Jump to content

Better splash damage of Dumb bombs...


Baco
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since ED is taking control of every weapon in the sim it would be a grate opportunity to add some better splash damage for the MK series. Also introduce Delay fuses. Currently MK 82s are quite useless unless you manage a direct hit on armored vehicles and even in very lightly armored vehicles, and very little damage to soft targets or infantry.

 

Also if they could be made to skip on water and bounce on lad that would be grand! specially for wwii.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 bombs should ideally have their range of fusing options available, and we really need a fragmentation model implemented, instead of just boosting the warhead TNTe.

 

Though this needs to be compounded with a proper damage model for vehicles, i.e an armour penetration model and a subsystem level damage model (something like GHPC would perfect). Though the other thing is graphical representation of damage where applicable (right now vehicles just have an alive and dead state as far as graphical representation goes).

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

+1 bombs should ideally have their range of fusing options available, and we really need a fragmentation model implemented, instead of just boosting the warhead TNTe.

 

Though this needs to be compounded with a proper damage model for vehicles, i.e an armour penetration model and a subsystem level damage model (something like GHPC would perfect). Though the other thing is graphical representation of damage where applicable (right now vehicles just have an alive and dead state as far as graphical representation goes).

 

I wouldn't go as complex as what GHPC is attempting, but certainly something simplified would suffice (akin to World of Tanks or War Thunder) where tanks are broken up into certain modules and those take the damage. In this instance, I'd leave it to just tracks/suspension, engine and or transmission (only if the two are separate parts, like for the Pz4 or Sherman, otherwise it's a single unit), turret ring, ammo storage, and gun. And these modules all exist in one of 3 states: Functional, damaged, and destroyed, again, keeping it simple for the engine (and servers) to keep track of.

 

Now, beyond that, not much really needs to be done with the ground vehicle damage modeling, since, as stated, keeping it relatively simple will ensure that the game runs smoothly, as does the server. Compared to WoT or WT, we can easily have hundreds of tanks in the battle space at any one time, and that alone could slaughter peoples connection to the server as the game flat out struggles to keep track of. The one advantage of this is that you can run into situations where people are putting steel on target, and because it's still 'alive', and combat effective, it can draw untold amounts of fire, something that had actually happened in the real world.

 

As for the ordinance, that would be a nice thing to see as well, but also some new graphical representation of the kabooms, and scale of kabooms, up to and including the ones you need sunglasses and 1,000,000 sunblock or you'll have a really bad day for.

 

On that note..... anyone else find it odd that ED has the stance they do on nukes? I mean, if they say "no nukes because of technical reasons", fine, I'm ok with that.... but saying "no nukes because war crimes" is a bit of a stretch when we the players can level a town with carpet bombing given enough A-10s and Su25s (and soon A6s!). Not trying to finger waggle here, it's just something I find a bit odd.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 10:17 AM, Tank50us said:

I wouldn't go as complex as what GHPC is attempting, but certainly something simplified would suffice (akin to World of Tanks or War Thunder) where tanks are broken up into certain modules and those take the damage.

 

Well, I used as an idealistic example, but at the bare minimum we need component level damage modelling of at least major components:

  • Guns/launchers
  • Elevation & azimuth drives
  • Ammunition storage
  • Engine (and APUs if applicable)
  • Transmission
  • Crew members
  • Tracks
  • Fuel tanks
  • Armour elements/layers (think ERA for instance).

Then there are things that are maybe less critical but would be nice to have:

  • Optics
  • Radios
  • Lights (particularly IR searchlights - but they need to be made functional first).
  • Internal armour layers/firewalls.

The WWII damage modelling is quite complex and even goes into things such as control linkages. The number of possible hitboxes goes up, but all we need to keep track of is what's getting hit and how badly does it get damaged. But I agree with 3 states being all that's necessary (undamaged/operational, damaged/degraded, destroyed).

 

It does get more complex in terms of penetration mechanics, but here we can probably make use of a look-up table.

 

If performance and synchronisation is going to be a concern, then perhaps AI units can use a downgraded version.

 

Spoiler

As a side note, War Thunder actually has more nuances to it, and is more complex than GHPC in its current state, having both volumetric shells, armour and 3D tracks. It also simulates ERA, and top-attack EFP ammunition.

 

GHPC might have more hitboxes and simulates more effects from said hitboxes as well as tracking things like blast doors and ammunition in autoloaders. But at the basics they're roughly equivalent - WT however does a few more fancy things with the shells and armour, GHPC does more fancy things with the internals. 

 

Quote

Compared to WoT or WT, we can easily have hundreds of tanks in the battle space at any one time, and that alone could slaughter peoples connection to the server as the game flat out struggles to keep track of.

 

I've only really noticed desynchronization, which is more of a network issue more than anything else. And don't forget, their servers are probably handling thousands of players at once. For us, I wouldn't expect a single server to handle more than a few 10s of players at a time (though we still have to handle AI).

 

Though again, don't forget that DCS is only using 2 cores at the moment, and one of those is dedicated to sound.

 

Quote

As for the ordinance, that would be a nice thing to see as well, but also some new graphical representation of the kabooms, and scale of kabooms, up to and including the ones you need sunglasses and 1,000,000 sunblock or you'll have a really bad day for.

 

Meh, personally weapon physical effects such as fragmentation modelling, as well as support for numerous warhead types and there effects is much more important to me than graphical effects from weapon explosions (though I would like a serious upgrade to the tracers, which I don't like the look of), as well as bullet impacts (right now a 7.62 round impacting the ground looks like a 40mm impacting the ground).

 

It would be nice however to get new effects for the damage model (like what was done for the WWII aircraft), mostly things like ammunition cook-off fires and explosions. Maybe also just a small amount of smoke as opposed to the large fire and smoke we have currently for every vehicle.

 

One main area I'm interested in is graphical representation of damage, and here's one where I think WT does it perfectly. I do think we need some improvement here, with regards to the graphical representation of damage, as at the moment we only have an alive state and a dead state - there's nothing progressive, no external component damage (for instance, stuff like RADARs, tyres etc). Often, also I feel that the dead state for vehicles would be better off just being the 'alive' model (right now they're almost always 2 separate models), but retextured with maybe some arguments for hatches being opened etc - it's clear that there's certainly a long way to go here.

 

Unfortunately this looks like it will require a major upgrade to every single ground vehicle in DCS, including the newest ones.

 

Quote

On that note..... anyone else find it odd that ED has the stance they do on nukes? I mean, if they say "no nukes because of technical reasons", fine, I'm ok with that.... but saying "no nukes because war crimes" is a bit of a stretch when we the players can level a town with carpet bombing given enough A-10s and Su25s (and soon A6s!). Not trying to finger waggle here, it's just something I find a bit odd.

 

Technical reasons and documentation reasons I think are fine, but I don't understand the moral argument. 

 

Even so, given our map sizes, I can probably do without nuclear weapons. If we had a GIUK gap map, or a NATO northern flank map, or indeed a northern/central Germany map (all of which would be pretty large), then I can maybe see the appeal of them, but even so it's not much. They're kinda a one trick pony, they're not very popular and were missing several elements to make them really worthwhile.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

And rockets.

 

Yes, this should apply to basically everything/

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes!

Owned Modules: A-10C Warthog / A-10C II Tank Killer / F-15C / SU-33 / AV-8B Harrier / F-16C Viper / AJS-37 Viggen / Persian Gulf / F/A-18C Hornet / Syria / SuperCarrier

 

Wishlist: Tornado / EA-6 Prowler / Jaguar 

alpiinoo_signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is that the game simulates blast (reduces with distance as 1/r^3) but not fragmentation. Not sure how frag could be simulated in a performance-friendly manner though.


Edited by DarkFire

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah  a very good point, but since guided bombs are intended for only one target And it usually destroys it, the effect is no so noticeable. and the effectiveness of the bombo is not much affected either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 11:05 AM, DarkFire said:

I think the issue here is that the game simulates blast (reduces with distance as 1/r^3) but not fragmentation. Not sure how frag could be simulated in a performance-friendly manner though.

 

True fragmentation is the real killer,  but IMHO the problem is most evident with infantry

On 5/1/2021 at 1:57 PM, Baco said:

yeah  a very good point, but since guided bombs are intended for only one target And it usually destroys it, the effect is no so noticeable. and the effectiveness of the bombo is not much affected either.

Explosions are explosions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 8:57 PM, Baco said:

yeah  a very good point, but since guided bombs are intended for only one target And it usually destroys it, the effect is no so noticeable. and the effectiveness of the bomb is not much affected either.

 

I do drop guided bombs to destroy multiple targets quite often, dunno where did you get the idea that guided bombs are only used for 1 target.

 

what is a guided bomb? it is a dumb bomb with guidance kit on, so its explosion is the same as the equal version of dumb bomb right?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SC500 causes a lot of hurt 


Been using it on NTTR to practice FW190 raids - one hit can take out 4-6 parked vehicles and a couple of parked aircraft

 

Now, I’m not sure if that is the bomb modelling or WW2 vehicle damage modelling, or both.

 

The Anton is also very effective on strafing runs - stable gun platform = accurate and 20mm API / HEI mix (I think) seems to be quite devastating on soft targets like vehicles and AAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the other hand, I think blast radius of Mavericks are too large.  Below is same target (Shilka) destroyed with AGM-65D and GBU-12.  All infantry near and far are dead with Maverick and all alive with GBU.  Even the ones pretty close to the explosion.

 

Destroyed with Maverick.  Dead soldiers far away.

Screenshot 2021-05-08 185359.jpg

 

Destroyed with GBU-12.  All alive.  Closer ones I circled were actually even closer.  They moved away when taking this shot.

Screenshot 2021-05-08 185227.jpg


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Taz1004 said:

On the other hand, I think blast radius of Mavericks are too large.  Below is same target (Shilka) destroyed with AGM-65D and GBU-12.  All infantry near and far are dead with Maverick and all alive with GBU.  Even the ones pretty close to the explosion.

 

Destroyed with Maverick.  Dead soldiers far away.

Screenshot 2021-05-08 185359.jpg

 

Destroyed with GBU-12.  All alive.  Closer ones I circled were actually even closer.  They moved away when taking this shot.

Screenshot 2021-05-08 185227.jpg

 

 

How close were they? it's hard to tell in these images

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

How close were they? it's hard to tell in these images

 

Does it matter?  Point is that Maverick kills them and GBU doesn't.

You can measure them.  It's the default A10C Instant action Georgian Foothills Summer Medium.  Closest I think is about 100 feet.  Furthest 350.


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

Does it matter?

 

It technically does matter, because if EDs weapons techs know the distances involved, they can adjust the ordinance accordingly. I know the point you're going for, but for things to be corrected, one must get scientific. So for best results, set up a bunch of things at known ranges, and drop bombs on the bullseye and measure how far away things get damaged/destroyed by the blasts. Once you've collected that data, present it to ED along with any declassified data on the ordinance to back up what things should be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Once you've collected that data, present it to ED along with any declassified data on the ordinance to back up what things should be.

 

Umm... no, that's ED's job.  I'm here to play.


Edited by Taz1004
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

 

Umm... no, that's ED's job.  I'm here to play.

 

 

Actually, it's our job to report bugs and such so that they can be fixed. And the best way to report the bugs and errors is to break out the lab coats and get scientific.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Actually, it's our job to report bugs and such so that they can be fixed. And the best way to report the bugs and errors is to break out the lab coats and get scientific.

 

I did report the bug.  It's simple.  GBU-12 has bigger warhead than Maverick.  Maverick kills infantry equidistance as GBU.  But GBU does not.  You don't need declassified data to know it's wrong.

Collecting declassified data is not our job.  You can choose to do so and you can knock yourself out.  It certainly is not my JOB.

 

Good thing is this is what YOU think we should do.  Not ED's actual requirement for bug reporting.  Good god can you imagine if we have to collect declassified data to report bugs?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

 

I did report the bug.  It's simple.  GBU-12 has bigger warhead than Maverick.  Maverick kills infantry equidistance as GBU.  But GBU does not.  You don't need declassified data to know it's wrong.

Collecting declassified data is not our job.  You can choose to do so and you can knock yourself out.  It certainly is not my JOB.

 

Good thing is this is what YOU think we should do.  Not ED's actual requirement for bug reporting.  Good god can you imagine if we have to collect declassified data to report bugs?

 

I mean, it happens all the time when pilots report to the 3rd Party Devs and to ED how the thing feels in their hands. That's why Polychop is reworking the Gazelles flight model because someone supplied them with a mountain of test report data to support their argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

I mean, it happens all the time when pilots report to the 3rd Party Devs and to ED how the thing feels in their hands. That's why Polychop is reworking the Gazelles flight model because someone supplied them with a mountain of test report data to support their argument.

 

Yea that is some ones good will, as Taz said, image if we had to collect all the data... We can point out bugs but imo its EDs job to figure out how to fix them.

 

in this case a GBU 12 should kill those soldiers, that is so obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I found this thread as I'm querying the blast damage that Mk-83 do.

 

Let me explain. I was doing a mission in AV-8B campaign "Operation Broken Cauldron" by Gunnar81, where I am required to drop 4x Mk-83 on a fuel dump at night using CCIP in a single pass. I dropped all 4 bombs with INST fuzing and 10 ft spacing at what I thought was a good point (it's difficult to see exactly the fuel tanks which I guess is the challenge) but did not score a hit on the fuel. When I looked back on it, the bombs hit the ground about maybe 40 feet (at a guess) short. A couple of nearby trucks were damaged, but the basic looking fuel tanks were unscathed. So that's 4000lbs of high explosive going off about 40 feet away, and no damage caused to some flimsy fuel tanks. I find that hard to believe.

 

 

Fractal Define R4 Case | Core i7-9700K @ Stock | 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi | Gigabyte GTX1080 G1 Gaming 8GB | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD (OS) | 1TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (DCS) | 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (Steam library) | 1TB WD Caviar Black HDD WD1002FAEX | Corsair 750W PSU | Corsair H60 Hydro Series CPU Cooler | TrackIR 5 | Oculus rift S | TM HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Win 10 Home 64-bit | Asus PG348Q 34" 3440x1440 Monitor | Bose Companion 3 2.1 Sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ratfink said:

I found this thread as I'm querying the blast damage that Mk-83 do.

 

Let me explain. I was doing a mission in AV-8B campaign "Operation Broken Cauldron" by Gunnar81, where I am required to drop 4x Mk-83 on a fuel dump at night using CCIP in a single pass. I dropped all 4 bombs with INST fuzing and 10 ft spacing at what I thought was a good point (it's difficult to see exactly the fuel tanks which I guess is the challenge) but did not score a hit on the fuel. When I looked back on it, the bombs hit the ground about maybe 40 feet (at a guess) short. A couple of nearby trucks were damaged, but the basic looking fuel tanks were unscathed. So that's 4000lbs of high explosive going off about 40 feet away, and no damage caused to some flimsy fuel tanks. I find that hard to believe.

 

I imagine that's the absence of warhead physics modelling (IRL I'd guess that the blast would cause vibrations which would probably rupture the fuel tank), as well as the absence of fragmention.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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