Jump to content

Heatblur A-6 Intruder


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

You can already pretend in single player.  Just load up any big iron bomb and pretend away.

Iron bombs dont cause the desired damage, or effect.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

If you want to simulate a real “cold war gone nuke” exchange, just flip the power button off.

what you mean by that?

If you talk about EMPs let me tell you that all military systems are shielded against that, and only civilian systems are going to be affected.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

show all the maps and drawings you like but miserable idea....

and why exactly?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Maybe there is a reason behind that fact 

yeah, because very little games actually have vehicles that let you fire nuclear bombs

 

its usually flight sims that get you close to this, and there only a handfull deal with the topic of a cold war gone hot

 

IL-2 1946 in the Jet age mod allows nukes, and there they are a nice tool to use

that game is also currently the only flight sim that has all requirements for nukes:

 

  • Units that can carry them
  • the right timeframe
  • possibilities for nuclear missions and sensefull targets for tactical weapons
  • devs actually knowing about the real effectiveness of nuclear bombs, and not a phantasy of what they are

many other games lack several of these requirements, thats why not many games have playable nukes

because some guy with a rifle cant fire nukes outside of sci-fi games, you need either:

Submarines, Missile silos, Artillery pieces or, Aircraft

 

 

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Also, Cold War gone hot usually implies a conventional war in most circles that discuss the topic. Otherwise, it's just a real fast route to literal armageddon.

NATO planning was extremely heavy on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop a soviet attack, because its pretty much the only chance NATO had to stop alot of tanks fast

they even dveloped the Neutron bomb just for that specific task, to stop soviet tank formations.

 

I've got 2 great books about this topic:

Es geht ums Überleben. Warum wir Atomraketen ablehnen.

"its about survival, why we reject the nuclear missile"

Es geht ums Überleben : warum wir die Atomraketen ablehnen. / Kleine Bibliothek

 

At Work in the Fields of the Bomb by Robert Del Tredici

At Work in the Fields of the Bomb by Robert Del Tredici

https://nonuclear.se/deltredici.legacyshow2007.html

^^here are all photos from the book, further back there is some interviews that are missing in the link.

 

On top I own documents from the Navy about the basics of nuclear weapons and about the nuclear capability of US aircraft.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

I'm not personally opposed to nukes in sims, but I also don't see much point in them either... it's not like they require a lot of accuracy in pilot skill. 

 

to do a proper nuclear strike without blowing ourself up requires alot more flying and navigation skill than doing a CCIP or CCRP drop with iron bombs

because the only way to safely deliver such a weapon is to Loft them, and a LOFT requires a perfectly flown 4g Half Cuban eight, not just pointing your nose at a spot over the target to then drop the bomb on a warehouse.

 

I simply challenge you, get into a plane of your choice loaded with 1x 250 - 500kg/ /500-1000lbs bomb and get it within 600m of a warehouse, while also staying 3km away from the bomb when it impacts

doing this is pretty difficult, and that would be for just a 10KT weapon

 

for a bigger challenge do 1.5km precission while staying away 10km (340KT)

 

note that you also have to face away from the eplosion, not fly towards it, or above it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

all in all im not just some dude that wants big bombs, im actually pretty well informed about nuclear weapons to be able to tell you that they wont cause a massive problem when you implement them properly into DCS, and when you stay in a lower tactical yield (50KT MAX)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point out where I disputed that at all?

 

My point was that the RN-24 and RN-28 of the MiG-21 are barely used in missions, barely touched by the playerbase, and are a janky compromise; they're just cracked-out FABs as per the developers. It's also worth noting that the DCS engine is held aloft by warm feelings and the farts of garden fairies. This would require actual platform updates to DCS performed by either DCS or by HB's own proprietary work. The MiGs nukes did not last long, online. They were just too easy to grief with and that was just with the over-sized standard bomb reaction. Would it really be worth modeling proper nuclear performance only to have it limited entirely by the majority of the player base? It seems like a lot of effort for not much benefit to the customer. Effort that could be better applied else where on the A-6 or other HB projects.

 

 

  • Like 2

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Point out where I disputed that at all?

 

My point was that the RN-24 and RN-28 of the MiG-21 are barely used in missions, barely touched by the playerbase, and are a janky compromise; they're just cracked-out FABs as per the developers. It's also worth noting that the DCS engine is held aloft by warm feelings and the farts of garden fairies. This would require actual platform updates to DCS performed by either DCS or by HB's own proprietary work. The MiGs nukes did not last long, online. They were just too easy to grief with and that was just with the over-sized standard bomb reaction. Would it really be worth modeling proper nuclear performance only to have it limited entirely by the majority of the player base? It seems like a lot of effort for not much benefit to the customer. Effort that could be better applied else where on the A-6 or other HB projects.

 

 

I checked, the blast radius of the RN-28 is about that of a 6MT bomb, not 1KT

thats a roughly 6000x increase in yield!!

 


 

Spoiler

 

so I did a test mission, the bomb hit roughly where my measuring stick starts, the first survivor is at 2,46 Nm (4,5km) distance to the blast

 

Screen_210410_182749.png

when you look at nukemap then a 20 PSI overpressure is nearly 100% lethality for a human, to get a 20PSI radius of 4km you need at least a 6MT weapon:

6MT.PNG

 

 

compare that to the proper distances:

 

1KT RN-28:

1KT.PNG

 

 

10KT RN-24:

10KT.PNG

 

 

 

no wonder people dont want nukes, cuz in DCS they are about 6000x as strong as they should be.

when the 1KT RN-28 actually performs rather close to what a 6MT bomb would do (including kill radius for planes, the AI Mig-21 is just outside the 1PSI overpressure zone in this test)

 

if these bombs would get their proper blast radius they would be less of a issue, and I think more communities would allow them on servers with proper blast ranges. (maybe not a infinite amount, but like a few bombs for each team to play around with)


Edited by Iron_physik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, it'd require immense updating. That's probably not going to happen. Asking governments specifics about the innerworkings of nukes is a pretty great way to end up on a list, to start with. 

 

The Rn-24 is even worse.

 

It's kind of a pipedream. If Mag3 announced they were getting rid of the nukes, I'd not even bat an eye. I really don't even think they've been touched in years by the devs.

 

EDIT: Actually, think of it in terms of resources allocated and the return on 'investment' in terms of authenticity. Sure, A-6s crews would have trained on the B-61 and its employment. But, they also trained on the KA-6D. While they never dropped the B-61 in a conflict, they certainly did a lot of work in the KA-6Ds. To me, the efforts would be better expended integrating the KA-6D as a feature than the B-61.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL
  • Like 4

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Exactly, it'd require immense updating. That's probably not going to happen. Asking governments specifics about the innerworkings of nukes is a pretty great way to end up on a list, to start with. 

 

The Rn-24 is even worse.

 

It's kind of a pipedream. If Mag3 announced they were getting rid of the nukes, I'd not even bat an eye. I really don't even think they've been touched in years by the devs.

 

EDIT: Actually, think of it in terms of resources allocated and the return on 'investment' in terms of authenticity. Sure, A-6s crews would have trained on the B-61 and its employment. But, they also trained on the KA-6D. While they never dropped the B-61 in a conflict, they certainly did a lot of work in the KA-6Ds. To me, the efforts would be better expended integrating the KA-6D as a feature than the B-61.

 

you really would just need to adjust the coded amount of explosives to fit the proper blast ranges

 

and to get the B61 on the A-6 a 3D model of the bomb (not hard to get) is the only thing you really need

the nuclear panel in the A-6 cockpit are just check lights if the bomb is armed and ready.

Spoiler


 

unknown.png

 

s-l1600.png

 

cd9df5d1628f844476ba8964a69ee86699271889

 

 


Edited by Iron_physik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

lol

seems like I hurt you with asking simply questions

 

Rather it seems like he was adding you to his ignore user list, as you are one of those persons that are unable to realize that not everyone has the same taste for DCS, making the whole point of debating quite useless.

  • Like 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Rather it seems like he was adding you to his ignore user list, as you are one of those persons that are unable to realize that not everyone has the same taste for DCS, making the whole point of debating quite useless.

I only asked him to clarify what he meant

also, yes, different tastes

you are not forced to use the Nukes, DCS being a sandbox has the advantage that you have options.

 

however outright saying "no" without any arguments or reasoning behind it is just lazy.

because there is alot arguments to add nukes to DCS considering the time frame of the Game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

however outright saying "no" without any arguments or reasoning behind it is just lazy.

because there is alot arguments to add nukes to DCS considering the time frame of the Game.

 

I'm not lazy, I just find the use of nukes to be immoral (even in simulated form) ... I don't need more arguments than that, so please don't argue me on this (nor call me names) as it is clearly my subjective opinion, else I will have to ignore you as Mr.Big seems to have done.

  • Like 2

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I'm not lazy, I just find the use of nukes to be immoral (even in simulated form) ... I don't need more arguments than that, so please don't argue me on this (nor call me names) as it is clearly my subjective opinion, else I will have to ignore you as Mr.Big seems to have done.

do you use cluster bombs in DCS?

or WP rockets?

or do you plan on using napalm when it gets added to DCS?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

do you use cluster bombs in DCS?

or WP rockets?

or do you plan on using napalm when it gets added to DCS?

 

OK, you've earned another ignore, bye. 🙄

  • Like 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

OK, you've earned another ignore, bye. 🙄

ah yes

avoiding questions you dont like answering, a classic.

Cluster munitions, WP and napalm are as immoral as nukes, but appearently they are 100% fine.

 

 

just for info

 

Nukes, unlike cluster bombs, WP and napalm are not banned, they are considered legal weapons of war in the most part, only directly harming civilians with them is banned:

 

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf

https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Nuclear Weapons Under International Law.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the same, the use of weapons of mass destruction, even in a sim, feels pretty pointless. The other conventional weapons, while banned now, were legal at one point if problematic, and would not have been that tipping point to a full nuclear exchange and the end of everything. What's the point? A big, impressive bang and mushroom cloud? Using one weapon to wreck a bunch of stuff without the real world consequences? The shock value? Why do you want to be the guy who used a nuke? I don't want to be that guy. I want to be the guy who causes the nuclear bomber to fail his mission, and that's all I care for the presence of nuclear weapons in a flight sim. As to the consequences of not stopping him, getting a mission failed message is enough. I don't need those particular fireworks.

 

I find nuclear weapons in flight sims distasteful because there are no consequences afterwards, especially in DCS. We don't have a dynamic campaign system with political implications of what you do and what weapons you use. You drop the bomb, get your rewarded effect, and that's it. Grand strategy games? Sure, bring them on. After they get used, it's a slippery slope that you're just as likely to lose from, and will probably result in failure than being an instant "I win" button. But being the pilot who drops the bomb? No thanks. I'm a member of the "Threads" and "The Day After" generation. Even as kids, we were pretty well aware of what the release of even a single nuclear weapon would mean. It wasn't going to just end there. You can't just turn the game off and walk away. If one goes, then the end of everything would follow very shortly thereafter. If DCS does that and makes sure you understand that after you've dropped that bomb, your pilot, your unit, your country, and the whole wide world beyond are fucked, then I'd be okay with their inclusion.

 

To answer a question you asked someone else, would I use conventional weapons of questionable morality in DCS if they were added? If they were actually used in the theater I am using them in, on the platform that I'm using them with, for the mission that I am flying, sure. I'll bow to history and swallow my disgust. I mean, I've played U-boat and Luftwaffe sims before and that doesn't make me a Nazi. But I'm not going to drop napalm and switch camera views to watch the enemy troops roast to death and giggle and quote Apocolypse Now while I do it as if I am the most clever person in the world and have been the first person ready with such a quip. And I hope that they don't model the horrific aftereffects of that weapon to amuse those who want to be entertained by the violence. Just like I don't want to watch in intimate simulated detail the blast wave of an atomic bomb flattening a city and rendering it uninhabitable afterwards.

 

I don't fly DCS for a body count, and that's what adding nukes would feel like to me.

 


Edited by Swordsman422
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

DCSF-14AOK3A.jpg

DCSF14AOK3B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol
seems like I hurt you with asking simply questions, or ask to clarify what you mean by "just flip the power button off. "
 
thats not how to hold a proper conversation
I'm pretty sure he meant that once two forces starts lobbing nukes at each other, it's game over for everyone anyway, and you might as well turn off your computer to simulate that. Not the EMP effects...


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I took it the same way.  The end of civilization as we know it would likely not see you playing video games.  And if he meant the EMP scenario?  Sure, military systems are hardened against that, but is your gaming rig?  😉

 

As others have stated, even a small tactical nuke cannot be employed in a bubble.  If NATO or Soviet forces had employed one nuke, tactical or otherwise, what's the only likely ending?  A global nuclear exchange.  Why do you suppose they were never used in a proxy conflict?  I mean, a "cold war gone hot" scenario isn't some fantasy conflict; it actually happened several times.  Neither side was willing to employee a nuclear weapon. 

 

It would just be completely wasted effort on the part of the devs, and clearly from the feedback you've received here and on Hoggit, would actually alienate a meaningful percentage of potential customers (regardless of whether you think it should).  Why would a business do that? 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nuclear panel should be simulated if possible, for system completeness. The only bomb that can be dropped should be the inert training version.

 

Player dropped nukes in DCS are honestly pretty pointless, as they're basically close to 'I win' buttons, which is why the Mig-21's are disabled on most servers. They add very little, but can take away quite a lot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buzzles said:

as they're basically close to 'I win' buttons, which is why the Mig-21's are disabled on most servers. They add very little, but can take away quite a lot.

the RN-28 (1KT bomb) of the Mig-21 is about 6000x to strong compared the blast radius it should have.

RN-24 (10KT) is even worse by a long shot, if I'd had to guess it acts more like a 30-60MT bomb when it comes to blast radius.

 

properly implemented these 2 nukes wont be much of a issue anymore.

im currently working on a video where I modded the A-4 mod with proper values for 10KT, in tests against flying aircraft it already is alot more realistic.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iron_physik said:

the RN-28 (1KT bomb) of the Mig-21 is about 6000x to strong compared the blast radius it should have.

RN-24 (10KT) is even worse by a long shot, if I'd had to guess it acts more like a 30-60MT bomb when it comes to blast radius.

 

properly implemented these 2 nukes wont be much of a issue anymore.

im currently working on a video where I modded the A-4 mod with proper values for 10KT, in tests against flying aircraft it already is alot more realistic.

 

 

 

I still disagree.

Using your previous "correct" distance for 10kt bombs, being ~1.36km for moderate blast damage, that's still a large area.

 

That SAM site? Gone with one bomb. That airport? Gone with one bomb.

And you don't even need to be pinpoint accurate with it. Players will take the _most efficient_ weapon they can get their hands on, for DCS where there's literally no other penality or decision factor needed, that'll be the one with the biggest bang.

For the Mig-21, why take a pair of FAB 250 or FAB500s on the wings and need to be super accurate with them to take out 2 targets, when you can just take the nuke and just be somewhat close and take out multiples?

Honestly, I just don't think player controlled nukes add anything to DCS.

AI delivered ones? Yes, there's an argument there as it'll potentially lead to some interesting missions, but even then, it'd probably just be a failure scenario.


Edited by Buzzles
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I also pointed out, it's more than just modeling the yield. We'd need some serious overhauls and it really doesn't justify the effort. So, I wouldn't expect it.

 

And, it should be understood that a lot of the folks here probably lived under the ever looming threat of the mushroom cloud, so I can understand the visceral response to the idea of bringing in nukes. 

 

Either way, don't hold your breath. We ain't gettin' 'em. 


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL
  • Like 4

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Iron_physik said:

I only asked him to clarify what he meant

also, yes, different tastes

you are not forced to use the Nukes, DCS being a sandbox has the advantage that you have options.

 

however outright saying "no" without any arguments or reasoning behind it is just lazy.

because there is alot arguments to add nukes to DCS considering the time frame of the Game.

 It's hard to beat a logical argument and you put forth a valid position for the inclusion of nukes. When individuals against the idea are arguing from an emotional position which, judging by his previous posts seems to be the case here, their only recourse for the lack of any effective counter argument is retreat. People fear what they do not understand. The argument against does not stand when it is fueled by an individuals irrational fears. It is not really worth debating against emotional responses. This case is especially absurd because we are not even talking about real life, but a game where the consequences have no bearing whatsoever. I do find the morality of killing people argument put forth by the other guy who chose to ignore you interesting though. How many people is it ok to kill then? One? Three? 10? 100? 5000? It doesn't really matter anyway. You cannot reason with people with a morally righteous opinion. They think they are being virtuous by letting everyone else know their opinions and, in their mind, it is not possible for them to be wrong morally. They are grandstanding. That is why they are ignoring you. It's actually better for your argument that they are weeding themselves out of the debate. Not every win ends in agreement.

 

If an aircraft had a capability (especially so if it was actually trained to by real life crews) and enough information could be found to model it properly then it should be incorporated into the module. The argument for less capabilities for a weapons platform in a simulation that is aiming at the highest fidelity possible seems nonsensical. Of course, there is also the real life nations involved who would have a say as well. If they don't want it in the public sphere then it will not be included. I would not fault a simulation developer who also works on military contracts to keep certain capabilities under wraps for the sake of their business. I have never been against nukes in any sim as long as they are properly modelled. They are just another tool to be used.

 

  I would also like to see the D-704 pod included in the A-6E's loadouts but I imagine HB would have to wait for ED to redo the core game with the basket and hose physics and allow the transfer of fuel from one player controlled aircraft to another. They did mention that air refueling would be further worked on a couple of years ago but haven't mentioned it recently. I imagine it's way down on the list of things to do if it is still being considered at all.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget intentional nuclear exchanges, there was a LOT of fear during the Cold War of ACCIDENTAL nuke detonations. Not from mistaking enemy behavior... but pure accidents. Tac nuke falls to the ground during loading or unloading operation... plane has in-flight emergency, is dropped freefall into a swamp near a city, or is still on jet when emergency landing and gets exposed to thousands of pounds of burning petroleum. Now, it's unlikely any of those would have caused nuke detonation... but it was still POSSIBLE, with massive consequences. And all those scenarios actually happened for real, and more I can't remember or never heard about. Some in Europe, some in America, and a couple in Canada. There was over 100 such incidents just from peacetime handling, Navy Army and flight ops. And also on the Red side too. Just saying that nuclear weapons are not real popular even among most who feel they are a "necessary evil", and most wouldn't even agree of their necessity either. The end of the Cold War was a very good thing, if for no other reason than reducing the chances of massive disaster.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my more logical arguments for "no" on the nuclear question:

 

Historical fidelity.

Yes, some of the platforms in this sim had the nuclear capability as well as the other questionable weapons systems. But while those other weapons were used, nuclear weapons have only been used in combat TWICE, and not by any of the platforms yet simulated in the game. White phosphorous, napalm, and cluster bombs have been used in historical conflicts by platforms represented in the sim. Nuclear weapons haven't. If we get a full fidelity B-29, you'll get my agreement. If the platform could use nuclear bombs and crews were trained on them, then an inert training round also wouldn't get any protest from me. I would rather the various devs focus on providing their aircraft with weapons that they actually carried in combat. That's not much fun for the folks who want the full glory of a nuclear detonation, but it can be argued that their desire to use these weapons is just as emotionally driven as those of us who find them distasteful. They want eye candy and kill count. How many birds can they take out with a single stone? How much of a mess can they make? Isn't the flash and bang cool to look at? That's a subjective consideration.

 

Also, if we're going for platform fidelity, nuclear and chemical weapons in a sim also face the problem of their gravity. We're flying these missions in a vacuum with no political considerations of their use and no fallout (of any type). If we get a dynamic campaign system where dropping one nuclear bomb quickly devolves the campaign into a series of nuclear strikes where nobody wins, where flying through previously nuked areas with residual radiation can adversely affect both the functionality of the aircraft and the pilot character's health through the mission and campaign, then sure. I'm on-board. I find it hilarious that everyone is screaming for realism when these weapons contain an entire other dimension to consider with their fidelity that WP, CBUs, and napalm just do not have. The scope of DCS doesn't contain all the geopolitical considerations you'd have to make for using WMDs and so in that way, they're outside the scope of DCS.

 

Developer effort.

DCS needs a weapon damage overhaul. The previous examples given of how basic ground unit damage is represented is pretty pitiful. If this overhaul comes, how the damage is calculated is probably going to be far more complex per weapon that what we have with the current lineup of conventional explosives. Realistically simulating the effects of nuclear weapons would be far more demanding on the average computer. I doubt that ED would simplify one weapon effect just to fit it into the game, especially when that simplification is something we all complain about the conventional weapons for.

 

Considering the customer base.

Nukes are rightly controversial. While we can have a logical discussion about whether they should be included, plenty of people here obviously cannot. I doubt that this forum represents the entire customer base for DCS. There are plenty of silent voices out there with opinions of their own. One side looks at the other as uptight, bleeding-heart whiners who want to take away fun weapons because "ThEy DoN't LiKe NuKeS!" The other side sees the first as slobbering, kill-happy, embryonic psychos who just want to get a loud bang, a pretty flash, some massive collateral damage, and a ridiculous consequence-free body count. The truth of the matter is probably not that extreme, but I am willing to bet more people might walk away from DCS for including controversial weapons represented with the usual lovingly crafted detail DCS is known for than will be attracted because "YUUUS! FINALLY someone put TEH NUKEZ back in a flight sim." And DCS is, ultimately, a for-profit enterprise.

 

So how many people is it okay to simulate killing? I can answer that for you, considering that I primarily fly top cover and CAS missions a LOT. How many does it take to remove the danger to the unit I'm protecting? How many of my allies' lives can I save? Can I do it by just taking out the handful of dudes in the radar van of a SAM site? Can I do it just by eliminating three or four armored vehicles rolling down the road towards them? Or leveling the building where an insurgent sniper is hiding? Or chasing off or destroying an enemy interceptor who plans to fly in and shoot down my friends? How many simulated deaths are acceptable? Enough to stop the threat. And that's specifically examples like this and not a city full of civilians I want to crater with a nuclear bomb. Or what's the point in nuking an enemy unit protecting the only road through a valley when my own forces then have to move through that valley, into the radioactive aftermath of the weapon that I dropped free of geopolitical considerations, because hey, this is a game. So let me turn the question back around. How many enemies is acceptable for you to simulate killing in one shot? 10? 100? 5000? Those numbers are just too small for you aren't they? It needs to be all of them, all at once, doesn't it? Why isn't a stick of conventional bombs enough?

 

Speaking further on fidelity, one more thing that's missing is the morale considerations of units under attack. The series Wargame tackles this fairly believably by having the performance of attacked units continue to degrade until you lose control of them entirely and they ignore your orders to go hide and cower under cover. That effectively removes them from combat, even temporarily, without destroying them. Units in DCS don't retreat from the field. Without scripts, outflying an enemy aircraft won't ever cause him to turn tail and run, effectively surrendering the battlespace to you to save himself. An engagement will always result in the destruction of you or your enemy, either through weapons or fuel starvation. No one disengages and goes home in the face of better skill. An armored unit won't flee in the face of an attacking aircraft, removing themselves from the battlefield or even repositioning in consideration of defense-in-depth. Enemy infantrymen don't throw down their weapons and surrender, remaining defeated but alive. Victory in DCS ALWAYS means eliminating as many of the opposing dots as is required to fulfill the mission objective. Their continued existence is between the player and his goalpost, and that's pretty much all there is. If the white flag was a thing in DCS, then the number of morally acceptable enemy casualties would drop drastically, because we could cross the goalpost without eliminating every single one of them. Maybe that should be something to consider developing if we're talking about fidelity.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5

DCSF-14AOK3A.jpg

DCSF14AOK3B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Swordsman422 said:

 

Developer effort.

DCS needs a weapon damage overhaul. The previous examples given of how basic ground unit damage is represented is pretty pitiful. If this overhaul comes, how the damage is calculated is probably going to be far more complex per weapon that what we have with the current lineup of conventional explosives. Realistically simulating the effects of nuclear weapons would be far more demanding on the average computer. I doubt that ED would simplify one weapon effect just to fit it into the game, especially when that simplification is something we all complain about the conventional weapons for.

This is a fantastic post, but I think this is the most pertinent portion of it. It's a lot more than just adjusting damage yield and area of effect. Currently, the MiG-21's RN-24 and RN-28 just leave unsightly textured chancres where they're dropped. We'd be talking a considerable platform update for one type of munition that most mission makers are going to ignore and outright exclude. You can break servers if you spam the Rn-24 enough in the -21.

 

Sure, it's kind of neat that the Fishbed has it and allows for missions akin to what precipitated the plot of The Sum of All Fears but it's also important to consider that the MiG-21 is fully operable by a single player. If JESTER is anything to go by, the A-6 will encourage the multiplayer aspect immensely.

 

Overall, it's an entirely moot point since only one aircraft has ever been given instant sunrises in DCS and other airframes capable of such deployment have not. It's not going to happen, odds are saying.

  • Like 4

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

Historical fidelity.

Yes, some of the platforms in this sim had the nuclear capability as well as the other questionable weapons systems. But while those other weapons were used, nuclear weapons have only been used in combat TWICE, and not by any of the platforms yet simulated in the game. White phosphorous, napalm, and cluster bombs have been used in historical conflicts by platforms represented in the sim. Nuclear weapons haven't. If we get a full fidelity B-29, you'll get my agreement. If the platform could use nuclear bombs and crews were trained on them, then an inert training round also wouldn't get any protest from me. I would rather the various devs focus on providing their aircraft with weapons that they actually carried in combat. That's not much fun for the folks who want the full glory of a nuclear detonation, but it can be argued that their desire to use these weapons is just as emotionally driven as those of us who find them distasteful. They want eye candy and kill count. How many birds can they take out with a single stone? How much of a mess can they make? Isn't the flash and bang cool to look at? That's a subjective consideration.

 

Also, if we're going for platform fidelity, nuclear and chemical weapons in a sim also face the problem of their gravity. We're flying these missions in a vacuum with no political considerations of their use and no fallout (of any type). If we get a dynamic campaign system where dropping one nuclear bomb quickly devolves the campaign into a series of nuclear strikes where nobody wins, where flying through previously nuked areas with residual radiation can adversely affect both the functionality of the aircraft and the pilot character's health through the mission and campaign, then sure. I'm on-board. I find it hilarious that everyone is screaming for realism when these weapons contain an entire other dimension to consider with their fidelity that WP, CBUs, and napalm just do not have. The scope of DCS doesn't contain all the geopolitical considerations you'd have to make for using WMDs and so in that way, they're outside the scope of DCS.

 

Historical Fidelity- The fact that a weapon was never used in anger should not preclude its inclusion. There are instances of weapons never used in combat that are in DCS already which effectively nullifies that argument. My position remains that if it was in service, actively trained to by its crews and has enough information to be modeled it should be included. As far as the scope of DCS is concerned the tactical weapons being proposed for inclusion fit well with the size of the maps and add to the variety of mission sets, both offensive and defensive, within DCS. The political side, if it is mentioned at all, is usually a generic afterthought and is also not really considered within DCS at all. Carl von Clauswitz said that "war is a continuation of politics by other means" and the only attempts at the inclusion of this aspect are usually generic blurbs in the mission briefings. There are no political factors built into the game at all so it is up to the user to assign purpose to the missions they fly. In its current state, DCS is primarily a single sortie simulator. This is evidenced by the fact that multiplayer servers have to use mods to enable respawnability of aircraft slots so they are not permanently lost when a user loses the aircraft. A single sortie can have any type of storyline attached to it to justify the use of nuclear weapons. The dynamic campaign, if they so decide, could limit or exclude the use of any weapons but being that it is not yet released that is just speculation on my part, but it could be designed in. The gravity of using such weapons within a campaign should be an integral component of the campaign and similar to real life, the release for use of the weapons should be dictated by higher authority. I see it as an end game weapon. Understand that there are no winners in war, only losers. That is a good lesson to learn in a simulated environment don't you think?

 

14 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

Developer effort.

DCS needs a weapon damage overhaul. The previous examples given of how basic ground unit damage is represented is pretty pitiful. If this overhaul comes, how the damage is calculated is probably going to be far more complex per weapon that what we have with the current lineup of conventional explosives. Realistically simulating the effects of nuclear weapons would be far more demanding on the average computer. I doubt that ED would simplify one weapon effect just to fit it into the game, especially when that simplification is something we all complain about the conventional weapons for.

 

Agreed. DCS does need a weapons damage overhaul. ED know it too and have indicated a desire to fix that issue as well. The fact is that a lot of the same physical effects present in the use of nuclear (blast, overpressure, heat) are also components of the vast majority of conventional weapons. Think Thermobaric warheads, Unitary warheads, fire bombs/napalm and high explosive bombs as well. I imagine they will design the new weapons with SDK tools to ease the effort of redoing all of the current weapons and the tools will include a function to be scalable for all of the different types of weapons they will be used on. I Imagine that is how they would do it because that is what I would do. As for the other effects, only EMP will really be needed to be modeled as radiation takes far more time to take effect than DCS allows for. There are other ways to simulate that as well some of which will also require improvements to the AI.

 

14 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

Considering the customer base.

Nukes are rightly controversial. While we can have a logical discussion about whether they should be included, plenty of people here obviously cannot. I doubt that this forum represents the entire customer base for DCS. There are plenty of silent voices out there with opinions of their own. One side looks at the other as uptight, bleeding-heart whiners who want to take away fun weapons because "ThEy DoN't LiKe NuKeS!" The other side sees the first as slobbering, kill-happy, embryonic psychos who just want to get a loud bang, a pretty flash, some massive collateral damage, and a ridiculous consequence-free body count. The truth of the matter is probably not that extreme, but I am willing to bet more people might walk away from DCS for including controversial weapons represented with the usual lovingly crafted detail DCS is known for than will be attracted because "YUUUS! FINALLY someone put TEH NUKEZ back in a flight sim." And DCS is, ultimately, a for-profit enterprise.

 

 So, one side are psycho's and the other side are just whiners. If you were being completely fair you would call one side sociopaths or psychopaths and the other side dictatorial or authoritarian. The truth is those types are the minority, the extreme fringes of the userbase. I don't see this debate that way. I view this as a scale of emotional maturity where both of the fringe elements you mention are on the same end of the spectrum. The real problem is that some here cannot separate fact from fiction and wish to impose their ideas on others for their own moral purposes. The problem lies with the fact that no two people have the exact same moral code they live by. This is a simulation and it is up to you, the user, to draw the moral line where you see fit. That shouldn't involve imposing your will on others because of how you feel about something in a simulation. Besides, to your only real point in this paragraph, I posit that we already don't have the minority you think we would lose if nukes were included because there are already two nukes in DCS already.

 

15 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

So how many people is it okay to simulate killing? I can answer that for you, considering that I primarily fly top cover and CAS missions a LOT. How many does it take to remove the danger to the unit I'm protecting? How many of my allies' lives can I save? Can I do it by just taking out the handful of dudes in the radar van of a SAM site? Can I do it just by eliminating three or four armored vehicles rolling down the road towards them? Or leveling the building where an insurgent sniper is hiding? Or chasing off or destroying an enemy interceptor who plans to fly in and shoot down my friends? How many simulated deaths are acceptable? Enough to stop the threat. And that's specifically examples like this and not a city full of civilians I want to crater with a nuclear bomb. Or what's the point in nuking an enemy unit protecting the only road through a valley when my own forces then have to move through that valley, into the radioactive aftermath of the weapon that I dropped free of geopolitical considerations, because hey, this is a game. So let me turn the question back around. How many enemies is acceptable for you to simulate killing in one shot? 10? 100? 5000? Those numbers are just too small for you aren't they? It needs to be all of them, all at once, doesn't it? Why isn't a stick of conventional bombs enough?

 

 A rhetorical question is meant to make a point. Turning the question around means that you missed the point because you didn't think about it. The point being made was that it is a simulation. Simulation means not real life. Not real life means it does not matter so there are no moral consequences. That is where emotional maturity enters the equation. If someone can't separate fact from fiction then they need to pay more attention to that aspect of their personality for their own personal growth. That is why I found that reaction interesting.

 

The last paragraph on unit morale is a universal AI problem in DCS and is far less relevant to your argument. Morale and suppression are non-existent within DCS and that has been pointed out in many threads in these forums. It affects the employment of all weapons within DCS not just nukes.

  • Like 1

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...