ural trucks resilient to tank HE/HEAT rounds

[Captain_Colossus]

i'm not sure how much this extends to other vehicles in the truck class, but the ural troop version appears to be immune to blowing up or burning when hit by tank HEAT or HE rounds. i tried shooting tests on 24 Ural troop trucks, not a single one brewed up or exploded; sometimes even surviving direct hits, but even in the case where the ural trucks are destroyed, they are still rather intact visually, and often the carried troops survive to escape. interestingly, the 12.7mm and .50 cal achieve more lethal results and often the trucks will quickly light up or explode when hit with those

 

 

[Ssnake]

We'll have to investigate - well, Volcano, mostly.

[Hedgehog]

Not like it has a shit tonne of ammo in the back though.

But there is a diesel tank.

[Captain_Colossus]

they burn- just not when hit by tank main gun rounds it seems. this may affect other trucks than the ural troop carrier though.

[Volcano]

Sorry but we cannot do much with that vehicle - it is very old. If you recall, the truck was made over 10 years ago and the only update it ever got was better looking wheels.  There are no meshes that we can remove (it doesn't even have doors that open), so the best we can do is flatten the tires (where is that Pawn Stars meme when you need it). We cannot remove the tarp either, because there is nothing physically in the back.   Also, none of this is different than it ever was before. 

 

The important question is: does the vehicle die or become severely disabled on impact of large HE and HEAT? If it does, then that is good, if not then provide a test scenario here so I can address it (that would be bad of course).

 

That said, we are being very conservative when it comes to removing meshes (aka. "destroyed meshes"), and this is because we never want a case that a non-superficial mesh is removed (like say the entire rear cargo area of the Ural) but the truck is somehow still alive. But what it really comes down to here is age of the model. If the model is very old, then usually any mesh that is removed will cause invisible see-through polygons underneath, or other ugliness, or it won't have specifically separate meshes at all, which prevents things from being removed.

 

As for fire, well, this again is no different than it ever was before. It has a diesel engine so a general rule is that we don't have fire damage because, broadly speaking, the diesel engine is supposed to be quite safe from fire in the sense that we don't want it as a probability that kill the vehicle from the fuel tank being hit. Usually a fire on such vehicles would happen after the vehicle is dead, but not be something that would be so volatile that it would kill the vehicle in itself first, if that makes any sense. Now we want to see fire, because there are visual effects associated with it in 4.3+, so what we will likely need is some kind of post-kill fire probably (of say, a fire that starts following the vehicle's death).

 

But this all really points back to old behavior, or old models, and yes, I am 100% sure there are other old vehicles that behaves similarly -- let's just say I am intimately familiar with them all. 😐

[Captain_Colossus]

On 9/20/2022 at 1:31 PM, Volcano said:

Sorry but we cannot do much with that vehicle - it is very old. If you recall, the truck was made over 10 years ago and the only update it ever got was better looking wheels.  There are no meshes that we can remove (it doesn't even have doors that open), so the best we can do is flatten the tires (where is that Pawn Stars meme when you need it). We cannot remove the tarp either, because there is nothing physically in the back.   Also, none of this is different than it ever was before. 

 

The important question is: does the vehicle die or become severely disabled on impact of large HE and HEAT? If it does, then that is good, if not then provide a test scenario here so I can address it (that would be bad of course).

 

That said, we are being very conservative when it comes to removing meshes (aka. "destroyed meshes"), and this is because we never want a case that a non-superficial mesh is removed (like say the entire rear cargo area of the Ural) but the truck is somehow still alive. But what it really comes down to here is age of the model. If the model is very old, then usually any mesh that is removed will cause invisible see-through polygons underneath, or other ugliness, or it won't have specifically separate meshes at all, which prevents things from being removed.

 

As for fire, well, this again is no different than it ever was before. It has a diesel engine so a general rule is that we don't have fire damage because, broadly speaking, the diesel engine is supposed to be quite safe from fire in the sense that we don't want it as a probability that kill the vehicle from the fuel tank being hit. Usually a fire on such vehicles would happen after the vehicle is dead, but not be something that would be so volatile that it would kill the vehicle in itself first, if that makes any sense. Now we want to see fire, because there are visual effects associated with it in 4.3+, so what we will likely need is some kind of post-kill fire probably (of say, a fire that starts following the vehicle's death).

 

But this all really points back to old behavior, or old models, and yes, I am 100% sure there are other old vehicles that behaves similarly -- let's just say I am intimately familiar with them all. 😐

 

there is something which is happening which does not fit the explanation- this is a ural truck lit up with the .50 cal HMG. the destroyed vehicle is apparent- it's just that main gun tank rounds are incapable of doing this.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Captain_Colossus

[Volcano]

Well, I imagine you are hitting it with a volume of HMG fire, right? Not like consistently hitting it with one or two HMG rounds causing an explosion. If you hit it with the same amount of maingun fire, in the same places, then I don't see why it wouldn't do the same thing - but that is the issue I would think - one shot maingun versus rapid fire HMG or autocannon. Given that it has no armor, you would have to hit it with a lot of maingun fire, I suspect. So, with maingun, you would rarely see the truck explode.

 

Also keep in mind that I think the supply version of the Ural has box in the cargo area that will cause an explosion, which is likely the version you are using here (or the fueler?), in which case the same explanation applies. 

[Captain_Colossus]

well, here is what happens- the main gun never causes the trucks to catch fire. on the other hand, a 50 cal burst will do it eventually as far as i can tell- including hit location on the vehicle cab will do it, the cargo area doesn't have to be hit at all to cause the truck to burn- sometimes a single burst of a few rounds of HMG will cause the truck to catch fire, then, after it is burning, the truck has a high degree chance to explode. main gun HEP or HEAT or HE-Frag never will cause the truck to burn. in other words, as little as 3 round burst from HMG may cause the truck to burn, but you could send 10 rounds of 120mm or 125 mm HE and it will never happen

Edited September 26, 2022 by Captain_Colossus

[Ssnake]

Large caliber HE would probably rip the external fuel tank open, and set the content on fire. I suppose the damage model could be tweaked a little for HE amunition types.

[Volcano]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Large caliber HE would probably rip the external fuel tank open, and set the content on fire. I suppose the damage model could be tweaked a little for HE amunition types.

Sorry, but that is not practical. It is not going to happen where every single truck is gone back over and special fire damage cases are added on fuel tanks, just for a purely visual case of fire after it is destroyed, at least not anytime soon. So it has to be stated here clearly to avoid a false assumption that something will change here in an update: it likely will not.

 

These old trucks like the Ural die, but as I said above, here it is again (maybe better summarized):

• People expect vehicles to burn now for visuals, that is understandable, but the best way to do that is if we introduce some kind of post-death fire ignition probability, as I said.
• These vehicles die the same as they did before. This is not a vulnerability issue, its a purely visual issue.
• The Ural truck is old, and needs to be updated in general. There is only so much that can be done to it, in its current form. We do the best we can to make the new features work with old models, but it only goes so far (think of the missing 3D crew on some of the oldest vehicles). When old vehicles are updated, they get all the new feature support (think of the M1064 recently).
• Older models will not visually get destroyed as nicely as newer models do, given how it all works, no matter what we do.

 

Sorry, but that is just the way it is when working with a mix of old and new models. The more vehicles SB adds, the more challenges come with with it like this. We just have to accept that some vehicles don't get visually destroyed in the same way as newer ones will. 

 

Beyond that, I see no reason why the maingun hit in the same place that causes a fire with HMG doesn't also cause fire, but that might be some special behavior going on determined by how a vehicle has died (as in, something that may be the case going back to SB1 where vehicles killed by HMG will burn automatically - the assumption being that it was probably some ancient behavior created because it was very hard to tell if vehicles were dead or not when the vehicles lacked visual detail: we should investigate this).

 

[Volcano]

That said, we will look into the behavior where vehicles seem to auto-burn when killed by HMG, I'd say that is the main issue here. With that old behavior removed (if it is what is happening here), then we can improve things by either introducing some kind of post-death fire occurrence that happens reliably, no matter how the vehicle is killed, and of course look into updating the Ural trucks at some point. 

[Captain_Colossus]

💡 informative. makes sense