Rocket effectivness

I think some of you are vastly over estimating the effect of fragmentation.

 

As myself and others have noted its only one element to damage caused by blasts.

 

the first is the pressure, this if sufficient will cause extensive internal damage, most easily recognised by bleeding from the mouth, ears and nose, more serious cases can even cause bleeding from the bowl (although if it was this close you would prabably be distracted by other effects of the weapon)

 

the second is fragmentation, more on this in a second.

 

the third are actual injuries being caused by a person being "thrown" by the blast and hitting some thing that renders the injury.

 

some would refer to a fourth catergory effect of blast injuries, but they fundamentally result from the saem vectors in the above 3 elements.

 

Fragmentation is an incredibly haphazard phenomenon.

 

during the demolition of an old hospital in canberra (the australian capital), a girl was hit and killed by fragmentation from the blast over 1000m away from it.

 

the M26 grenade had a lethal radius of over 220m, this was due to the size of the fragments, as a result, unless you were actually close to the detonation, you had a small chance of being hit and killed. (not to mention no one can throw a half kilo lump of metal and comp b 220m)

 

the claymore *cough mine* - sorry anit personal weapon, is a DIRECTIONAL weapon that has has 700g of PE and 700 ball bearings roughly the size of SG-18 shot. the effect at about the half way point of the lethal zone is suprisingly little, enough that it COULD ruin your day and take you out of the fight, but far well and truely short of a garrenteed kill, and nothing remotely as spectacular as a cannister or splintex round from an AFV.

 

SO, fragmentation isnt a magic bullet, far from it.

 

some of you whinging that frag does nothing to tank in the game, well guess what, AFV's are explicitly designed to protect its crew from fragmentation, hence penetrator war heads either kinetic or chemical are what achieves the kill.

 

"splash" damage in the game isnt that far off, its the damage model of objects that causes the issue. Look at ARMA 2; a rocket or HE round hitting near a soft skin vehicle, if it doesnt kill it, will likely destroy the tyres, and achieve a mobility kill.

some of you whinging that frag does nothing to tank in the game, well guess what, AFV's are explicitly designed to protect its crew from fragmentation, hence penetrator war heads either kinetic or chemical are what achieves the kill.

 

Yes, you don't need to destroy target, just disable it.

 

But even modern MBT is vulnerable to get disabled by fragments. A 155mm artillery shell tens of meters distance will be very serious threat and if you are in other kind AFV like example IFV, you drive like mad man away from the area where artillery is going to strike.

 

And 155mm artillery shell isn't nearly as powerfull than 250kg or 500kg bombs.

 

Sorry to quote outsource but I save time.

 

On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569:

 

155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV).

 

While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out.

 

It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis.

 

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/effectiveness-artillery-sph-vs-tanks-12659-2/#post266452

 

 

So back to topic, are rockets and bombs in DCS less effective because fragments ain't modeled in game? I still think yes.

As the difficulty to use rockets at max range or even closer range renders them un-usable if you don't get a direct hit.

 

What has gave me the conclusion I don't have reasons to carry any rockets in any vehicle as I need to get too close to get enough direct hits on target for rockets to be effective.

So I either use a missile to every target if at longer range than ~2-3km until I can start using cannon effectively.

Since it seems we are already in the phase of the discussion where people start posting youtube videos I fear we won't get far anymore. :( I'll answer one or two things anyway.

 

@dumgrunt: You are mostly right, but there is one thing you are missing, I think. Size and speed. Depending on the type of your explosives (especially the speed of its explosion), the shape and size of your fragments the speed and lethality may vary extremely. That's why your claymore example doesn't quite fit.

 

As for the uselessness of fragments against tanks:

A claymore explosion next to to an APC will do nothing (or next to nothing), but there are weapons doing significant damage to an APC by fragments. You just can't say fragments don't do damage to APCs.

 

@all

And yes, theory and reality of fragments caused by explosions vary. That's because in theory we use statistical values. You can see the difference in one of the documents I posted, that's why I posted it. The values in the other document I posted the link to (JFIRE) are numbers by the US military. The "danger close" distance they use is the distance where you have a PI 0.1, which is a statistical value meaning that you have a 0.1% chance of being incapacitated when you are a 1,80m tall person standing at the stated distance.

 

You could say a random chance of being hit by fragments on a certain distance might do the job, but as long as the ground unit damage model doesn't support it, it doesn't do the trick. And even then it is inaccurate (adjusting it depending on a few factors could work, but we don't know it yet. It might be inefficient and it might still be too inaccurate to be sufficiently realistic). And the chance of being hit doesn't grow linear. And you have to either compute line of sight (which sucks) or do another approximation. And the chances of being hit change dramatically when using airbursts or explosions downhill and stuff.

Doing it in real time sucks even more.

 

And yes, ArmA has a better vehicle damage model than DCS has, and so has the ten year old OFP, but that's not the point. Both aren't flight simulators. Why won't people stop comparing ArmA to DCS?

 

And as a software developer I beg you all to never ever write stuff like "that should be easy to do" or "not a big change", or "quite easy" speaking of software, except you have worked on that particular piece of code. I hate it when my boss does it and I can't imagine the ED coders like it when you do that. Some things that look easy are hard to do, and vice versa.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Aginor

AFV's are explicitly designed to protect its crew from fragmentation

 

From fragmentation yes, but very little against blast depression

And yes, ArmA has a better vehicle damage model than DCS has, and so has the ten year old OFP, but that's not the point. Both aren't flight simulators. Why won't people stop comparing ArmA to DCS?

 

Because in both games you are shooting at same kind ground vehicles.

When playing DCS, there is difference are you shooting from 100km distance or from 5km distance. It as well depends what kind weapon is used. If firing with a autocannon or firing HE rockets at truck with direct or near hits at distance where you could see driver eye balls, you could expect for "realism" reason to get little more effect than just "A live" and "Destroyed" and between that little smoke raising.

 

I definitely wouldn't even suggest DCS to get ground units with same modeling as Steel Beast or ARMA (now A3), but at least the Operation Flashpoint level of modeling would be nice at least on the flight log and visually somehow that those who fly at low level and slow can observe when tires has been blown off or tracks are cut off so you know it isn't going anywhere anymore.

 

Still I don't compare DCS and ARMA as different playing areas in both.

 

And as a software developer I beg you all to never ever write stuff like "that should be easy to do" or "not a big change", or "quite easy" speaking of software, except you have worked on that particular piece of code. I hate it when my boss does it and I can't imagine the ED coders like it when you do that. Some things that look easy are hard to do, and vice versa.

 

There is difference is it easy to do and is it possible.

It is possible as if even considering games what are there, or not just games but actually useful programs with heavy number crushing, it isn't so demanding to calculate fragments and possibilities when it comes to CPU/GPU capabilities.

But when it comes to question about what is possibilities with DCS World in its physics engine and networking code then it is different case as it can be impossible or very hard to do.

 

For decade ago it was possible to do with a small CPU impact a explosion with hundred (or so) fragments what each of them were calculated separately a hit to different character body parts etc.

Is it possible to do today that it is calculated a 500 or so? A 5 year old CPU can manage that.

 

Question would be as well what some players expect. It goes between "simulator to calculate every shrapnel air flow and dynamics in real time" to "just show as some fancy graphics".

I would not want to see anything as the speeds what they are flying doesn't matter at the engagement distances, but they would look good in slow-motion videos when missile hits next to airplane. For me it would be enough that the proximity features work and there is a calculation of X amount of shrapnel directions for Y meters.

 

That would be the "easy part". Then damage calculations for each hit, locations etc and it becomes complex stuff to do when target is a model with complex hit zones.

 

After all they are doing new graphics engine(?) and new map, so are there changed the physics could get improved/improved as well and later the basic ground models?

They have opened game for third party modules, so if engine supports could there be a addons what improve ground vehicles with new hit zones, models and animations?

 

 

Personally I am disappointed to learn that fragmentation isn't modeled in a simulator where you mainly use weapons whats effects for targets is caused with fragmentation.

As it is not nice to waste 5-6 Vikhr to AH-64 to get it in condition that it returns to base for repairs and more likely after 2-3 hits it just acquires me as target and shoot me down with a single Hellfire flying trough forest.

 

Why to carry rockets at all when their are effect is near zero?

 

At some point developers get time to update features, implemented new ones and bring depth to many "small things". It is just question of roadmap and possibilities what we don't know.

As myself and others have noted its only one element to damage caused by blasts.

Remember that fragmentation causes 80% of causalities in most bomb attacks.

 

As a general rule, if you are close enough to an explosion to be harmed be blast, you are probably already dead from shrapnel.

 

On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569:

 

155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV).

 

While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out.

 

It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis.

That's a very interesting article, thanks.

 

But is it also rather old? Modern tanks shouldn't have much to fear from 25mm APDS even in the rear armor. HE Arty remains something that will force tanks to move, not score kills outright. Against lighter vehicles, fragments are going to disable components and kill crew, not destroy. In DCS, we can't even kill the gunner of a humvee.

 

Look at ARMA 2; a rocket or HE round hitting near a soft skin vehicle, if it doesnt kill it, will likely destroy the tyres, and achieve a mobility kill.

No, we should not bring up ArmA here. HE near a soft skin vehicle should have a good chance to kill the passengers. In ArmA, even a guy on a bicycle is considered to be in a vehicle, and so you can lob grenades at him all day. You can't harm him until the bicycle dies.

 

As for spawning fragments by script, this can cause a lot of problems in MP unless it's done right. I think we're all familiar with that issue in DCS. The ACE 2 mod (which is what actually makes ArmA a simulator) has an elegant solution for this, whereby explosives basically just fling inaccurate sprays of fragments at units and vehicles. So if there's nothing there to get hurt, the engine doesn't have to waste resources simulating anything. It works in games with 200 players on a server.

Edited October 16, 2013 by maturin

Because in both games you are shooting at same kind ground vehicles.

When playing DCS, there is difference are you shooting from 100km distance or from 5km distance. It as well depends what kind weapon is used. If firing with a autocannon or firing HE rockets at truck with direct or near hits at distance where you could see driver eye balls, you could expect for "realism" reason to get little more effect than just "A live" and "Destroyed" and between that little smoke raising.

 

I definitely wouldn't even suggest DCS to get ground units with same modeling as Steel Beast or ARMA (now A3), but at least the Operation Flashpoint level of modeling would be nice at least on the flight log and visually somehow that those who fly at low level and slow can observe when tires has been blown off or tracks are cut off so you know it isn't going anywhere anymore.

 

Still I don't compare DCS and ARMA as different playing areas in both.

 

 

 

There is difference is it easy to do and is it possible.

It is possible as if even considering games what are there, or not just games but actually useful programs with heavy number crushing, it isn't so demanding to calculate fragments and possibilities when it comes to CPU/GPU capabilities.

But when it comes to question about what is possibilities with DCS World in its physics engine and networking code then it is different case as it can be impossible or very hard to do.

 

For decade ago it was possible to do with a small CPU impact a explosion with hundred (or so) fragments what each of them were calculated separately a hit to different character body parts etc.

Is it possible to do today that it is calculated a 500 or so? A 5 year old CPU can manage that.

 

Question would be as well what some players expect. It goes between "simulator to calculate every shrapnel air flow and dynamics in real time" to "just show as some fancy graphics".

I would not want to see anything as the speeds what they are flying doesn't matter at the engagement distances, but they would look good in slow-motion videos when missile hits next to airplane. For me it would be enough that the proximity features work and there is a calculation of X amount of shrapnel directions for Y meters.

 

That would be the "easy part". Then damage calculations for each hit, locations etc and it becomes complex stuff to do when target is a model with complex hit zones.

 

After all they are doing new graphics engine(?) and new map, so are there changed the physics could get improved/improved as well and later the basic ground models?

They have opened game for third party modules, so if engine supports could there be a addons what improve ground vehicles with new hit zones, models and animations?

 

 

Personally I am disappointed to learn that fragmentation isn't modeled in a simulator where you mainly use weapons whats effects for targets is caused with fragmentation.

As it is not nice to waste 5-6 Vikhr to AH-64 to get it in condition that it returns to base for repairs and more likely after 2-3 hits it just acquires me as target and shoot me down with a single Hellfire flying trough forest.

 

Why to carry rockets at all when their are effect is near zero?

 

At some point developers get time to update features, implemented new ones and bring depth to many "small things". It is just question of roadmap and possibilities what we don't know.

 

Pardon me if I sound impolite now, but are you a programmer? If yes: Have you worked on such a thing already? It doesn't sound like it.

Doing such things halfway realistically for multiple objects at the same time in real-time is hard on any CPU.

righto...

the claymore is actually a relevant example, since it is a DIRECTIONAL weapon designed explicitly for soft skin targets. yes actually, it is relevant.

 

at Fri13, sorry but im not going off a forum post youve dragged up from somewhere. I KNOW i will feel fairly safe in an IFV, even a modern APC. if some ****er was bracketing arty on me, does not mean id hang around though.

 

at neon67, bzzzztt wrong, modern APC's are designed with "vents" designed to attenuate thermobaric effects. i KNOW they actually work quite well. I am unsure about vehicles designed to be CNRBD proof.

 

at Aginor, no again sorry, yes you are talking about concepts of momentum and kinetic energy, RHA actually does pretty well against a projectile, even punches above its weight when you start talking about slopping. then you have composite armour, then you have ERA (which we dont use) none the less. so presumably (in fact i'd wager) it will do even better against shrapnel. i think i will stay in my AFV, its much safer, i have a big gun, and there is air conditioning.

 

maturin, another internet statistic? injuries or deaths? many shrapnel wounds arnt realised untill the reorg. and also you assumption about if your close enough to get killed by the pressure effects, you are already dead from shrapnel? that is if you are not behind cover, behind which i think you would find most people on a two way range....

 

oh and the ARMA example was only to demonstrate that there are other things to model before weapons effects which was the point of concern at the original post. it was an illustration of a possible remedy, not a comparison...

When I buy a Military Simulation I do expect the weapons modeled in it to give me the immersion that they 'work' as I would expect.

HE shells/warheads in DCS don't give me that feeling.

I don't care what the problem is, how hard it is to be implemented. I am NOT a programmer.

I am just a customer with certain expectations to a product I buy.

Sometimes one gets disappointed - that's life.

The main problem is the current engine. I really hope they introduce a realistic damage model and weapon detonation models with EDGE.

The two have only graphics in common.

Bombs, rockets, bullets, and artillery shells share a lot of characteristics.

 

Simple, cheap, easy to manufacture.

 

All of which is important, because even with some computer assistance like CCIP, unless they have been converted to guided munitions they are very difficult to land directly on target.

 

They're also all generally used in large quantities, because if you don't land them directly on target they tend not to be all that effective.

 

The number of hits, not kills mind you but hits, you should expect out of a 20 rocket launcher is maybe 0-4 depending on conditions and skill. If you don't hit in a vital location, it'll probably take more than one hit to make a kill.

 

Watching videos of real Su-25 using rockets you'll see that usually the flight goes in and the wingmen follow the lead to both practice the run in and to observe to improve their targeting when they fire in later runs. The basic unit of rocket fire isn't a rocket, it's a flight payload, that is 2 to 4 planes worth of rockets. Even after 4 planes worth of rockets it's entirely possible for a small group of ground units to still have combat capable survivors.

 

Realistic frag damage would be nice, but I suspect that you'd find the increase in lethality to be both inconsistent and much smaller than you hoped for.

The main problem is the current engine. I really hope they introduce a realistic damage model and weapon detonation models with EDGE.

 

 

Graphics rendering has nothing to do with damage model.

Hard to tell

 

Normally new engines means also new possibilities, it's probably doable, but how long would it requier that's the question

 

Do we have access to ground units code ?

Ground units no "proper" model in the actual state. Expected in the future when vehicles can make "pilotables" and build modules, can build a AVM (advanced Vehicle model), and other better features.

This is becoming the infamous Ka-50 thread where all moderators banged the head against the wall and said we were wrong when we were in fact correct.. ;)

 

Unit damage and weapon damage is not up to standard, and instead of saying its impossible to fix, try to help us gather information so we can try to tweak it ourselves.

Perhaps this once is better.

 

 

Rough numbers says everything within a 30 feet circle is gone.

 

Applying this 30' assessment to the first video (The DCS one) the second tank not being destroyed is accurate. Pausing the video and doing some quick measurements the two tanks are roughly 2.5 tank lengths apart (including the gun length with it in the forward position). The T72 with the gun forward and included in the measurement is 31.25' long.

 

That means the two tanks were roughly 78.125 feet apart that's more than twice the 30' circle your citing. With that said I completely agree that rockets, particularly against infantry, don't quite seem accurate to what my perception of them is as well as some of the other weapons. However, I also believe that people dramatically underestimate the distance between their targets which can result in the perception of ineffective munitions.

This is becoming the infamous Ka-50 thread where all moderators banged the head against the wall and said we were wrong when we were in fact correct.. ;)

 

Unit damage and weapon damage is not up to standard, and instead of saying its impossible to fix, try to help us gather information so we can try to tweak it ourselves.

 

That has already been covered in this thread. ;)

 

Change warhead explosive power in warhead.lua

 

Be prepared for strange things to happen in other situations though, it is very easy to end up having to choose between errors when you do that. (For example, bump up the yield of a rocket such that it kills a dude at range X, and you might suddenly find that the HE rocket suddenly oneshots the Nimitz... Etc. :P ) Also, note that you should ensure you can revert your changes easily, since other servers that do not have your edits will flag you as a cheater.

 

Also, no-one has said it is "impossible to fix".

What we have said is that to get fragmentation modeling is not possible under current engine limitations, so besides the warhead.lua hacks already discussed there's nothing to be done right now that does not entail quite a lot of work. (As others have mentioned also, the big deal isn't just the weapons; another big deal is that unit damage models do not have the necessary granularity - you can't puncture tyres or take out drivers, for example. And that one there really is no fix for - most certainly nothing that you can "tweak yourself". That starts looking at a rather large intervention in the game engine, plus of course a couple hundred units to re-do damage model graphics as well as related damage logic...

 

That said, it might happen sometime - would be a worthy addition to CA, and it is even possible that a coder somewhere has the groundwork planned, I don't know - but it most definitely is not something you can "tweak" yourself. Might as well "tweak" the Flanker FM into an AFM... :P

Edited October 16, 2013 by EtherealN

at Aginor, no again sorry, yes you are talking about concepts of momentum and kinetic energy, RHA actually does pretty well against a projectile, even punches above its weight when you start talking about slopping. then you have composite armour, then you have ERA (which we dont use) none the less. so presumably (in fact i'd wager) it will do even better against shrapnel. i think i will stay in my AFV, its much safer, i have a big gun, and there is air conditioning.

Of course you should stay in your AFV... with your foot on the gas pedal.

 

NATO has just told you in no uncertain terms that 155mm fragments can penetrate armor (that means your precious RHA) as easily as 25mm APDS can. That means you are no safer than an infantryman (especially when spall enters the picture). 25mm APDS will penetrate every vehicle short of an MBT. That means M113, Bradley, BMP, CV-90 (not sure about the Namer). That means M-60s and T-72s and other older tanks need to worry about their rear and roof armor.

 

Composite armor is irrelevant here, since it just adds extra value to the RHA rating which is already not good enough to keep out 25mm APDS. ERA is even more useless because it protects at best 60% of your frontal arc. But artillery falls in a circle around you and (at worst) above your vehicle. You will be hit countless times in places where armor is thin and ERA and composites do not exist.

 

maturin, another internet statistic? injuries or deaths?

May have been hospitalizations. I don't remember because I didn't save the source, which was an academic paper on injuries caused by terrorist bomb attacks. It ran through the precise list of wound types (primary, secondary tertiary, blast wind, etc) that you brought up. Which makes it a better source than your post, which is what has the odor of the 'internet' in this case.

 

many shrapnel wounds arnt realised untill the reorg.

In which case it wasn't a severe-enough injury to cause a real casualty, was it? Shrapnel wounds are the injuries that are noticed first of all. It's the (actually potentially fatal) blast trauma that takes hours to manifest, and the TBI that plays out on a timescale of years.

 

and also you assumption about if your close enough to get killed by the pressure effects, you are already dead from shrapnel? that is if you are not behind cover, behind which i think you would find most people on a two way range....

You played a bait and switch here. A minute ago you were talking about which effect is more lethal, assuming all factors are equal. I was responding to your claim that people were overestimating fragmentation. So anyways, it's the shrapnel that drives people into cover, where they can be killed in blast pressure if they're unlucky and suffer a direct hit. That is, fragmentation is the primary lethal mechanism. Artillery below a certain caliber is simply no guarantee of a kill against entrenched troops, but the presence of shrapnel-throwing shells is guaranteed to suppress them, which is the point.

 

(For example, bump up the yield of a rocket such that it kills a dude at range X, and you might suddenly find that the HE rocket suddenly oneshots the Nimitz... Etc.

And this is the havoc that results from having a simplistic hitpoint vs damage system in the first place. It is incredibly negligent to code a warhead that treats multiple layers of steel the same way it treats flesh and rubber.
Edited October 17, 2013 by maturin

what is more disturbing, is the fact almost every playable aircraft in dcs can carry bombs and rocket, and they didn t implented it yet, for many reasons, but i really hope it will come soon.

 

But can someone explain me why calculating fragments is more complex as calculating a cluster impact ?

Case in point, calculating cluster impacts brings out FPS down to 2.

 

ED just isn't terribly good at coding things that aren't somehow attached to an aircraft.

But can someone explain me why calculating fragments is more complex as calculating a cluster impact ?

 

Well, because the DCS engine is cheating with those ones as well, perhaps using one of the techniques flight sims have been using since the late 1980s

A: Basically a cluster impact (think CBU-87) is just an explosion that is not shaped as a cirlce/sphere around the impact point but like a rectangle which covers roughly the footprint of the weapon with the chosen setting. The multiple bomblets are just an illusion, in some engines even a single model with space between its parts so it looks like a cloud of bomblets.

B: They just de-spawn the container, and spawn a small number (a few dozen) of small bombs with fitting trajectories. Those hit the ground and explode. So the 202 bomblets a CBU-87 carriers are not modeled, but only a few of them (let's say 20-50), but those are a bit more effective than the real thing so the area covered by explosions (and thus damaged) is roughly the same.

 

Option B looks better, but it has a greater FPS impact (because you have to spawn 20-50 objects with separate models, textures, physics, explosions, effects). Both are not exactly "realistic", and I think it is obvious why you can't use them for fragmentations.

Couldn't we just simulate fragmentation with propabilities and zones?

 

Example: MK82 vs infantry

Infantry within 40 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Infantry within 80 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Infantry within 120 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Infantry within 120+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs unarmored vehicles

Car within 30 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Car within 60 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Car within 90 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Car within 90+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs lighty armored vehicles

Vehicle within 20 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Vehicle within 40 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Vehicle within 60 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Vehicle within 60+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs tanks

Tank within 10 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Tank within 20 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Tank within 30 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Tank within 30+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Paging Grimes; you are so guru that you could propably simulate this with some nifty Mist function :helpsmilie: :megalol:

ED just isn't terribly good at coding things that aren't somehow attached to an aircraft.

 

LOL... Man, that was funny!

Couldn't we just simulate fragmentation with propabilities and zones?

 

Example: MK82 vs infantry

Infantry within 40 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Infantry within 80 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Infantry within 120 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Infantry within 120+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs unarmored vehicles

Car within 30 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Car within 60 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Car within 90 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Car within 90+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs lighty armored vehicles

Vehicle within 20 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Vehicle within 40 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Vehicle within 60 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Vehicle within 60+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Example: MK82 vs tanks

Tank within 10 feet of the impact: 100% propability of death

Tank within 20 feet of the impact: 60% propability of death

Tank within 30 feet of the impact: 30% propability of death

Tank within 30+ feet of the impact: no damage

 

Paging Grimes; you are so guru that you could propably simulate this with some nifty Mist function :helpsmilie: :megalol:

 

I guess you could do that, but then people would complain about the following things:

- Target was behind a revetment and died anyway

- Target was behind a hill and died anyway

- Infantry was behind a tank and died anyway

- airburst and explosion on the ground have the same chance of hit by fragments (unlike in real life)

- still not really realistic

 

That being said, I think I would still favor that option over other ones, and over the current behaviour as well I guess.