[NO BUG]RPG soldier AI shot from 500m.

300m is ok for a RPG. 500m is too much. Also there is a visual detection by default that allow detect the infantry from every angle of a vehicle.

I would ask for a max shot from 300m and a detection only from front angle and limited or none detection from rear.

They need improve the infantry. Syria map in current operation is mainly an infantry operation. This infantry AI need attention.

Well, the sight of an RGP goes up to 500m. So from that perspective, not too much for an RPG.

Also, depending on the type of vehicle, they have view towards the rear or side. So you'd have to implement different values for each vehicle.

Not like they are more inaccurate at a distance /s

Besides, you can shoot an RPG from whatever distance you want

I am talking about accuracy. You can shoot also a missiles from whatever distance you want if you know how to.

I was thinking you guys wanted to talk about simulation. 500m is absolutely a distance you will not try if you have 3 rockets. But from the computers kids enjoy see such ridiculous entertainment s.

The RPG-7 Rocket has an integrated selfdestruct timer. At 950 m they will automatically explode. Nice Feature for an Airburst at an fixed location. 500 m against a moving target is more than foolish. 200 m or less would give you a better chance. A near miss is a miss but it will keep the heads down in the dirt.

The RPG-7 Rocket has an integrated selfdestruct timer. At 950 m they will automatically explode.

About that. More like 750-1200 meters scale for that timer. It is not exact but varies typically little but can vary a lot some cases.

DCS has time to receive the randomness to timers, probabilities for range estimations, engagement factors instead hard coded distances etc.

Nice Feature for an Airburst at an fixed location. 500 m against a moving target is more than foolish. 200 m or less would give you a better chance. A near miss is a miss but it will keep the heads down in the dirt.

250-300 meters for a target coming toward, and 150-250 meters for sideways moving targets. 500-600 meters possible for stationery and directly toward coming targets.

But all as well depends from warhead. A slow arching grenade is not at all so easy as fast straight flying one.

The AI needs a better intelligence. Like calculate estimation for hit, and then based that decide to fire or not.

But even worse thing is that infantry doesn't have cover. They can't dig in, they don't have small covers all around terrain etc, that would force vehicles close for detection, and similar for vehicles etc.

That all makes RPG like units useless as they are easier to spot if not behind a building corner or sharp terrain edge for surprise.

And what comes to detection, infantry will detect vehicles sooner than those the infantry. Infantry has great visibility, they have better understanding of terrain and they actually hear vehicles from very far distances.

DCS truly needs a proper vision block simulation where each crew member vision outside is calculated. So loader while in action doesn't look outside. Driver can't see backwards if not having mirrors. Gunner and commander has limited views outside. Yet all units has perfect vision outside.

Try to perform a rocket attack run from high sky and they will always spot you.

Must still love LAV-25 that are real snipers regardless their real limitations in optics.

Infantry are deadly. Of course we don’t expect a full simulated Infantry but at least decent distance and prone position could be implemented in the near future.

It is realistic if they use it to fight soft targets like groups of infantry. To hit a vehicle at 500m is too high expectation to get a solid hit with such unguided rockets in a horizontal trajectory. At least if we talk about real combat and not range fun day with tons of ammo, 500m for a vehicle could be hard.

Yeah, could be hard. If said vehicle, however, moves slow, entirely possible and/or doable regardless.

Picking nits, I know.

Only a example..... RPG attack vs C-130.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/05/27/mq-9-drone-crew-awarded-air-force-achievement-medals-after-rpg-attack.html

RPG vs building at 500m is perfectly reasonable for indirect fire support. What we dont have is infantry using buildings. Between the two things... infantry always in the open would be worth changing before RPG's being used at that range.

It is realistic if they use it to fight soft targets like groups of infantry. To hit a vehicle at 500m is too high expectation to get a solid hit with such unguided rockets in a horizontal trajectory. At least if we talk about real combat and not range fun day with tons of ammo, 500m for a vehicle could be hard.

You wouldn't fire RPG at soft targets like group of soldiers or even people inside a room.

The most common warheads for RPG-7 are HEAT with penetrator, so unless you have direct hit on person or people straight behind a wall, you are not killing anyone easily.

If we would be talking about thermobaric grenades like TBG-7V then it is completely different case...

But again kill radius is only hand grenade level, so about 10-15 meters radius, and no infantry squad (7-14 soldiers) is going to position themselves such way that you kill multiple with single grenade. Maybe a pair you kill, or good luck to kill two pairs of ambushed in urban combat on corner etc.

The problem is always that challenge to hit a specific position on vehicle is high. Why you avoid firing at vehicles that moves sideways or are not stationary and well visible. So while you aim at weak points etc, you might hit just somewhere else. But someone behind an armor doesn't like that at all. Scary stuff and deadly if spalling.

If you use a thermobaric round yes. It is a round you gonna see more in regular armed forces ex URSS allies. And that depend a lot of the target terrain configuration. If target is beside a solid building or vehicle, RPG will kill closest infantry. RPG users will not think twice in use a HEAT round against a building with soldiers as targets. In this case 500m distance is a reasonable distance for a side stand soldier. Not for a snipping 500m vehicle if you really wanna use your ammo well.

You wouldn't fire RPG at soft targets like group of soldiers or even people inside a room.

 

The most common warheads for RPG-7 are HEAT with penetrator, so unless you have direct hit on person or people straight behind a wall, you are not killing anyone easily.

 

If we would be talking about thermobaric grenades like TBG-7V then it is completely different case...

But again kill radius is only hand grenade level, so about 10-15 meters radius, and no infantry squad (7-14 soldiers) is going to position themselves such way that you kill multiple with single grenade. Maybe a pair you kill, or good luck to kill two pairs of ambushed in urban combat on corner etc.

 

The problem is always that challenge to hit a specific position on vehicle is high. Why you avoid firing at vehicles that moves sideways or are not stationary and well visible. So while you aim at weak points etc, you might hit just somewhere else. But someone behind an armor doesn't like that at all. Scary stuff and deadly if spalling.

Depends on who this you is you're referring to. RPG's are used vs infantry all the time in the middle east, not just IFV's and Tanks. Maybe not by textbook, but war never is. That goes for US forces as well (AT4/Goose). It also doesn't have to kill you, shrapnel takes you out of the fight and anyone having to fix you.

The RPG-7 Rocket has an integrated selfdestruct timer. At 950 m they will automatically explode. Nice Feature for an Airburst at an fixed location. 500 m against a moving target is more than foolish. 200 m or less would give you a better chance. A near miss is a miss but it will keep the heads down in the dirt.

Taliban have employed the tactic of airbursting RPGs over the tops of marine fobs. Although I’ve not heard an instance someone has been wounded by one.

Depends on who this you is you're referring to. RPG's are used vs infantry all the time in the middle east, not just IFV's and Tanks. Maybe not by textbook, but war never is. That goes for US forces as well (AT4/Goose). It also doesn't have to kill you, shrapnel takes you out of the fight and anyone having to fix you.

Well, it is well known that people try clever things. Be it a Maverick against empty car because fear, or ideas that assault rifle is great field chair....

It doesn't mean that it is great idea.

One of the bad ideas is to fire a AT rocket against people... Yes you get nice fireshow and dust everywhere, but effective it ain't if not using proper warhead. It is just those Hollywood ideas that even many Taliban has seen and believes same way as any other "big fireball = very deadly".

A normal AT grenade doesn't have shrapnel that effects outside. The grenades are very ineffective to surroundings. Sure if you stand just meter from the impact point, but those grenades does really not affect anything else than straight forward.

This is same thing with even cannons ammunition etc. If you do not use proper ammunition for an target, your effect is very minimal.

But can we pretend that the RPG soldier in game switch to a proper grenade on each shot? Sure....

We don't have even proper logistics or teams etc there. Just want to see a "boom" and see a person carrying something big so we can tell over radio "RPG!" by using over accurate FLIR or other optical targeting systems from 20 nmi....

But same way we can always expect that a RPG Soldier is skilled shooter, great at hitting even moving target from 500 meters....

Anyway..... do you have anything to show for Infantry's accuracy at that range, so to claim that they shouldn't be able to shoot at it ?

I see no problems with being inaccurate at a distance against a small or moving target.... or even a static one with a lower skill AI.

There are so many other issues with Infantry AI, like not being able to detect beyond their egnagement range, even if they are in flat, open ground, where you can see the enemy from kilometers away, or that they sometime loose sight after shooting with someone for a period of time, or how much more accurate US infantry is against any other type.

RPG infantry man are not even that accurate... you have to be at around 200 meters to starte getting consistent, accurate shots. If you don't want them to engage, change their ROE.

It is very important the distance they shoot. More distance is less accurate to hit the units and then the RPG become a waste of resources in a mission making Mission makers poor interest in RPG. As you should know the vehicle usability in our missions is too high, This is because the lack of infantry AI implementation.

So taking account we have poor infantry implementation because the nature of the fight Sim. Then that situation make mission makers use more quantity of vehicles in missions.

As we already have the air transport to deploy infantry. A logic deploy against vehicles will

be RPG. Making RPG more efficient and usable in missions is giving a big plus to transport helicopters.

Yes Mi-8 and Huey need desperately a Good reason to exist in a mission. Nothing better than infantry transportation and if this deployment is against vehicles and well Made that will be even better.

While they leave RPG so retarded shooting from 500m and wasting ammo as crazy while they stay stand forever then what is the sense to deploy an anti-vehicle force in an Helicopter...???

Anyway..... do you have anything to show for Infantry's accuracy at that range, so to claim that they shouldn't be able to shoot at it ?

What a comedian guy :D

 

I see no problems with being inaccurate at a distance against a small or moving target.... or even a static one with a lower skill AI.[/Quote]

 

I don't either.

 

The AI skills needs revisiting and redesigning based the unit type.

 

Like RPG soldier aiming skills are different from MANPADS skills or HMG skills.

 

The AI firing RPG needs different ways to estimate range and speed of a target that it spots. Firing rocket 30 meters above a armor is no good AI. It would be more about horizontal challenge against sideways moving target than vertical aiming challenge.

 

But this is common problem in DCS, easy to spot as well for ground units firing flying targets. Some units just fires totally wrong direction as trying to miss as good as they can, only because the aiming logic is so simple:

 

Find a target

Draw a circle around the target, leading point as it center of it.

Use various factors to circle size like skill set of shooter

Fire inside that circle.

 

Why when flying sideways something you can see gunner shooting 15 degree to your rear, a position where you can't by any means get.

 

And if similar is used with all, it becomes requirement to make some units too accurate that they could actually hit you, and then yet miss you in positions when shouldn't.

 

It is funny how AI can simultaneously be so inaccurate and yet too accurate.

Like in newsletter where they explained that AI always aimed to pilot, and they needed to develop new methods to make AI aim more realistically so they don't always kill pilot first.

 

And similar is needed for all. Tailored per unit type and task.

If RPG soldier see a armor moving 30 km/h to left, it makes no sense fire 15 degree above or right or below it. The RPG would land somewhere very near the target if not on somewhere on it likely.

 

There are always bad soldiers, first rocket on first moving target is likely to miss. But if one get to launch like 20-50 rockets, they get skill to hit very well.

Maybe hes just good @ his job. RPG's are cheap to train most people get fairly proficient reasonably quick, question for me is should this be top of the list?

Well the AI are a computer, he can hit you if you give him the command, he's unable to miss, technically. So built in dispersion to appear like he is missing is required. That takes effort. A standard distribution of hits inside a range circle is often used. So "some of the hits" will hit.

More interesting and believable algorithms can be made? Sure. On the list of things to do? Probably not. Critical? Maybe to some, like most requests, all 234876234 of them. Do ED comment on when number 234876235 is ready to be processed? No.

Maybe hes just good @ his job. RPG's are cheap to train most people get fairly proficient reasonably quick, question for me is should this be top of the list?

for transport Helicopters module?? yes should be on the top of the list.

The only thing have been made for Transport helicopters is the sling load.

They implemented also the simulated internal load.

Bud when we talk about the main task for this air transport, that is infantry transportation, then we have a problem.

If some of you are experience mission maker you will notice the DCS mission are plenty of armor vehicles. So that mean drop a squad of regular soldiers in the current DCS is useless. For several reasons.

The only way to fix this issue is drooping a squad with many RPG soldiers to face the huge amount of vehicles in our missions.

Maybe hes just good @ his job. RPG's are cheap to train most people get fairly proficient reasonably quick, question for me is should this be top of the list?

There are fancy RPG-7 training rockets too. You place a 7.62x39 round inside and when you fire "rocket", it will fire the round.

The training rockets are made so those are following just about same ballistic curve and speed as real rockets, so you can train effectively "for free" as much you want.

So use a tracer rounds and you have effectively very easy way to observe how well people can shoot those things at moving targets at the range. (Similar was for M72 LAW)

The RPG-7 is so well designed, that real limitation just is the grenades performance in modern battlefield against special targets.

Comparing to M72 LAW, I prefer more the RPG-7 as one carrying extra rockets was better for combat. But the single use of LAW was so nice idea that you just throw it away after firing.

RPG when rocket was ready, was faster to launch. Where LAW was fast, but little hassle to prepare for firing and especially back to transportation.

The newest LAW is fairly nice to allow two modes depending target, delayed or instant fuse. So either penetration or on impact.

Many ways I would take just the M72 LAW as it is easier to each soldier to carry one, but for dedicated AT team I would take RPG7.