Damage modeling of WWII aircraft

Hey ED! In your last news letter a sentence stood out, practically attacking me in the face:

" We are committed to creating the most authentic recreation of World War II air combat ever done."

Now I'm really kindof excited about this ambitious statement.. so I'm asking: is there a plan to remake the damage model for the current DCS WWII aircraft? Because, to be honest, the damage model feels extremely subpar when compared to what you find in IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad, for example.

Please, stop confusing damage model with "visual gore". Yes, we all want nice looking damage (so gore...), but "damage model" itself is quite detailed, one of the best if not the best out there, where every system can get worn or destroyed in different ways and all of them affects you in the manage and handling of the aircraft. That's the "damage model" and it's fine. What you ask for is visual gore for that damage, morbidity or whatever you want to call it. Don't get me wrong, it's fine and of course I would like to see it more detailed, but those are different things.

S!

Please, stop confusing damage model with "visual gore". Yes, we all want nice looking damage (so gore...), but "damage model" itself is quite detailed, one of the best if not the best out there, where every system can get worn or destroyed in different ways and all of them affects you in the manage and handling of the aircraft. That's the "damage model" and it's fine.

It is not a disaster but at the moment, there are some problems - the FW-190 in particular has an iron butt. The tail can eat lead and still see no negative effect whatsoever. If you are very unlucky you may lose elevator, but that is very, very rare. On the other hand, the Mustang's nose is made out of glass and you can lose your RPM governor in a single stray shot to the tail.

Once the other planes are out, ED will have to look at all the WW2 planes and fine tune everything so that it is consistent across all planes.

Most if not all these issues have been reported, trust me, I unloaded with an Abrams on the WWII birds trying to find all the issues I could ;)

That must have been fun! I am sure you guys will sort this out, I think the most important part is keeping things consistent - something that surely is pretty hard to do with the modules being released with significant time inbetween.

You also have to distinguish between the AI damage model and the player damage model. They have to optimize quite a bit for framerate and playability, but I'd like to see at least a bit more damage effect on AI performance.

As sith said, they're well aware of damage model deficiencies. I'm not a coder, but I'd bet it's a tricky, time consuming thing to get right. Modeling the effects of poking holes in aircraft sounds like a nightmare.

You also have to distinguish between the AI damage model and the player damage model. They have to optimize quite a bit for framerate and playability, but I'd like to see at least a bit more damage effect on AI performance.

 

As sith said, they're well aware of damage model deficiencies. I'm not a coder, but I'd bet it's a tricky, time consuming thing to get right. Modeling the effects of poking holes in aircraft sounds like a nightmare.

This is a good point. AI damage model is a bit of a turn-off, since often for example when you cut a wing off an AI P-51 there is an unexplained "jerk" of the airframe, completely against laws of physics.

And to the comments about visual aspect of damage model and other types.. of course one would want to have the full spectrum of features done well and that includes not only systems modeling but also how things look and especially how they feel! This is very important for the flight sim connoisseur :)

Good thing this is getting worked on!

Most if not all these issues have been reported, trust me, I unloaded with an Abrams on the WWII birds trying to find all the issues I could ;)

I've always wondered, does the DCS model take into account bullet angle and velocity when it comes to objects that should be more armored or more sturdy components? Does it take into account different ammunition types? HE vs AP vs Incendiary?

I've noticed the game has complex systems which can be damaged, just looking at the damage list after you take a hit or two points this out very well, but I find it hard to tell how the ballistics are modeled.

You also have to distinguish between the AI damage model and the player damage model.

S!

I know it's been said, but I'd like to put my two cents in as well. I think the modeling of all of the systems in the aircraft have been exquisitly done. However, I do think the visual models are lackluster by quite a large margin. Now before I list the things I'd like to see I'll put the disclaimer out that I do not know how easy/difficult it would be to code these things, or if they are viable within the current engine. That said here it goes,

- I'd personally like to a much more dynamic visual modelling for the surfaces of the aircraft. I honestly think that there are two to three different visual damage textures for each modeled module. So say for example you hit the wing root. You'll maybe see a few small holes. Then you hit it a few more times, and the amount of holes in the texture increases, and that's really as far as it goes. I'd love to see more dynamic visual ques of what kind of damage your actually doing. For example, currently in game I can get some decent hits, but not a huge amount of them, but the aircraft will look as though it's been hit literally hundreds of times, and I'll look in the log and I might have only scored a maximum of 40 hit in one solid burst with the Mustangs .50 Cals. So essentially trying to show severe damage with a ton of holes, but really there should be far fewer, and maybe instead critical hits may not visually look any different. This approach to damage models has always turned me off in flight sims. If I hit a huge amount of times then I should see an incredible amount of holes like we do, but only if I actually score that many hits without the aircraft being destroyed first. Also clusters of holes could be added in one area possibly exposing the frame of the aircraft underneath. If you score some critical hits maybe that could be reflected with pieces of metal being throw off the aircraft, and possibly small amounts of oil or fuel spraying out.

-20 & 30mm mine-shell hits are not very different from a normal MG hit visually, where as if you look at footage from that specific type of shell you'll clearly see huge plumes of fluids, and dust being blown off the wings, and other surfaces of the plane.

-In my opinion most damage models in flight sims are very flat. They conform to the normal texture of the aircraft in an overlay type look. I think a lot of precived realism could be had by simply adding some jagged edges protruding from the plane's surfaces. Again if you reference gun cam footage you can very clearly make out exactly where a plane has been hit. Not only because of bright flashes, which the game already does pretty well, but by how jagged the affected area of the plane is. A good example of how great a less flat damage model can look is in Rise of Flight as canvas wings get shredded, and you see the canvas clearly torn, and jagged in places.

The 100% biggest improvement that I think DCS's visual damage could make is the way fluids venting from an aircraft look. There are times where a stalled out aircraft getting punctured, and expelling all of the fluids the aircraft has to offer looks absolutely stunning in the new engine. However, a fuel leak looks rather bland, and uninspired, and flames, and resulting smoke suffers from the same dull look. IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad, and Cliffs of Dover have very good looking damage models, but I think what really gets me is see an aircraft I hit start trailing something. Easiest way to confirm hits! I'd like to see a wider variety of amounts of fluids being leaked from small hits to the oil radiator giving off a small squirt ever once in a while, all the way up to full plumes of glycol venting from multiple holes.

-I will also go ahead and say that accuracy of the damage inflicted to systems is paramount, and should be a priority. However, seeing as most of the issues have been voiced I'll not waste my breath repeating them.

In conclusion the visual damage model is what really draws me, and I am sure many other to this genre. There is nothing better than seeing the results of your handiwork up close and personal. I understand that it is a priority for the internals to be sorted out first, but for me the visual damage model is what always keeps me coming back to this genre. Not something I can do I real life, or would ever want to, but it is absolutely what keeps me wanting to get better, and better so I can see beautiful machines reduced to hole ridden husks by my gunnery. Hole ridden husks complete with a pilot who is safely away under a silk canopy let me mention.

I know it's been said, but I'd like to put my two cents in as well. I think the modeling of all of the systems in the aircraft have been exquisitly done. However, I do think the visual models are lackluster by quite a large margin. Now before I list the things I'd like to see I'll put the disclaimer out that I do not know how easy/difficult it would be to code these things, or if they are viable within the current engine. That said here it goes,

 

- I'd personally like to a much more dynamic visual modelling for the surfaces of the aircraft. I honestly think that there are two to three different visual damage textures for each modeled module. So say for example you hit the wing root. You'll maybe see a few small holes. Then you hit it a few more times, and the amount of holes in the texture increases, and that's really as far as it goes. I'd love to see more dynamic visual ques of what kind of damage your actually doing. For example, currently in game I can get some decent hits, but not a huge amount of them, but the aircraft will look as though it's been hit literally hundreds of times, and I'll look in the log and I might have only scored a maximum of 40 hit in one solid burst with the Mustangs .50 Cals. So essentially trying to show severe damage with a ton of holes, but really there should be far fewer, and maybe instead critical hits may not visually look any different. This approach to damage models has always turned me off in flight sims. If I hit a huge amount of times then I should see an incredible amount of holes like we do, but only if I actually score that many hits without the aircraft being destroyed first. Also clusters of holes could be added in one area possibly exposing the frame of the aircraft underneath. If you score some critical hits maybe that could be reflected with pieces of metal being throw off the aircraft, and possibly small amounts of oil or fuel spraying out.

 

-20 & 30mm mine-shell hits are not very different from a normal MG hit visually, where as if you look at footage from that specific type of shell you'll clearly see huge plumes of fluids, and dust being blown off the wings, and other surfaces of the plane.

 

-In my opinion most damage models in flight sims are very flat. They conform to the normal texture of the aircraft in an overlay type look. I think a lot of precived realism could be had by simply adding some jagged edges protruding from the plane's surfaces. Again if you reference gun cam footage you can very clearly make out exactly where a plane has been hit. Not only because of bright flashes, which the game already does pretty well, but by how jagged the affected area of the plane is. A good example of how great a less flat damage model can look is in Rise of Flight as canvas wings get shredded, and you see the canvas clearly torn, and jagged in places.

 

The 100% biggest improvement that I think DCS's visual damage could make is the way fluids venting from an aircraft look. There are times where a stalled out aircraft getting punctured, and expelling all of the fluids the aircraft has to offer looks absolutely stunning in the new engine. However, a fuel leak looks rather bland, and uninspired, and flames, and resulting smoke suffers from the same dull look. IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad, and Cliffs of Dover have very good looking damage models, but I think what really gets me is see an aircraft I hit start trailing something. Easiest way to confirm hits! I'd like to see a wider variety of amounts of fluids being leaked from small hits to the oil radiator giving off a small squirt ever once in a while, all the way up to full plumes of glycol venting from multiple holes.

 

-I will also go ahead and say that accuracy of the damage inflicted to systems is paramount, and should be a priority. However, seeing as most of the issues have been voiced I'll not waste my breath repeating them.

 

In conclusion the visual damage model is what really draws me, and I am sure many other to this genre. There is nothing better than seeing the results of your handiwork up close and personal. I understand that it is a priority for the internals to be sorted out first, but for me the visual damage model is what always keeps me coming back to this genre. Not something I can do I real life, or would ever want to, but it is absolutely what keeps me wanting to get better, and better so I can see beautiful machines reduced to hole ridden husks by my gunnery. Hole ridden husks complete with a pilot who is safely away under a silk canopy let me mention.

I concur. Visual damage adds deeply to the authentic feel of combat and will be particularly pleasing when we get level bombers (manning a turret and seeing bits of aircraft blow away).

An example of how it can be done is with the Star Citizen damage modelling. Of course, object scales are very different and I in no way suggest this would be possible in DCS - but we can dream :music_whistling:

Cheers!

Smirkza

Would be kinda cool if they can make engine's (jets,props and heli's) Behave better when damaged, kinda like

having oil leak onto the window,

Engines Surging or backfireing or

having strange rattling and clanking noises from a damaged engine,

Be kind of cool to hear a damged A10 fly in with a Surging engine hearing the constant bang of it.

Or even made blowing an engine in a P51D even more hilarious by covering the windshield with oil and hav the engine shred apart, even make the prop come off.

IL2's Damage model for example,makes me foam at the mouth, but everything else about teh game(except the planes) is a disapointment.

I haven't seen too much in 2.0 yet, but I got hit by a stinger in a Stang the other day. I literally thought the engine had just suddenly completely blown up . I couldn't see much because there was oil all over the canopy and the Plexiglas was shattered in places. Only the report said that I'd been hit by pad infantry :doh:

Thanks ED :mad:... I mean :thumbup: :D

It's my understanding that DCS uses a relatively simple surface based damage model. What I mean by that is it only looks at where the projectile hits the aircraft's skin, no penetration or internal structure is modeled. Instead, each panel of skin has a list of systems associated with it and a random number generator decides what, if anything, is damaged. That system works great for explosive cannon shells and missiles, but is terribly problematic for simple kinetic projectiles like your standard issue 12.7mm AP/API round. ED has expressed an interest in redoing the damage modeling, my hope is that they do what the competition did and fully model the internal structure of their aircraft and the systems within. That's what makes the current main WW1 and WW2 flight sims so good when it comes to damage models. Yes oil slicks across the windshield are nice, but sending a 37mm AP round through a gunner in the fuselage, a fuel tank in the wing and into an engine is even nicer. That's something you just don't get in DCS, because in DCS that 37mm stops the instant it hits the gunner's windshield.

So yeah, hopefully that's next on the list after DCS2 is sorted out. It is a massive task of course, so I don't expect we'll see it anytime soon. But hopefully it comes at some point.:)

Oh I am dreaming about slashing a 109 with tracers going in and out of the plane with the 109 loosing coolant oil and with a ton of smoking bullet holes.:thumbup:

It's my understanding that DCS uses a relatively simple surface based damage model. What I mean by that is it only looks at where the projectile hits the aircraft's skin, no penetration or internal structure is modeled. Instead, each panel of skin has a list of systems associated with it and a random number generator decides what, if anything, is damaged. That system works great for explosive cannon shells and missiles, but is terribly problematic for simple kinetic projectiles like your standard issue 12.7mm AP/API round. ED has expressed an interest in redoing the damage modeling, my hope is that they do what the competition did and fully model the internal structure of their aircraft and the systems within. That's what makes the current main WW1 and WW2 flight sims so good when it comes to damage models. Yes oil slicks across the windshield are nice, but sending a 37mm AP round through a gunner in the fuselage, a fuel tank in the wing and into an engine is even nicer. That's something you just don't get in DCS, because in DCS that 37mm stops the instant it hits the gunner's windshield.

 

So yeah, hopefully that's next on the list after DCS2 is sorted out. It is a massive task of course, so I don't expect we'll see it anytime soon. But hopefully it comes at some point.:)

Agreed! Very much hope DCS will model damage to a more detailed level very soon. Particularly as they have indicated that they aim to provide the best WWII flight sim.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Another problem is AI aircraft still fighting even after suffering extensive damages. Solo is not enjoyable at all ATM because of this.

http://forums.eagle.ru/[/img]

Isn' t it a known issue already? You mean devs are not aware of this problem?

I did a forum search with "AI damage" keywords and found four threads dealing with this issue. Should I create a new one in the "1.5 bugs and problems" section?

I don't think it's a bug though, it's just how the damage model is currently with the AI. Until you shoot off a wing, tail or other major section, they will fly as if nothing has happened.