Jump to content

mk-20 and cbu99 not damaging any target or basically doing nothing


Recommended Posts

i just did the training mission and it seam mk-20 and cbu-99 wont do any damage to the target or very little damage  . is there something not mentioned in the training mission or the bomb is not functional 


Edited by jppsx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • jppsx changed the title to mk-20 and cbu99 not damaging any target or basically doing nothing

In my opinion the weapons are modelled fairly accurately in that they shouldn’t make a vehicle go up in a Hollywood explosion, but this is where the damage modelling needs some work. These types of weapons don’t cause vehicles, particularly armour or equipment to explode into a mushroom cloud. But they do neutralise vehicles and equipment by shredding tyres and antennas or possibly fragging the engine and fragging personal in light skinned vehicle's however a vehicle isn’t downed just cause it has a hole in it. But for a cluster attack there wouldn’t be too much visual indications from a aircrafts perspective to indicate that a vehicle has indeed been neutralised other then it has stopped moving or it is smoking cause a lucky hit into a fuel tank. I think the modelling will get there one day which will be awesome but expecting an entire convoy to explode into flames would be incorrect and very wrong for a realism point of view. It’s a big deal trying to confirm an attack has indeed been successful which I think is a very big part of DCS that is lacking and a huge part most people in DCS take for granted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's working, and nothing is wrong. Well… not wrong as such.

 

it's just that due to how there is zero fragmentation and ridiculously tiny blast effects in DCS, on top of there only being the most trivial and limited damage effect modelling imaginable, cluster bombs are pretty useless against the very target they are designed to defeat. They work as expected, but your expectation should not be that they disable infantry or unarmoured vehicles, much less anything with a shred of damage mitigation, unless you hit them straight on — and if you able to do that, you're better off using any other weapon (including guns) because those pack enough oomph to actually get a game-mechanical kill.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are looking at the issue, and we will tweak in a future patch 

 

thanks

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blinky.ben said:

I hope its not tweaked to just make everything explode.

 

the team know what they are doing, it will be tweaked for the correct damage. 

  • Like 2

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the lack of frag damage is a big deal just watch the video below.  You'll see especially against the pickup truck at 1:25 that the frag was showering it all over which would have turned the crew into swiss cheese. (also @BIGNEWY what penetration values are on the bomblets iirc there was a doc that listed it at ~220'ish mm against rhae)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2021 at 7:01 PM, Blinky.ben said:

In my opinion the weapons are modelled fairly accurately in that they shouldn’t make a vehicle go up in a Hollywood explosion, but this is where the damage modelling needs some work. These types of weapons don’t cause vehicles, particularly armour or equipment to explode into a mushroom cloud. But they do neutralise vehicles and equipment by shredding tyres and antennas or possibly fragging the engine and fragging personal in light skinned vehicle's however a vehicle isn’t downed just cause it has a hole in it. But for a cluster attack there wouldn’t be too much visual indications from a aircrafts perspective to indicate that a vehicle has indeed been neutralised other then it has stopped moving or it is smoking cause a lucky hit into a fuel tank. I think the modelling will get there one day which will be awesome but expecting an entire convoy to explode into flames would be incorrect and very wrong for a realism point of view. It’s a big deal trying to confirm an attack has indeed been successful which I think is a very big part of DCS that is lacking and a huge part most people in DCS take for granted.


it not about the future in maybe 5-10 year if they give ultra realistic armor model to every vehicle in games  but what going on now and how useless are the  cbu-99 , mk20 and  agm-154 whit the actual damage model that is basically a basic health bar . 

soft skinned vehicle like  mtlb that have not even enough armor to stop a.50bmg should not survive shape charge (heat) that have 190mm/7.5in of armor penetration whit the actual damage model .
 having  cbu-99 , mk20 and  agm-154 doing basically nothing and having something like a mtlb just driving away is even less realistic  than having entire convoy in flame .
maybe to you it fell realistic to drop  8+ mk20 on 6 mtlb to maybe destroy just one but that just you .


Edited by jppsx
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jppsx said:


it not about the future in maybe 5-10 year if they give ultra realistic armor model to every vehicle in games  but what going on now and how useless are the  cbu-99 , mk20 and  agm-154 whit the actual damage model that is basically a basic health bar . 

soft skinned vehicle like  mtlb that have not even enough armor to stop a.50bmg should not survive shape charge (heat) that have 190mm/7.5in of armor penetration whit the actual damage model .
 having  cbu-99 , mk20 and  agm-154 doing basically nothing and having something like a mtlb just driving away is even less realistic  than having entire convoy in flame .
maybe to you it fell realistic to drop  8+ mk20 on 6 mtlb to maybe destroy just one but that just you .

 

Uummm can I suggest you read my post again, or maybe a third time I’ll quote it here so you don’t need to scroll up. I highlighted some areas to help you out.

On 5/1/2021 at 9:01 AM, Blinky.ben said:

In my opinion the weapons are modelled fairly accurately in that they shouldn’t make a vehicle go up in a Hollywood explosion, but this is where the damage modelling needs some work. These types of weapons don’t cause vehicles, particularly armour or equipment to explode into a mushroom cloud. But they do neutralise vehicles and equipment by shredding tyres and antennas or possibly fragging the engine and fragging personal in light skinned vehicle's however a vehicle isn’t downed just cause it has a hole in it. But for a cluster attack there wouldn’t be too much visual indications from a aircrafts perspective to indicate that a vehicle has indeed been neutralised other then it has stopped moving or it is smoking cause a lucky hit into a fuel tank. I think the modelling will get there one day which will be awesome but expecting an entire convoy to explode into flames would be incorrect and very wrong for a realism point of view. It’s a big deal trying to confirm an attack has indeed been successful which I think is a very big part of DCS that is lacking and a huge part most people in DCS take for granted.

So after that time did you notice how I’m basically agreeing with your original point, however I wanted to point out that the damage model shouldn’t show them exploding with a Hollywood explosion but just simply they get damaged and no longer function. Did you notice any massive balls of smoking explosions seen from space in the video nighthawke2174 posted? This will Make a level of realism that your not really sure that you have in fact destroyed (or neutralised to be more accurate for this case) the unit, not without some kind of battle damage report. I personally would love to see a modelling with mobility kills but the turret still working or vis versa.

 

ED staff have pointed out a number of times they are addressing this issue at the moment and with my very minimal knowledge of coding I would assume this wouldn’t happen over night but I’m more optimistic then it taking 5-10 years

 

and as for this

49 minutes ago, jppsx said:

having entire convoy in flame .

This is people mistaking Hollywood for a educational documentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fundamentally, the problem is that the damage application is completely backwards.

 

Even a simple hit point system can be made to work while they chip away at more intricate systems modelling in all vehicles, but only if that hitpoint pile is treated properly. Right now, it isn't.

 

At the moment, ground vehicle damage application basically consists of three different components:

• A hitpoint pile — the bigger the vehicle, the more hitpoints it has, and the tougher it is.

• A damage mitigation stat — an abstraction of armour to simply deflect some smaller amounts of damage application, including an aspect calculation whereby, depending on the vehicle and the angle of attack, the damage mitigation is scaled up or down.

• A four-(and-a-half)-tiered damage state: fine(ish), system-crippled, movement-crippled, (burning, soon to be) dead.

 

It's that last one that is set up horribly. In particular, the thresholds are nonsensical in relation to the full hitpoint pile, although the order is also questionable. Essentially, it's a case of, at 50% HP, the unit stops working; at 25% (or thereabouts), it starts moving slowly; at 10% it starts burning and will slowly lose its remaining hitpoints; and at 0% it dies and explodes. Not a single one of those are where they should be.

 

By all means, units should probably explode at 0% HP, but they should start burning a lot sooner (and and stay burning a long time after), and in particular they should be dead long before that. The reason this matters is that the only event you can reliably automate without scripting up every single unit in a mission (say goodbye to your CPU) is death. It's what scores point in the kill screen; it's what most mass triggers (“group dead”, “group alive” and the “…less than” versions of the same triggers) use to do their thing. To make that happen, and to make the attack actually count from a game-mechanical perspective, you end up having to hit individual trucks with 500lbs bombs, where a 0.5lbs bomblet should really be able do the same job: in this case, to reduce the hitpoint pile to 0 to trigger the “death” state.

 

Similarly, somewhat depending on exactly what kind of unit we're talking about, movement should probably be lost long before the system as a whole is gone, unless we're talking about something flimsy (eg. radar antennas and the like on anti-air), in which case the systems should be gone the moment something sneezes in their general direction.

 

Ideally, the whole thing would be set up something like:

 

• The hitpoint pile is still there because it's too much effort to get rid of it.

• The damage states are set by unit type, and all happen a lot sooner. Eg. for a tank, it's mobility loss at 80%, system loss at 70%, death at 50%; for a mobile SAM, it might instead be system loss at 95%, mobility loss at 80%, death at 50%. The only unit where death should happen at 0% HP is infantry, and they should still lose their ability to fight long before that.

• For added bonus funtime: have system loss also affect mobility so that units that lose their offensive capabilities run away really fast, until mobility damage sets in and they instead have to run away really slow… (or just have two stages of reduced mobility if you're boring).

• Tie triggers into not just the revised death limit, but also to the “non-operational” and “immobile” thresholds so those can be used as mass triggers to score points and achieve objectives with ease.

 

ED have already indicated that they're working on a ground vehicle damage model update Later™, so this kind of stopgap isn't likely to happen and thus not worth a full wishlist thread, but at least that last point will still need to happen.


Edited by Tippis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My expectations might be too low but is this Mk20 Rockeye we're talking about here?...  The only issue I had was VT setting. No matter what you set, the bomb bursts at 1200', which actually is pretty optimal if you ask me.

I put them through the test here, on static targets. (I tested the movers few days ago and posted a vid on the Hornet's forum):

 

 


Edited by Gripes323
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/1/2021 at 1:27 AM, Tippis said:

It's working, and nothing is wrong. Well… not wrong as such.

 

it's just that due to how there is zero fragmentation and ridiculously tiny blast effects in DCS, on top of there only being the most trivial and limited damage effect modelling imaginable, cluster bombs are pretty useless against the very target they are designed to defeat. They work as expected, but your expectation should not be that they disable infantry or unarmoured vehicles, much less anything with a shred of damage mitigation, unless you hit them straight on — and if you able to do that, you're better off using any other weapon (including guns) because those pack enough oomph to actually get a game-mechanical kill.

Actually, the bomblets inside are HE-AT, so basically explosive shaped copper jets penetrating armor from above. though I agree, that the HE part with the shell and explosion isn't well modeled against infantry and unarmored vehicles, the individual hit of a bomblet to say an APC, BMP or truck is pretty much accurate and a kill.

You can observe the submunitions at work after pressing F6 (Weapon view) a second time, after the canister opens... DCS already models the individual Bomblets.

 

Still, the explosive effects of the submunitions exploding are not/marginally modeled. 

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Actually, the bomblets inside are HE-AT, so basically explosive shaped copper jets penetrating armor from above. though I agree, that the HE part with the shell and explosion isn't well modeled against infantry and unarmored vehicles, the individual hit of a bomblet to say an APC, BMP or truck is pretty much accurate and a kill.

You can observe the submunitions at work after pressing F6 (Weapon view) a second time, after the canister opens... DCS already models the individual Bomblets.

 

Still, the explosive effects of the submunitions exploding are not/marginally modeled. 

Yes, that's kind of my point: a direct hit works; the fragmentation and incendiary effects that make them effective against other soft targets just isn't there. They're not really releasing Combined Effects Munitions at the moment so much as “single largely pointless (given the target) effect”.  And SLPGTTEM just isn't as catchy a name… 😄

 

For tight clusters, you can at times get pretty much the same effect from the (equally limited and poorly implemented) blast from an Mk82 — you need to have the same combination of luck and skill to get a good hit either way, which kind of defeats the point of having a cluster munition to begin with, and they're more annoying to aim and deploy on to boot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Yes, that's kind of my point: a direct hit works; the fragmentation and incendiary effects that make them effective against other soft targets just isn't there. They're not really releasing Combined Effects Munitions at the moment so much as “single largely pointless (given the target) effect”.  And SLPGTTEM just isn't as catchy a name… 😄

 

For tight clusters, you can at times get pretty much the same effect from the (equally limited and poorly implemented) blast from an Mk82 — you need to have the same combination of luck and skill to get a good hit either way, which kind of defeats the point of having a cluster munition to begin with, and they're more annoying to aim and deploy on to boot.

Careful, the Mk118 bomblets are not combined effects it's a simple shaped charge AT like handheld AT weapons with that "stinger" to detonate the explosive to form the copper jet.

Nonetheless, this explosion will deal damage/incapacitate to infantry and unarmored vehicles, in the area of effect.

The CBU-87 uses combined effects munitions if I am not mistaken, but that's a different beast.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...