platoon of 3xT-90 was minced within minutes after encountering a bunch of AI Avengers.

This is so incorrect, it's brutal and really wrecks any kind of gameplay balance.

cm.

Dec 14 2009, 15:35

Maddmatt

Dec 15 2009, 06:58

The new vehicle configs are not in the beta patch, so the minimalHit value isn't defined yet.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 15 2009, 08:30

Okay, but why does it not influence the M1A1?

Obviously if "MinimalHit" isn't in effect yet, there's still something else that keeps M1A1 from being wrecked by large-calibre MG, whereas T-72 and T-90 are worth about as much as an APC.

I think it's kinda hard to overstate the importance of this bug - it really means that one side (Russians) in Force-on-Force MP has NO usable Battletanks at all. Any mission that features Russian tanks becomes a joke with this bug since you as Tank Commander need to be deadly afraid of anything 12.7mm, and it totally throws away the point of Combined Arms Warfare Simulation that's at the Core of what Arma2 does.

Alex72

Dec 15 2009, 08:37

I think it's kinda hard to overstate the importance of this bug - it really means that one side (Russians) in Force-on-Force MP has NO usable Battletanks at all.

And on the other hand - when i pin 4 M1's vs 4 T90's = T90=WIN Everytime!

Hmmm. Somethings whacked for sure lol.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 15 2009, 08:49

That shouldn't happen either, they ought to be about evenly matched. Curious what happens if you replace T-90 with T-72?

Beagle

Dec 15 2009, 09:19

Its the same with T-72.
I use this exploit to extend in warfare MP missions.
Its so easy to stop a whole A.I. tank platoon with a HMMWV M2.
This keeps the cash flowing. Dont bother to buy At weapons.

LAVs are also super deadly to russian tanks.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 15 2009, 09:34

Yep, that's exactly what irks me - what's the point of Combined Arms dedicated AT-Assets if every stupid Hummer with an M2 can take out the best enemy Armor there is.

MadDogX

Dec 15 2009, 09:49

So let's just sum this up: the minimalHit fix is not actually implemented in the public betas yet because we don't have the vehicle configs. That means we probably won't be seeing it until the full 1.05 patch hits the tubes. Nevertheless, the Abrams seems to somehow be less vulnerable to .50 cal fire than russian tanks while conversely being inferior to T-90s in direct confrontations.

Am I right so far?

Looks like we need some more scientifically valid testing to be done, as most of the reports here seem to be anecdotal experiences from multiplayer and AI controlled firefights. I suggest some direct testing in the editor to answer the following questions:

1. How many M2 .50cal shots can the Abrams, T-72 and T-90 each currently take?

and

2. How many main cannon shots from the Abrams does it take to destroy a T-72 and T-90 respectively, and vice versa?

EDIT: I'll do some tests later on and report back.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 15 2009, 11:32

To quote a friend from simHQ who did some editor tests after I found the bug:

About the M1A1

Did a quick test and with the beta there was almost no damage (a little orange)to a tank after firing all mags from a mounted .50cal.
Without the beta the tank showed heavy damage (lot of red).

So obviously the beta (he's using the latest release) has changed something for the Abrams as far as .50cal damage goes.

On the Russian Tanks

I tested it again against T90 and it blew up with 1 mag from the .50cal. T72 also destroyed with 1 mag.

So for the Russian Tanks, one mag 50cal (100 rounds I think?) is enough. For the Abrams - four or five can't damage it beyond some small scratch.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Oh, maybe someone wants to try with the CDF and ChDkz T-72? Would be interesting if it's specific to the Russian models.

Beagle

Dec 15 2009, 11:38

"1. How many M2 .50cal shots can the Abrams, T-72 and T-90 each currently take?"

80-100 from M2, 50-60 from KORD. This amount would not even scratch a BMP3

"2. How many main cannon shots from the Abrams does it take to destroy a T-72 and T-90 respectively, and vice versa?"

T-90 and T-72 use the same gun-

1 hit from M1 will destroy both, T-72 instantly, T-90 delayed.
1 Hit from t-90 renders M1 useless, second hit will destroy it.

The whole Problem has already been reported in the forums at least four times, and has a ticket on the Bug tracker since Summer.

maturin

Dec 15 2009, 14:52

And on the other hand - when i pin 4 M1's vs 4 T90's = T90=WIN Everytime!

Hmmm. Somethings whacked for sure lol.

US tanks slaughter T-90s in my game.

Helmut_AUT

Dec 15 2009, 15:04

Maybe they are using the Commanders .50cal ;)

Billy Bones

Dec 15 2009, 23:35

not 100% on hit points and the like , but with the latest beta I was messing about with the editor and lined up 10 T90's at one end of the runway on the airfield at the other end 10 M1A2's.

The T90's were facing 270 ..... the 10 M1A2's were facing the rears of the T90s, I got 2 different results with the editor. 1st shot I put the time at 1am pitch dark, the russian tanks even with the us tanks to there rear the T90's won with at least 3-4 tanks left. I just re ran the same scenario, I just altered the time to midday, this time there were 3-4 us tanks left standing.

I ran it again at 1am and just like before the T90s won ??

Helmut_AUT

Dec 16 2009, 10:16

Lack of Night Vision for the US Tanks? Hard to belive...

Fireball

Dec 16 2009, 18:32

Yes, the patch changelog only stated that "minimalHit" was made available, not yet integrated into the default armored vehicles.

EDIT: Sorry, for stating the obvious again. But interesting find, Billy Bones.

Billy Bones

Dec 16 2009, 19:04

don't want to start a new topic its about tanks away ..

M1A2 .. Editor v T90 could have been anything ... playing as Commander in the M1A2 I order target that tank .. box and inner circle round the T90 .. Machine gun fire .. no firing of main gun ????

I was trying out the Javelin , as the T90 was up in smoke** I turned it on the M1A2 .. Hit but did not destory the M1A2 .. I went up to it , the crew were outside I jumped in ... tank outline top corner .. orange outline , red gun red right track ..

Q ? True to life or should Javelin destroyed the M1A2 ?

** M1A2 fired main gun at the T90 but only as a non player item , when I was Commander .. it would only fire Machine Gun when I ordered target the T90.

Suma

Dec 16 2009, 19:30

So obviously the beta (he's using the latest release) has changed something for the Abrams as far as .50cal damage goes.

What was changed was minimalHit config value support was added and a default value of 0.01 was introduced for this value. This works well for some vehicles, but for some vehicles (T-72) larger value will be needed. As we want to keep beta patches small, we did not want to distributed tracked.pbo and some other pbos with it. This means some changes will be present in data which you cannot test yet.

oyman

Dec 16 2009, 19:43

upping the damage resistance helps, download the addon and try it compared to stock t90
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1421820&postcount=10

sprayer_faust

Dec 16 2009, 20:45

don't want to start a new topic its about tanks away ..

M1A2 .. Editor v T90 could have been anything ... playing as Commander in the M1A2 I order target that tank .. box and inner circle round the T90 .. Machine gun fire .. no firing of main gun ????

** M1A2 fired main gun at the T90 but only as a non player item , when I was Commander .. it would only fire Machine Gun when I ordered target the T90.

Yes... This bothers me too. You have to order the gunner to switch from coaxial mg to main gun (ctrl + f) and then command him "fire" while engaging tanks. The gunner should automatically switch to main gun when he is ordered to target another tank or apc. It works the other way around though - he switches back to coax on his own when he spots infantry and starts engaging.

It looks silly when you give out a fire command and your tank starts shooting the machine gun at the enemy tank. It wastes valuable time and only alerts the enemy - the chance of receiving a shell or a missile goes up.

This wasn't a problem in OFP, because when in commander seat you could always see what type of weapon the gunner is using and he wasn't changing back to MG on his own. Now you only see your own weapon selection (commander's seat - smoke shells or m240/kord).

Helmut_AUT

Dec 17 2009, 09:14

Thanks Suma, now we know that this will be fixed in 1.05

Agree on the problems with target/ammo selection for tanks. The reason that damn Avenger could plink my T-90 dead was that my Gunner insisted on shooting the Coax. If you take out Hummers with a Sabot, you can mostly avoid their .50cal fire, but it requires a very active command style.

MadDogX

Dec 18 2009, 07:26

Can we also assume that, with the introduction of the minimalHit value, units will no longer fire coax machine guns and small arms at tanks? It should, after all, be much easier now for an AI unit to decide whether or not his weapon will be effective.

vilas

Dec 18 2009, 07:31

And on the other hand - when i pin 4 M1's vs 4 T90's = T90=WIN Everytime!

Hmmm. Somethings whacked for sure lol.

seems it is as realistic as :
- 600 meters for AKS74U compared to :
- 400 meters for G36 with scope
- 300 meters for M4 with sights

1300 meters for SVD with 4x scope on poor mount vs.
1000 meters for M24/M40 with 10x scope

and ... 500 meters for VSS silenced ammo , which is told to be 200-300 meters range ammunition (SP5, SP6)

many things in this game are screwed in configs, thats why many of us do addons/mods which changes values and are balanced within mod
simple advice for future for addonmakers - better not keep BIS values as bible/oracle
BIS are super graphicians and artists and made super game, but small details in configs, are things that cannot be accepted by mil-sim freaks as we

Helmut_AUT

Dec 22 2009, 15:09

Seems someone had mercy on the Cannon/Coax issue. From 1.05 changelog:

Changed: AI gunners can autonomously use automatic weapons only when some automatic weapon is selected

Helmut_AUT

Dec 22 2009, 18:53

Oh, and just tested: 1.05 did not fix T-90 armor problems. Still brews up after max. 120 rounds 12.7mm from HUMVEE.

Beagle

Dec 22 2009, 19:25

Oh, and just tested: 1.05 did not fix T-90 armor problems. Still brews up after max. 120 rounds 12.7mm from HUMVEE.Try again. I just fired 200 rounds of KORD ammunition into it and nochtig happened. The KORD 12.7x108mm used to be much stronger hitpointwise than the 12.7x99mm.

Vipera

Dec 22 2009, 20:13

So, is it fixed in 1.05 patch?

Dwarden

Dec 22 2009, 23:30

it also depends where you hit ... anyway this issue with T90 T72 T34 and some other armored vehicles is known ...

something for 1.06 ;)

Beagle

Dec 23 2009, 04:54

Yep, that's exactly what irks me - what's the point of Combined Arms dedicated AT-Assets if every stupid Hummer with an M2 can take out the best enemy Armor there is.
I tried this for hours now, I cant. All I can do with the full Ammo loadout of a M2 hummer in 1.05 is disabling the guns on a T-90.

Maybe some mods are making trouble?

Helmut_AUT

Dec 23 2009, 09:47

I had no mods loaded when testing.

Hummer with M2, AI-crewed T-90 with no ammo, 50 meter front to front at the Utes Runway, peppering the first ammo box all over the frontal arc of the T-90. Second ammo box - barely into it, crew exits and T-90 brews up.

If you only hit the Gun area it doesn't seem to cook up, but I think it's the tracks and lower front profile that are still vulnerable.

In the 1.05 impressions thread, someone else reported the same results, it's not just me.

Dwarden, thanks for the response, but this was known and acknowledged by Suma before 1.05 release in this thread. I really don't get why such a massive game-changing bug continues to live for yet another patch circle.