DayZ ballistics have been ruined!

[-Gews- 7443]

ARMA and DayZ have always been known for relatively realistic combat and ballistics.
Unfortunately, thanks to recent changes, DayZ no longer has any form of 'realistic' ballistic values. This needs to be fixed.

 

I noticed some weird values in the projectile config and going through, I realized that DayZ's realistic ballistics have been changed into complete nonsense! Here are some examples:

1. Shotgun pellets have a muzzle velocity of 350 metres per second, but even if you point the gun high up in the air, the pellets hit the ground after only 75 m due to crazy airFriction SIX TIMES higher than realistic. 
2. The 7.62x54R has an airFriction that is over SEVEN TIMES higher than the .308 Winchester. 
3. The 7.62x39 has an airFriction that is over SIX TIMES higher than the 5.45x39.
4. The 9x19mm has an airFriction that is over DOUBLE that of the .22 LR.

All of these are brand new values, so it's not like they changed the .308 and left the 7.62x54R alone, and that's the reason for the difference. Nope, both were changed but one was given seven times higher airFriction. Those are just some of the most obvious examples. Almost every single round has incorrect ballistics. What makes this more annoying is that they already had decent values. Way back in patch 0.34 they fixed many of the incorrect placeholder ballistics. It seems with patch 0.63 they've gone and unfixed them!

To be fair, I don't know if they've changed how this part of the engine works. That being said, there is no engine in which you give a 7.62x54R SEVEN TIMES higher airFriction than a .308 Winchester. The shotgun pellets DO ONLY GO ABOUT 75 METRES, which roughly matching my calculations that are based on how the game worked before. So I'm going to make the assumption that the ballistics works more or less the same, and that whoever put these new values in made some big mistakes. [EDIT] Did testing, confirmed airFriction works the same as it always has. Suspicion was correct. See reply below.


Based on the above assumption, here are three crazy facts about 0.63 ballistics:

Fact 1. At 2,000 metres the .308 Winchester would still carry half its energy. In real life it loses half by 350 m!

Fact 2.  Buckshot pellets would lose half their energy after travelling 3-4 body lengths (only 6 to 7 metres). 


Fact 3. At 1,000 metres the 5.56x45 would have over FOUR TIMES the energy of the much larger and more powerful 7.62x54R.



To show how bad the changes are, here's a graph which compares predictions for the 5.56x45 in 0.62, the 5.56x45 in real life... and the 5.56 in DayZ 0.63.



I have no idea how they came up with these values, most of which are pretty specific. For example, .357 Magnum at -0.000599. Wow, -0.000599 instead of simply -0.0006. We're talking a small percent of one percent of difference there.

I can tell the devs did some research for the initial muzzle velocities and weights, but not always thoroughly. For example, the 5.45x39 has been given initSpeed/typicalSpeed of 880. Well, that's the nominal velocity out at 25 metres from a test barrel. Someone looked that up, either Google or checking ARMA 3. But the bullet starts at the muzzle, not at 25 metres, and from the weapon's muzzle it should be 900 or more. 

Here are some values I came up with, which are fairly realistic.
Some of these could be further fine-tuned, and I will add missing rounds like 9x39 later.
 

---

 

SUGGESTED VALUES
Ammo type, initspeed/typicalspeed, airFriction

12 gauge 00 buckshot, 404, -0.008
12 gauge slug (Brenneke), 415, -0.005 
5.45x39, 900, -0.00117 (for 7N10)
5.45x39, 900, -0.00125 (for 7N6)
5.56 NATO, 940, -0.00124 (for SS109)
.308 Win, 853, -0.00101
7.62x54R, 845*, -0.00096
7.62x39, 730✝, -0.00144
9x19mm, 360, -0.0023
.45 ACP, 260, -0.0008
.22 LR, 380, -0.0025
.357 Magnum, 445**, -0.0026

*average of Mosin/SVD
**compromise value of revolver/carbine
✝compromise of various weapons
 

 

 

Feedback tracker: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T133383
Related thread from 2014: https://forums.dayz.com/topic/157148-correcting-sa-ballistics/



 

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by -Gews-

[igor-vk 909]

Looks like you will have to start modding.

[Sqeezorz 839]

I hope the values have only been changed to create some confusion.

I noticed yesterday when shooting with a shotgun .... I first thought the mushroom I ate has a strange effect. ?-)

[Brandon Clinch 50]

That is a very strange decision.

Great job Gews! What is called dedication - You got.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Brandon Clinch

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

Gews is the ballistics expert we need.

I am not an FPS fan generally but greatly desire realistic bullet trajectories when I do play games with guns.

This was actually one of the things I thought made DayZ authentic.

Thanks.

[MaVerick_GDZ 148]

14 minutes ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

This was actually one of the things I thought made DayZ authentic.

BIS history of mostly accurate gun handling was one of the main reasons for me to buy DayZ on launch in the first place, that and the original mod of course. I really hope we see some fixes there soon, at least my trust in BIS has been put to test lately with some statements...

[HaseDesTodes 315]

14 hours ago, -Gews- said:

SUGGESTED VALUES
Ammo type, initspeed/typicalspeed, airFriction

12 gauge 00 buckshot, 404, -0.008
12 gauge slug (Brenneke), 415, -0.005 
5.45x39, 900, -0.00117 (for 7N10)
5.45x39, 900, -0.00125 (for 7N6)
5.56 NATO, 940, -0.00124 (for SS109)
.308 Win, 853, -0.00101
7.62x54R, 845*, -0.00096
7.62x39, 730✝, -0.00144
9x19mm, 360, -0.0023
.45 ACP, 260, -0.0008
.22 LR, 380, -0.0025
.357 Magnum, 445**, -0.0026

*average of Mosin/SVD
**compromise value of revolver/carbine
✝compromise of various weapons

 

I think (not even sure this hasn't only happend in my head) they once (long time ago) mentioned in a status report, that they wanted to have the barrel length of weapons to influence the ballistics.

if this was true, they wouldn't have to use average values (of different guns) for the ammo itself, but could just use multipliers for the muzzle velocity for each weapon.

this wouldn't explain the bad friction values though.

 

i was wondering how you got to your data, did you do some testing, or have you been looking in some config data? 

 

either way, as long as it's messed up, it's right to point it out. maybe someone messed up some numbers or packed some placeholder config files into the update, or they used some script to transfer the data, and that messed it up.

but i can not imagine, that highly unrealistic values can be intended in any way. so i guess we shouldn't get to angry about incorrect values. as long as they don't make it to 1.0.

[-Gews- 7443]

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

I think (not even sure this hasn't only happend in my head) they once (long time ago) mentioned in a status report, that they wanted to have the barrel length of weapons to influence the ballistics.

if this was true, they wouldn't have to use average values (of different guns) for the ammo itself, but could just use multipliers for the muzzle velocity for each weapon.

They still have 'typicalSpeed' which is the speed at which the projectile does 100% damage. A weapon that shoots slower than typicalSpeed should have lower damage/penetration, the opposite for one that is faster. In standalone they've made the typicalSpeed equal to initSpeed. Since Mosin and SVD are the most common weapons using 7.62x54R, it makes sense to average between IMO. Another thing is that at 845 m/s the slightly heavier (0.1 g) 7.62x54R pretty much matches the slightly faster (5-8 m/s) .308 in energy and they can both remain at hit=12.

Also compromise is the airFrictions. It changes between weapons, for example an M16 is closer to -0.0012 and an M4 is closer to -0.0013. So I picked a value that works decently for most weapons.

Or in the case of the .357 Magnum, the repeater is closer to -0.003 and the revolver is closer to -0.002! That's a huge difference. .357 Magnum might go 1700-800+ feet per second from a carbine, and 1200-1350 from a revolver. But not all ammunition gains so much velocity. Some loads might only make it to the mid-400 m/s range. And some revolver loads are also in the mid-400 m/s range, usually with lighter bullets. With current damage values making the speed increase by 1.5X up to 1800+ feet per second could result in .357 being unrealistically powerful. Or could result in the revolver being unrealistically weak. 

This is the fault of the inconsistent damages, because .357 Magnum right now is hit=9, and, for example, 7.62x39 is hit=9.5.
The standard .357 Magnum makes between 650 and 1600 J, depending on the barrel length.But the 7.62x39 makes between 2000 and 2300 J.
So a revolver with 650-750 J is doing almost as much damage as rifles that makes 2000-2300 J.
Can't increase or decrease too much because the much weaker .45 ACP is also hit=9!
The .357 shouldn't be weaker than the .45 Auto. But it shouldn't be stronger than the 7.62x39 (although arguable at very close range from a rifle).

To fix it the damages would have to be made with consistent rules. Can you see the inconsistency here?

Orange line: energy
Blue bars: hit^2



The rounds that have large discrepancies are the .22 LR (1), the handgun rounds (2, 3, 6, 7), and the 9x39mm (9).

Compare it to weapon damage in ARMA 2 / DayZ mod, which seemed to be based on energy:





I think they should redo them to make them more consistent. Not necessarily with energy, but consistent rules.

Until then you have issues. So that 445 m/s and airFriction is a compromise that could work for a carbine and could work for a revolver but isn't ideal for either. Maybe ideal for current DayZ though. 

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

i was wondering how you got to your data, did you do some testing, or have you been looking in some config data? 

Looked in config, ARMA test and some limited testing like shotgun pellets after weird shotgun behaviour was pointed out by u/MiserableElephant.

Edited November 4, 2018 by -Gews-

[HaseDesTodes 315]

to make one thing clear (if it wasn't) i agree, that the game ballistics should orient on real ballistics. but when it comes to the technical aspects of the game, i don't really have an idea how damage is calculated in DayZ (not even sure about Arma), so forgive me, if i write nonsense.

i'm still wondering why you would need to use average values for the ammunition. is it because those weapons don't exactly use the same ammo irl? since they do ingame, you could just use the values of the real ammo, set the projectile weight and the strength and the propellant charge some values for the projectile shape (for penetration and air friction), and have the muzzle velocity then calculated for each weapon. even if the real life counterparts would have different energies at the same speed (different masses), i doubt it would really make a different in the gameplay.

 

oh, and why would things like air friction vary by weapon? does the spin of a projectile make a real difference when it comes to the loss of speed? i thought it was mostly stabilizing the flight path.

 

do you have an idea how armor comes into play with the ballistics/damage?

 

i would hope for a system similar to Arma3's tank armor system.

afaik, damage per hitpoint there is calculated per speed/energy lost inside the hitpoint.

for DayZ this would mean, that a slow moving, but heavy projectile (looking at you .45ACP) could do the same or maybe more damage, than an assault rifle projectile, because the rifle bullet doesn't loose much (relatively) speed/energy, while the slower projectile almost stops inside the body.

so weapons like UMP would be really strong against unarmoured targets, but struggle against body armor, while an M4 might deal slightly less damage, but has less trouble penetrating body armor, and hopefully walls.

 

ok, that was slightly off-topic, sorry for that.

[-Gews- 7443]

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

i'm still wondering why you would need to use average values for the ammunition. is it because those weapons don't exactly use the same ammo irl? since they do ingame, you could just use the values of the real ammo, set the projectile weight and the strength and the propellant charge some values for the projectile shape (for penetration and air friction), and have the muzzle velocity then calculated for each weapon. even if the real life counterparts would have different energies at the same speed (different masses), i doubt it would really make a different in the gameplay.

For typicalSpeed, the damage values are located in projectiles config. So you need to set the speed at which that damage occurs. And then in future I suppose shorter barrels would be slower and do less damage, longer barrels the opposite. In the case of 7.62x54R I think it makes sense to use 845 m/s just so that the damage at typicalSpeed remains equal to the .308 at 12 and 12, which is the case in ARMA 2/3. SVD would do a little less damage (98%) and Mosin a little more (102%). You could use any speed. I don't think they implemented specific weapon speeds yet.
 

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

oh, and why would things like air friction vary by weapon? does the spin of a projectile make a real difference when it comes to the loss of speed? i thought it was mostly stabilizing the flight path.

In real life, the drag coefficient is constantly changing as the speed varies. Going from memory, the drag coefficient of a bullet looks something like this:



It's an MS Paint drawing. Please don't nitpick.



But DayZ isn't real life. They use a simplified system where the drag coefficient remains constant. It would look something like this:




You want to get a value that fits best. But if you have two guns shooting the same bullet, one slower, one faster, you'll get a different ideal value for the DayZ:






This is also why the big, fat, blunt-nosed .45 automatic has a lower airFriction than all the streamlined rifle rounds. You might think the fat one should have more 'airFriction' because it's less aerodynamic:

 

 

But the drag coefficient spikes near Mach 1.0, the speed of sound. The rifle round starts off supersonic, above the speed of sound, and the .45 starts off subsonic, below the speed of sound. That's the reason it requires lower airFriction to match real-life ballistics:



Rounds like 9x19 or .357 Magnum that hit the transonic range almost immediately are worst off for airFriction. It's pretty high for one, and second, the airFriction system does a decent match at supersonic speeds and a very good match at subsonic speeds, but in the transonic range, obviously the match is not so good.

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

do you have an idea how armor comes into play with the ballistics/damage?

Didn't look into it. You can tank a bunch of rounds now though.
 

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

afaik, damage per hitpoint there is calculated per speed/energy lost inside the hitpoint.

for DayZ this would mean, that a slow moving, but heavy projectile (looking at you .45ACP) could do the same or maybe more damage, than an assault rifle projectile, because the rifle bullet doesn't loose much (relatively) speed/energy, while the slower projectile almost stops inside the body.

so weapons like UMP would be really strong against unarmoured targets, but struggle against body armor, while an M4 might deal slightly less damage, but has less trouble penetrating body armor, and hopefully walls.

Not super familiar with ARMA 3 armour system, I haven't played ARMA 3 for ages. Energy lost is neat, usually it correlates to greater damage. In the case of the .45 ACP it wouldn't compare to 5.56. It has 450-600 J depending on the weapon, whereas the 5.56 has 1500-1850. Not only that but the 5.56 will have a greater and more rapid transfer of energy, which means it tears bigger holes. The 5.56 has very high velocity and many projectiles flip sideways and fragment upon hitting a soft target at close-medium ranges. I've seen people say that about the .45 ACP on r/dayz back in 2015, so made a couple videos to show example of this:
 

The other thing is complexity of body model. For example, you could have a fast small-calibre rifle transfer most or all of its energy in soft tissue, while a big-game rifle with a tough bullet punches through without much deformation, creating less damage. But if you hit pelvis or a shoulder the larger rifle could transfer much more energy as well as create destructive fragments from the struck bones. 





 

Edited November 4, 2018 by -Gews-

[HaseDesTodes 315]

1 hour ago, -Gews- said:

this answered the question :) constant drag.

but even if i didn't need the explanations (had courses in fluid mechanics) others might enjoy some more insight.

if you ask me it wouldn't hurt the performance, if the more realistic method was modeled.

2 hours ago, -Gews- said:

The other thing is complexity of body model. For example, you could have a fast small-calibre rifle transfer most or all of its energy in soft tissue, while a big-game rifle with a tough bullet punches through without much deformation, creating less damage. But if you hit pelvis or a shoulder the larger rifle could transfer much more energy as well as create destructive fragments from the struck bones. 

we already have a nice damage model, so maybe this just a matter of some extra coefficients.

 

2 hours ago, -Gews- said:

Not only that but the 5.56 will have a greater and more rapid transfer of energy, which means it tears bigger holes. The 5.56 has very high velocity and many projectiles flip sideways and fragment upon hitting a soft target at close-medium ranges. 

 

i would have actually expected the 5.56mm to cut through the gelatin  like a hot knife trough butter. like this, i guess it might be safer standing behind someone that gets shot with a 5.56mm rifle, than someone that gets shot my a .45ACP pistol.

interesting.

 

from what i have heard .45ACP has a high "stopping power". is it just a legend, or is the comparison with an assault rifle just unfair, and the .45ACP is actually good for where it's used?

[-Gews- 7443]

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

from what i have heard .45ACP has a high "stopping power". is it just a legend, or is the comparison with an assault rifle just unfair, and the .45ACP is actually good for where it's used?

Short answer: just a myth. It was pretty powerful relative to many other pistols when it first came out. The .45's superior 'knockdown power' was promoted by quite a few respected people for a long time. Definitely unfair compared to an assault rifle. The UMP-45 is pretty tiny folded up and since the regular rounds are subsonic it would be quieter than a suppressed M4 or AK.

Comparing FMJ as most relevant to DayZ, but most applies to hollow point ammunition as well... compared to the 9mm, it has very similar energy and penetration. The energy produced by a 230 grain bullet at 850 ft/sec is the same as that produced by a  124 grain bullet at 1158 ft/sec. Depending on the object one may penetrate a bit more than the other; 9mm has superior velocity, the .45 superior momentum. 

The diameter advantage isn't that big. The .45 ACP has over 60% more frontal area compared to the 9mm. But the frontal area of either is extremely small compared to the human body, and handgun bullets won't create a clean caliber-sized hole in someone, instead pushing tissues out of the way. The difference in radius between .45 and 9mm is less than 0.05 inches. Extremely important: THE MAIN FACTOR IN STOPPING POWER IS SHOT PLACEMENT. Think of all the little veins, arteries, organs, bones, organs again, in a human body. To reliably stop a human you need to hit and damage vital structures. Does the extra 0.048" radius of the .45 ACP really make a big difference compared to the placement and path of the bullet? Not at all. Very small. So it's like poking a balloon with a 3/32" spike vs poking it with a 1/8" spike, in theory one makes a larger hole, but the balloon pops about equally well with either.

Many hunters will tell you the same thing: you could shoot an animal in the heart/lungs with a .243 Winchester and have it drop right there, and shoot the same one in the same place with a .300 Magnum and have it run 50 yards... and the next year the opposite. It's definitely placement over power. And in that example many other unnoticeable, maybe seemingly random factors as well. One might be double the power on paper, but that doesn't mean it's double as effective! So it should be taken into consideration when making damage values for a game.

In theory it may have a small advantage, shot per shot. As it's impossible to precisely quantify "damage" and you could argue for 107 years about which is better, I think we can tend to values that work with game balance, as long as they're still acceptably plausible. Personally I would give the .45 ACP more damage than the 9x19mm, but by a much smaller amount than currently. I'd be fine with 1.25x or less (or if you wanted to be cheeky you could raise that top end to 1.27x as this equals .451/.355... ha). Not saying that's particularly realistic, but I think I would find that or lower to be acceptable in this game. I don't think .45 pistols or machine guns should be noticeably superior to 9mm versions of the same gun. I think it's fair for similar weapons in .45 to do more damage but also have more recoil than 9mm version, making it more of a personal preference for the player.

Right now it's .45 ACP hit=9, damageApplied{health=75, blood=100, shock=20} compared to 9mm hit=7, damageApplied{60, 100, 10}. 

I only looked at config recently so I don't know how the damageApplied works yet, but hit value (squared) is the main damage value, or was, and right now the .45 has 65% higher hit^2 than the 9mm, which is kind of ridiculous disparity for two rounds of close kinetic energy and penetration.

I guess that wasn't a short answer.

Edited November 5, 2018 by -Gews-

[-Gews- 7443]

Seems like some good news...

Geez changed the task status from New to Assigned.
Geez changed the task status from Assigned to Reviewed.

Geez added a subscriber: Geez.

Hello Gews and thank you for the report.
This is currently a work in progress and the values will be tweaked for the future versions to be optimal
Regards,
Geez

 

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

thanks for your work gews

[pilgrim* 3514]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Dubrovka said:

thanks for your work gews

True - Gews is THE MAN and always has been..  Respect.

[-Gews- 7443]

On 11/4/2018 at 4:26 AM, -Gews- said:

To be fair, I don't know if they've changed how this part of the engine works. That being said, there is no engine in which you give a 7.62x54R SEVEN TIMES higher airFriction than a .308 Winchester [...] So I'm going to make the assumption that the ballistics works more or less the same, and that whoever put these new values in made some big mistakes.

As you can see in this quote, the new ballistic values were so crazy that I thought I might be wrong about this, at least in part, but I did some testing, and unfortunately, I'm right. The airFriction works the same as it always has. Whoever put the new values doesn't understand how they work. 


For my test I set up in the offline mode, with an SVD and an M4A1. I then fired 11 rounds from each weapon at a target well over 1 kilometre away. I recorded the times between shot and impact, and compared it to the time of flights I predicted beforehand.

For the case of the SVD, predicted time of flight vs average recorded time of flight differed by 0.007 seconds.
For the M4A1, predicted time of flight vs average recorded time of flight differed by 0.003 seconds.

You'll note that a 60 fps capture only has a resolution of 0.0167 seconds. Therefore, as far as I am able to tell, time of flight matched my predictions exactly. By the way, the SVD took over 3.3 seconds to hit the target, and the M4A1 just over 1.4 seconds. One much too long, one much too short

(and ironically at the distance I tested, thanks to new crazy ballistics, the M4A1 would have more damage than the SVD! That's assuming they didn't change how damage varies with speed from 0.62. Even worse if it were real life, since the crazy-five-five-six would at that range have almost SIX TIMES the energy).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would you change stuff if you don't know what you're doing? Someone took a look at the values in 0.62, and decided to replace them with utter nonsense. Some of those values needed improvement, but others were solid, realistic values. All of them are replaced with nonsense. Why?  Change for the sake of... what? Change itself? Why would you touch the stuff that doesn't need touching? Utterly perplexes me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyways, I took look at how some of DayZ 1.0's ballistics would fit into the real world. Put the values from DayZ into a ballistic calculator and got the following at 800 m, for the .308 ball...

ELEVATION    4.2 MIL 
WIND    0.4 MIL

Tried to find a round that could match that lack of wind drift, but even the .375 CheyTac fell way short. Finally found one that could hit 800 m with just 0.4 mil wind drift...  the 76.2 mm PaK 36(r) firing a 7,6 kg shell.

I think in real life this has better ballistics than a .308...




Then I checked out the new .357 Magnum ballistics...

Wow, it's aerodynamic. Really aerodynamic. The ballistic coefficient beats 5.56... it beats the .308... it beats the trendy 6.5 Creedmoor in both 140 and 147 grain flavours... it beats a 250 gr .338 Lapua, and beats .50 BMG M33 ball, too...

Not sure how realistic these new .357 ballistics are... G1 ballistic coefficients taken from real life, except for the .357 softpoint on the right, whose ballistic coefficient I took from DayZ.

Does this look right to you?







Did I mention they fixed buckshot? Kind of? Changed airFriction back to -0.005 from -0.05, because that actually did affect the gameplay. Should be more like -0.008, though.

I'll be pleased whenever this whole issue gets fixed to my satisfaction... don't think it will happen for a good while since this doesn't affect the basic gameplay. In some games I've even killed people with straight-up hitscan weapons. Imagine that!

[-Gews- 7443]

Calculated appropriate numbers for a few different shapes of 147 grain 7.62 NATO ball.



All hover around -0.00100, while in DayZ they now have it set to -0.00018. More than five times too low. It used to be set to -0.001006.

To go 1 km the .308 should take 2 seconds, and used to take 2 seconds, but in 1.0 it would take just 1¼ seconds, and arrive with half the drop it should have, and would have double the energy it should have.

If DayZ had wind drift, or if this 1.0 bullet could be replicated in real life, it would have almost 8x less.

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by -Gews-

[Mjones (DayZ) 48]

I hope they fix this. any words from the devs?

[-Gews- 7443]

3 hours ago, Mjones (DayZ) said:

I hope they fix this. any words from the devs?

So far from 'Geez' on the Feedback Tracker the quote above:

"This is currently a work in progress and the values will be tweaked for the future versions to be optimal"

I have only two concerns here, I think:

1. Someone, I assume, thought this change was progress, when it's two steps backwards. In addition, I can not recall yet seeing any correct ballistic values from the dev team, and I've been playing standalone since day one of release. Now, this is not a priority and was not a priority, this is minor details for OCD folks like me, so maybe they didn't do what they would consider a thorough ballistics pass yet, but it means I've only seen placeholder values, values taken from ARMA 2 and 3, or wrong values. And that means I don't have confidence in future tweaks. Lack of confidence in future improvements means I feel the need to complain / give feedback, so they can get it right. It's not like I want to bash the devs for some wrong numbers that aren't even finalized, which it feels like, but given evidence so far I don't think this is unreasonable concern that future version may not be 100% correct. It wasn't correct (to my satisfaction) in A2 either, nor in A3 (although a lot better than A2).

2. I may not agree with some of the choices, even if ballistics for those choices are correct. For example, I believe the 5.56 should be using a 62 grain 'green tip' bullet. This is standard military ammo for most major 5.56-using nations since the 1980s. Yet according to the configuration, it seems they are modelling 55 grain ball. This corresponds to the in-game ammunition box. I don't care about the in-game box artwork. They often don't make sense for realism or balance and sometimes the box doesn't even correspond to the ammo models that come out of it. In my opinion it's just pretty pictures, and I would prefer to base ballistics on most common or most suitable type of ammo for the game and its setting. But others may disagree.

[Guy Smiley 534]

Well, as you can already see with the current version of DayZ, they already scrapped the authentic/realistic style for a more casual style, so, dont get your hopes up that they will add proper ballistic values

[Uncle Zed 272]

@ImpulZ You need to talk to the powers that be and hire this guy.

[Buakaw 274]

On 12/22/2018 at 8:50 AM, -Gews- said:

"This is currently a work in progress and the values will be tweaked for the future versions to be optimal"

Sounds like they are just gonna balance at will as opposed to realism orientated really.

[AidenP 0]

Hey @-Gews- is this still the case with ballistics? The ballistics when sniping feels off, and it doesn't **feel as good** as it did in legacy DayZ, or in ARMA. I hope the developers are aware of this, and when will try to revert the ballistics to pre 0.63, the realistic and authentic model.

Another question I have, that raises concern is, if Ballistics are on the server side level, rather than client-side.? Does this mean, that the ballistics in theory, will be constantly varied, with drops in server fps, desync, etc. 

I could really see server-side ballistics really being a problem, as I've come across examples where I'm sniping at a person, and sometimes the impact is much later than it should be. (even if you shoot right next to a wall, the bullet impact takes about half a second to register, which is very concerning)

 

Anyway, @ImpulZ I really hope you take this thread into consideration, and work on reverting the ballistics, back to their realistic/authentic profile. Along with the server-side ballistics thing. Might be a better option to make it client-side, or just fix the delays with the bullet impacts.

[-Gews- 7443]

1 hour ago, AidenP said:

Hey @-Gews- is this still the case with ballistics? The ballistics when sniping feels off, and it doesn't **feel as good** as it did in legacy DayZ, or in ARMA. I hope the developers are aware of this, and when will try to revert the ballistics to pre 0.63, the realistic and authentic model.

Only thing that was "fixed" is buckshot, but just reverted to previous values, which weren't perfect (8 pellets vs standard 9, lower than standard speed, too low airFriction), I guess because buckshot was actually useless, whereas all the others still kill people fine.

1 hour ago, AidenP said:

Another question I have, that raises concern is, if Ballistics are on the server side level, rather than client-side.? Does this mean, that the ballistics in theory, will be constantly varied, with drops in server fps, desync, etc. 

I could really see server-side ballistics really being a problem, as I've come across examples where I'm sniping at a person, and sometimes the impact is much later than it should be. (even if you shoot right next to a wall, the bullet impact takes about half a second to register, which is very concerning)

 

I don't trust the impact effects timing on a server, eg: leading a target, although it seems to work offline.

[MaxwellHouse69420 87]

Such a broken game lmfao