Caldera

Hey All, So I was testing the AGM-65L today. First off, it seems to have the biggest bang for the buck out of almost all the weapons that I have tested. The splash damage radius is HUGE. But, that is not what I am most wondering about and I was hoping people with more experience could weigh in. Please take a look. This is an attack run. The laser is currently on and the Maverick has locked on to it. Notice that the Maverick is 8.1 and the TGP is 13.7 nm. If I shoot now the missile will most likely miss. This is a weird one. The Maverick was still at 8.1 and also 8.1 for the TGP. The actual slant range at this very instant I would have approximated to be 9.0 to 8.5 nm. Where the TGP just popped to 8.1 and stayed there for a bit as I flew closer. The Maverick and the TGP are now synchronized counting down from 8.1 nm. The Maverick is off the rails. This is impact. The laser did not shut itself off (as it had been doing). The Maverick average forward speed was just a hair over twice the speed of the aircraft, which from memory was about 280-300 knots. This look about right as to how the AGM-65L Maverick should function? Caldera

Razo, Yes I did. I will turn it off and test. You must think that could be the issue? Caldera

Thanks Guys, I am fairly experienced at editing SnapViews.lua as all of the views that I currently use are manually edited. They often do not resemble the default view much at all. That is actually the part that is still baffling me. As the views that I was getting were not the default views, but in fact my edited views even with SnapViews.lua deleted. Caldera

Hey All, I am looking for a little advice if possible. Flying on my squadron servers (there are 2) my sound volume is very noticeably reduced. My guess is that the volume drops to about 50% (or less) of what it was prior to entering the server. This includes in game sounds, VoiceAttack, Discord and SRS. Usually, we have the mission brief on Discord and everything is fine. Upon entering the server I have to crank the volume way up to hear about anything. I never have to turn the volume up this high in single player. When I leave the server I get my ears blasted out if I forget to turn the volume back down. Any and advice is appreciated. Because, as you might imagine, I find this pretty annoying and as usual I am clueless as to why it happens only to me. Thanks in advance, Caldera

Rudel, After messing with this the better part of an afternoon and getting frustrated enough to try for help here, well... I really have no clue, but it started working again. It baffles me how DCS can load data from a file this has been deleted. The only thing that I can think of is that it is somehow related to the UH-1H which I flew in between times. Just to take a break from the A-10C frustrating me. Thanks again, Caldera

I had thought this was the forum to get ED help. I must have been wrong. Anyone suggest where I should post this question? Caldera

Hey All, Probably not the forum, but where I do not know... Today I thought that I might edit my head position for the A-10C_2. In the past I had simply edited C:\Users\%name%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua. Today however, my edits to this file did not make it into the game. So I tried turning off User Snap-View Saving and indeed my head position reverted to the default position. But, this is not the position that I want. So I turned User Snap-View Saving back on. It was still not reading my newly edited file. I restarted the game and it was still not working correctly. Next I saved a back-up and then deleted C:\Users\%name%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua. I restarted the game again, and a funny thing happened. It was still using the original head position from before I tried to edit it. This leads me to believe that C:\Users\%name%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua is not being read by the game on start up nor is it required to determine the last used version of C:\Users\%name%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua. And that, it must be using a copy of this file from some where else. So... How to I force the game to re-read C:\Users\%name%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua so that I can once again edit my head position for the A-10C_2? Thanks in advance, Caldera

CFrag, "Well, those numbers do track with an RNG-based ability, with perhaps 'Good' a tad high" Yes, and the Excellent number seems to me too low. One would expect more of a linear or curved increase of some sort from Average to Excellent. Not the bell curve result that I got from my small amount of testing. " Ever played XCOM?" LOL I did play X-COM. Allot... Basically, I cheated because I saved very often before I moved. I reloaded, if the result made zero sense to me. I did not want to fail with a good strategy to a game that basically cheats just to increase the players frustration factor. RNG you say, that has to be it. With much repetition sooner or later even a straight up RNG can be proven to be statistically predictable. But with only a few repetitions, it is all over the map and often makes zero sense for an expected outcome. My opinion, DCS may cheat just like X-COM and that the RNG might not be straight up. For my part, I think that I will change my AAA strategy and use the Average AI more often. Just seems like more fun. Caldera

SD, I just have to wonder. This is because when I shoot the A-10 gun or APKWS M282 rockets at tanks it seems that they are harder to kill from the front than from the back. As for splash damage, I would believe that you are correct to having only a simplified damage model. In truth, I do not really know for sure. Caldera

Thanks CFrag, I did a little testing today, just to see. I made 10 passes at the same speed over a ZSU-57-2 at 5000 AGL for each AI level. As usual for this game the results surprised me a bit. Number of times hit in 10 passes: 1 - Average 6 - Good 6 - High 3 - Excellent Well, go figure this one out... I have no clue at this point and I did not feel like doing 100 passes to get more accurate results. Caldera

Some more testing this morning. This is a chart I made. It is interesting in some respects. Take a look at the column labeled HE RATIO. This column is the ratio of INF HIT (infantry hit distance) divided by HE KGS (weight of the HE contained in the warhead). I do realize that all of this data is not exactly apples to apples, but for the purpose of discussion... Comments: The infantry hit radius of the 2000 lbs class HE bombs should be at least double what they are. The AGM-65D is a super weapon even with a shaped charge warhead. All penetrator style weapons do noticeably better than their contemporary HE only version (discounting the AGM's which are apples to oranges). GBU-54 data is probably an outlier and the HE RATIO should probably be 2.30 (maybe a RNG function). Can't explain the APKWS other than that the AP version does better than the HE version. The accuracy of the GPS guided weapons is not perfect. I had to make multiple drops to get the weapon to hit the center target of my range. In general, the 2000 lbs weapons are worse than the 500 lbs weapons. Notably, the GBU-31 HE is the biggest scatter brain and it lands all over the place. It has the largest dispersion, where it can miss by over 50 feet. By comparison the GBU-31 AP is way more accurate and consistent. Caldera

Hey All, Just to say I am an A-10 driver here so my missions focus on ground attack mostly vs Russian designed equipment. I have building missions exclusively using the highest AI setting for ground vehicles. But, I notice that they seem just a bit "too unreal" at being "really really good". In the real world, what do I really know about the actual skill level of the people that operate these weapons or the weapon system effectiveness? I know just about nothing zip nada. For example, the ZSU-57-2 is a optically sighted with a mechanical firing computer that uses hand and foot cranks to position the gun and turret. From what I have read it has a great gun, but in general considered not a very successful weapon system. This is true also for the ZU-23-2 truck mounted AAA that works the same way. When using Excellent AI both of these weapons become absolutely deadly if I fly into gun range to a level of efficiency approaching 100% during the day. To the AI's credit they don't shoot well at night. I can certainly experiment with different AI levels on my own, but I was hoping to speed up the process with a bit of information. Is there some information out there that describes how the AI actually performs? For example response time, firing accuracy, etc... Caldera

SD, Thanks, yes I know. I guess that I did not do a great job of explaining why I put this thread up. Keep in mind that a 500 lbm high explosive weapon will most times not damage an armored vehicle that is only 25 feet away and may not kill an unarmored vehicle at the same distance. The primary purpose of my testing was to determine the relative damage capability of each weapon. Part of this testing includes the blast radius (splash damage). For total blast radius I use infantry which, to me, more or less indicates the total blast radius of the weapon. To that end, both of the armor piecing weapons that I have tested all have greater blast radius by about 30% over their contemporary high explosive weapon. I just find that interesting and I wonder how that compares to the RL weapons. I think maybe I need to test the Mavericks as well... I also discovered that the free fall flight path of the AP GBU-31 actually extends past the designated target by about 400 feet, depending upon release altitude. Then it corrects itself and falls backward in relation to the direction of the aircraft toward the target. It kind of does a U-turn, so to speak. This produces a very steep angle of attack, which is virtually straight down. This is the only weapon that I have tested that does that. Caldera

Talisman, I finally got back to this. The procedure that you spelled out above worked. Thanks a bunch for taking the time with me! When I did check the SnapViews.lua file it had indeed placed the UH-1H configuration in the listing (and a bunch of new VSN stuff). A side effect is that it also wiped out my A-10C_ii configuration (main aircraft I fly), but that I can fix that easy enough as I have a back-up of the file. I am starting to wonder what the best way is to manage the SnapView.lua file. As the Save Cockpit Angles (RALT + NUM0) command over writes everything in the file each time it is pressed. As I remembered today, I have removed it from the key bindings of the A-10C_ii so that did not happen. Thanks again, Caldera

I would use the AP over the HE at all times in they were in inventory due to the greater blast radius and destructive power. Caldera

So,,,, One thing I forgot to mention. This is the direction of flight. of flight. Caldera

Hey All, Probably not the correct topic area, but I don't know where it should actually go. First off, I have know for awhile that the penetrator version of the APKWS rockets (M282) had a larger splash damage radius. I am not sure how the actual weapon functions, but this is DCS. Of course, this version also has a much greater effectiveness vs armored vehicles. Let me say that I test splash radius by using infantry. Specifically, I consider the splash radius to be where I see infantry hit, not necessarily a kill. I call the farthest out from the center of the blast to be the weapons splash radius. So today I was again testing weapons and I tested the GBU-31. I tested both models and of course the splash radius was greater for the penetrator version. The radius increased from 475 feet to 700 feet. My test range is only 700 feet so I will have to do some more testing after I increase the infantry range to see exactly what it is (not really that important). I found out also that to some degree that the splash radius is greater for killing armor. On good hits, it can kill a T-55 out to 50 feet vs the normal 25 feet for the standard warhead. I discovered that the penetrator version drops much steeper and that the release window is quite a bit narrower. But, what came next I did not expect. So take a look at the pictures. Maximum extension in flight The weapon overshoots by about 400 feet. Then corrects its flight path to be on target. BOOM! Interesting? Well known by all but me? Caldera

So I ran this same scenario time after time after time. Testings the effectiveness of 900 vs 1800 HOF. HOF = 900 HOF - 1800 The results for HOF 900 are pretty typical. But, it would only kill T-55's due to the location where the munition opened. The results for HOF 1800 not so much typical and much more varied. The one I show above is probably better than average and it killed only T-55's. Typically, the T-55 kills ranged from 5 to 8. But, It would often kill other vehicles and infantry in addition, to a lesser degree. Maybe, the kill count would include for lots of infantry or just one to three other vehicles. Caldera

Same attack as above where the HOF was 900. Caldera

This is a CBU-105 attack targeting armor. The target is a T-55 in the middle of a row. This is approximately where the CBU-105 opened. This is the CBU-105 area of damage. Notice the missing T-55 tanks as compared to the destruction radius. Just the ones at the center are gone. Caldera

This is a ripple CBU-97 attack. Same parameters as above RIP SGL RIP QTY 2 FT 200 This is approximately where the CBU-97's opened. This is the CBU-97's area of damage. The CBU-97 seems much less effective against armored vehicles. Caldera

Hey All, Update 2.7.7.15038 Some testing I did this morning. More coffee... Same parameters: 10000 AGL 285 knots 1800 HOF I modified my target range, the circles are at 25 feet. The target is the very center of where the two runways cross. This is approximately where the CBU-97 opened. This is the CBU-97 area of damage. This is approximately where the CBU-105 opened. This is the CBU-105 area of damage. So I would say that the CBU-97's and the CBU-105's are no longer going long. They seem to be functioning about how they were before. FWIW... This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the area of destruction is the same size. However, the amount of destruction with in that area has decreased. Caldera

Tout, Cod Bullotty Heavens to Mergatroid thank you! This makes things easier by a factor of 20 or so... Caldera

Hey All, This is most likely a dumb question, but it is frustrating me to no end ATM. Specifically, I am talking about placing units around static FARP's. My method is clunky and very time consuming. Typically most would call it trial and error and it is a frustrating way to do things. I have seen in YouTube videos what I should (want) to be seeing, but the narrator does not explain how to get the different view. This is what I get. This is what I would like to get. If anyone would care to enlighten me I would be grateful. Thanks in advance, Caldera

Thanks for the insight Jay. Most likely the only typical DCS vs RL scenario that my be more similar would have been armor busting missions in IRAQ? Caldera