SO as far as I can tell, weapons use the equation (mass * Velocity^2 * sharpness) I think, as that is what the physics equation comes down to for penetrating values(RL). as far as I remember.

And as far as I could tell I figured the sum of the equation would need to beat the Integrity of a material in order to begin "digging" at it.

now with an object that is mass:0.001 Velocity:300 Sharpness:251
(this weapon is the lazer rifle, cept I have changed it's sharpness from 300 to 251)

the final "damage" is equal to 22590. which is 301x the integrity of concrete (75).

so that got me thinking. that materials, probably have a multi value equation for figuring out their "stopping power"

so after all this context I beg the question to anyone that knows.
What is that equation for materials?

so far as I can tell, Materials use, Bounce, Friction, StructuralIntegrity, DensityKGPerVolumeL.

Why am I doing all this? well I wanted to create a quick and efficient way to figure out an average damage value for weapons without having to play with the three values(Mass, Veocityl, Sharpness) until I got it. and if I can do that through a couple of quick mathematical equations. that would make life so much easier for balancing weapons.

my average is "minor damage to concrete" because thats exactly what most kinetic weapons in the game would do.

The only way you're ever going to get reliable answers on this is asking Data. And I'm really not too sure he even knows.

I would suggest empirical testing, but CC is a very unreliable engine overall.

Data uses random variables for pretty much everything.

there is no real way to directly inquire to Data tho is there ?
there must be SOME logic too it. it wouldn't work if it didn't XD
anyway thanks for the heads up

in my opinion, what would be a good system for the damage would be a variable that amplifies the effect of the wound's break damage or weakens it. For example, a weapon that fires a round with high penetration but does a low amount of damage. Would allow for better balancing IMO.

There's plenty of ways to directly inquire to Data.

He's only one guy, but he's pretty good about responding to PMs, though not necessarily the day after you send them.

He's never replied to any of mine. (either 2 or 3)


I think there's probably a momentum based equation for materials, momentum = mass*velocity, higher momentum is harder to stop, momentum is conserved... if a bullet hits a pixel of terrain it's new velocity should be total momentum/total mass(this means momentum of the bullet + momentum of the terrain pixel divided by the mass of the bullet + mass of the terrain pixel).

In an elastic collision kinetic energy is conserved, in an inelastic collision kinetic energy is dissipated through other forms. So I assume that the kinetic energy is worked out (0.5*mass*velocity squared), then multiplied by the bounce, then the velocity is altered accordingly.

Friction is used to find the force which the objects velocity is resisted (Fricition Force= material friction*weight), I assume the friction force is deducted from the velocity of the object until the object has stopped. That is for a flat surface, if on an inclined surface it is Fricition Force=material friction*weight*cosA(incline angle), but I doubt that the incline angle is calculated so just ignore that.

density is mass*volume, from that you can work out the mass of each pixel.

I think structural integrity is used like so:
if (force applied to material- frictional force) is greater than (structural integrity of material) then material pixel is knocked loose

no idea about sharpness

I hope this helps.

hahah. except friction and bounce and penetration and damage (wounds). how odd, that someone is asking about those exact things.

i opened this topic expecting someone who new just about nothing about CC hoping they could use uber-sharp particles to kill a coalition soldier from one hit anywhere, but this pleasantly surprised me. if i knew, the answer would be posted here.
apologies.

Cheers Grif I'll give him a PM, see what happens there, straight from the horses mouth will be the fastest way to figure this out



Cheers for all the theory Robolee, I'll try it out with some empirical testing, if It all turns up peachy I'll try and make it all calculable without the testing having to get involved too much. *open app, test, close app, change, open app, test, close app, change* x20020202111293
hopefully cut that down to, x4

also I think 'Sharpness' runs a little deeper than a "VS Integrity", it works it's way into the math somehow, with my first post I mentioned that the 'lazer rifle' 251 Sharpness, was damaging the material 'concrete'. However 250 was bouncing off. it's other relevant stats were 300 Velocity, 0.001 mass. BUT concrete has 75 Integrity. 251, hell 250 is much higher than 75 :S hence why I think that everything comes down to
(weapon equation: mass, velocity, sharpness) VS (material equation: Density, Friction, bounce, Integrity)

Hopefully it's that easy. I'd hope darely it's not (Velocity VS Friction) (Mass VS Density) (Sharpness VS Integrity) (Velocity VS Bounce)
it would make things easier knowing there respective places in the math, but one Formula VS 4 equations would make testing MUCH faster.



Sorry to dissapoint Geti

Considering the Sharpness variable has been around significantly longer than StructuralIntegrity, it's probably not an equivalent mix, no.

A number of material variables used to not exist/be coagulated into, for example, a generic "Strength". It'll probably be easier to figure out now, but there's no guarantee that things have any real-world bearing anymore.

I didn't think it would just be like that but I couldn't link them any other way also of course, I didn't say this, but I meant that the bullet must have the right momentum etc. for sharpness and structural integrity to be taken into consideration.