Penetration Value
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Penetration Value
Explore Properties
Fandom
Gamepedia
D&D Beyond
Muthead
Futhead
Overview
About
Careers
Press
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Community
Community Central
Support
Help
Do Not Sell My Info
Escape from Tarkov Wiki is a Fandom Gaming Community.
View Mobile Site
You noticed missing or wrong information? Tell us on our discord server or learn how to edit .
Ballistics are an important part of Escape from Tarkov . They play a big role in firefights and often determine the outcomes. Choosing the right weapon , ammo and gear is one of the most important parts in coming out on top of fighting.
Bullet flight is simulated realistically in Escape from Tarkov . Bullets have speed, are affected by gravity and air friction and can penetrate or ricochet when hitting objects, and even fragment when doing so. The specific flight characteristics of a bullet is determined by the ammo type, and the chance of a bullet penetrating or ricocheting off of an object is determined by the material of the object and the type of bullet. Bullets also lose both damage and penetration power as they lose speed from air friction over long distances.
Escape from Tarkov also simulates damage to the body and body armor. Damage is dealt to a human body at the point of impact, damaging that limb or body part. Bullets are capable of penetrating walls or even limbs and hitting multiple body parts that way. Bullets can also fragment when penetrating a player's body, dealing 50% bonus damage to that limb. The damage dealt by a bullet is based only on the bullet itself, and not by the gun it was fired from. Armor protection is also simulated realistically, stopping bullets entirely instead of providing a damage reduction like in most games.
Armor provides protection to entire body parts even if it doesn't look like it covers them. You can see what parts of the body are protected when you inspect the armor. When your body is hit, if that body part that was hit (or head zone) has body armor or a helmet protecting it, the game checks to see if the bullet penetrates or doesn’t.
The penetration chance of a bullet hitting armor is calculated based on the armor’s level, the armor’s remaining durability %, and the ammo’s penetration value. The chance is then rolled to determine whether or not the bullet penetrates.
If the bullet penetrates, it deals between 0% and 40% less damage based on an algorithm that uses the bullet’s pen value and the armor’s class and durability %. There is a strong correlation between the penetration chance the penetrating round had, and the damage reduction applied to it: The higher the chance the less damage reduction, with high armor classes and high pen values of ammo having lower reductions than others. Most penetrations will be around 20% damage reduction when a bullet starts to penetrate an armor, but things like a PACA vs m995 will result in 0% reduction.
If the bullet does not penetrate, “blunt damage” is applied, which lets through a % of the base damage of the bullet to the body part hit. This % is based on the specific armor’s “blunt throughput” stat, the pen value of the ammo, and the armor’s class and remaining durability %. Blunt damage is extremely low and not a notable factor in kill speed against anything other than level 2 body armors.
Durability of armor is important, the lower the current % of durability remaining the less protection the armor offers overall. The durability % is calculated by dividing the current durability of the armor by the original maximum durability of the armor. As an example a 60/60 repaired LBT 6094A Slick Plate Carrier armor is calculated as 60/80, or 75%.
The durability damage taken from bullets is based on the penetration value of the ammo and the armor level of the armor, multiplied by the ammo’s armor damage % and the armor material’s destructibility %. The minimum durability damage armor can take from a single hit is 1, including from individual buckshot pellets. Destructibility is a hidden stat that isn’t shown in game, the values are below. A penetrating round does a little bit less durability damage to armor than a round that does not penetrate. It varies, but is usually around 10-15% less.
If you want to find the effective durability of different armor to compare how durable different armors are, use the following formula: EffectiveDurability = Durability ÷ Destructibility
In the above example EffectiveDurability =0.75/0.6=1.25 which means it can still have more than it's maximum durability (100 hitpoints).
Hitboxes are always the same, whether you’re clad in armor or completely naked, they never change in size or shape. Armor simply provides it’s protection to specific hitboxes and head “zones”, and when those hitboxes are struck by a bullet the armor protects them. So no matter what armor you’re wearing they always provide the same area of protection to whatever body parts they say they protect on their inspection screen. So don’t be fooled by what an armor looks like, check the protection zones to see what it actually protects.
The angle of impact has no effect on armor except for helmets, which bullets can ricochet off of. If a bullet strikes a helmet within a certain range of angles, the round has a chance to ricochet determined by how shallow the angle is as well as the ricochet chance of the helmet. The required angles and the ricochet chance is determined by the helmet and is different for each individual helmet. If a ricochet occurs it is the same as the helmet stopping the penetration as far as the penetration calculation is concerned, and blunt damage and durability damage continue as they would normally, however the health and durability damage is significantly lowered to the point that there is almost no blunt damage received and the helmet almost always takes the minimum durability damage, which is 1.
You can read an even more in-depth summary of all armor-related mechanics on NoFoodAfterMidnight's blog here .
*Currently, there is a bug where the projectiles do not fragment below 20 penetration power , regardless of the specified fragmentation chance.
**Assuming all projectiles hit the target on every shot. Because each projectiles causes a minimum of 1 durability loss to armor, it becomes effective at breaking down armor and eventually penetrating.
***This has an explosion radius like grenades which does most (all) of the damage
Can't penetrate in any reasonable amount of hits
Typically doesn't penetrate at all for a large number of hits, or starts with a very low chance and barely increases
Has a very low or no penetration chance initially and very slowly gains chance
Has a low penetration chance initially and slowly gains chance, or quickly damages armor until it penetrates
Starts with a low-medium penetration chance but quickly increases
Penetrates a large percent of the time initially, often quickly going to >90%
Initially penetrates >80% of the time
penetration + value — с русского на нидерландский
Ballistics - The Official Escape from Tarkov Wiki | Penetration power
Standard penetration test - Wikipedia
How to Determine the Penetration Rate for a Business - Chron.com
Penetration Value of Bitumen - YouTube
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about testing of geotechnical properties of soil. For testing of computer systems, see Penetration test .
This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Standard penetration test" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ( September 2014 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )
^ http://www.astm.org/Standards/D1586.htm
^ US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-2504, Table 3-1, dated 31 March 1994>
^ Kulhawy, F. H.; Mayne, P. W. (August 1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design . Ithaca, New York: Electric Power Research Institute. pp. 2–17 to 2–26. EL-6800.
^ Youd, T. L.; Member, Asce, I. M. Idriss, Chair; Fellow, Asce, Ronald D. Andrus, Co-Chair; Arango, Ignacio; Castro, Gonzalo; Christian, John T.; Dobry, Richardo; Finn, W. D. Liam; et al. (2001). "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER∕NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering . 127 (10): 297–313. doi : 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817) . CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link )
^ Zatsuwa, Monosagu (2005). "Beware, soft ground and the standard penetration test" (in Japanese). Public Works Research Institute.
The standard penetration test ( SPT ) is an in-situ dynamic penetration test designed to provide information on the geotechnical engineering properties of soil . This test is the most frequently used subsurface exploration drilling test performed worldwide. The test procedure is described in ISO 22476-3, ASTM D1586 [1] and Australian Standards AS 1289.6.3.1.
The test provides samples for identification purposes and provides a measure of penetration resistance which can be used for geotechnical design purposes. Many local and widely published international correlations which relate blow count, or N-value, to the engineering properties of soils are available for geotechnical engineering purposes.
The test uses a thick-walled sample tube, with an outside diameter of 50.8 mm and an inside diameter of 35 mm, and a length of around 650 mm. This is driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with a mass of 63.5 kg (140 lb) falling through a distance of 760 mm (30 in). The sample tube is driven 150 mm into the ground and then the number of blows needed for the tube to penetrate each 150 mm (6 in) up to a depth of 450 mm (18 in) is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 inches of penetration is termed the "standard penetration resistance" or the "N-value". In cases where 50 blows are insufficient to advance it through a 150 mm (6 in) interval the penetration after 50 blows is recorded. The blow count provides an indication of the density of the ground, and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering formulae.
The main purpose of the test is to provide an indication of the relative density of granular deposits, such as sands and gravels from which it is virtually impossible to obtain undisturbed samples. The great merit of the test, and the main reason for its widespread use, is that it is simple and inexpensive. The soil strength parameters which can be inferred are approximate, but may give a useful guide in ground conditions where it may not be possible to obtain borehole samples of adequate quality like gravels, sands, silts , clay containing sand or gravel and weak rock. In conditions where the quality of the undisturbed sample is suspect, e.g., very silty or very sandy clay, or hard clay, it is often advantageous to alternate the sampling with standard penetration tests to check the strength. If the samples are found to be unacceptably disturbed, it may be necessary to use a different method for measuring strength like the plate test . When the test is carried out in granular soils below groundwater level, the soil may become loosened. In certain circumstances, it can be useful to continue driving the sampler beyond the distance specified, adding further drilling rods as necessary. Although this is not a standard penetration test, and should not be regarded as such, it may at least give an indication as to whether the deposit is really as loose as the standard test may indicate.
The usefulness of SPT results depends on the soil type, with fine-grained sands giving the most useful results, with coarser sands and silty sands giving reasonably useful results, and clay and gravelly soils yielding results which may be very poorly representative of the true soil conditions. Soils in arid areas, such as the Western United States , may exhibit natural cementation. This condition will often increase the standard penetration value.
The SPT is used to provide results for empirical determination of a sand layer's susceptibility to soil liquefaction , based on research performed by Harry Seed, T. Leslie Youd , and others.
Despite its many flaws, it is usual practice to correlate SPT results with soil properties relevant for geotechnical engineering design. SPT results are in-situ field measurements, and not as subject to sample disturbance, and are often the only test results available, therefore the use of correlations has become common practice in many countries.
An approximate relationship cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers engineering manual publication on sheet pile design developed after Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and Teng (1962), shows in the table below the relationship specifically for SPT N values and bulk density of soil correlated to relative density and referred to in the engineering manual as moist unit weight in pcf units, converted to metric values in the table [2]
The standard penetration test recovers a highly disturbed sample, which is generally not suitable for tests which measure properties of the in-situ soil structure, such as density, strength, and consolidation characteristics. To overcome this limitation, the test is often run with a larger sampler with a slightly different tip shape, so the disturbance of the sample is minimized, and testing of structural properties is meaningful for all but soft soils. However, this results in blow counts which are not easily converted to SPT N-values – many conversions have been proposed, some of which depend on the type of soil sampled, making reliance on blow counts with non-standard samplers problematic.
Standard penetration test blow counts do not represent a simple physical property of the soil, and thus must be correlated to soil properties of interest, such as strength or density. There exist multiple correlations, none of which are of very high quality. [3] Use of SPT data for direct prediction of liquefaction potential suffers from roughness of correlations and from the need to "normalize" SPT data to account for overburden pressure, sampling technique, and other factors. [4] Additionally, the method cannot collect accurate data for weak soil layers for several reasons:
A variety of techniques have been proposed to compensate for the deficiencies of the standard penetration test, including the Cone penetration test , in-situ vane shear tests, and shear wave velocity measurements.
Brigitte Overwatch
Nudist Photo Pics
Porno Mature Russia
Hotwife Tattoo
Naked Teenagers Girls
