Retnek

The upcoming Normandy-2.0-update offered - next to a lot of urban ruins - some very welcome German radars: New are the long-range EWRs "Mammut" "Wassermann" A fine add-on to the search-radar "Pole-Freya" and the tracking-radar "Würzburg-Riese" null That's really great because now we have all the radars to build a the-way-it-was 1944 German-air-defence with EWR and CGI. Sadly the way ED configured Freya and Würzburg was somewhat strange (to put it mildly). Copying schemes from your mod as templates I set more authentic values for the four radars. It would be a great gift to the community if you somehow find the time to enhance your Radar-Station-mod 1.2.1 including the four German radars! Like you did it for the allied mobile- and CHRDF-radars.

Hello Suntsag, may I offer some suggestions for your Modified Early Warning Radar Script, please? 1) Replace the UnitType with a UnitCategory, maybe? For me it would enhance the fun and immersion not to know exactly what's up against me. Radar operators in WW2 were not able to detect the type of plane, too. Experienced operators were able to make an educated guess about the kind of contact looking at speed, height, shape of radar-return, reports about enemy tactics etc. So they were able to classify the incoming contacts into categories of small, medium or large aircraft. To localize the content of the message-box using contemporary brevity-codes might add to immersion. Depending on the player it might add confusion first. For me it would add to immersion quite a lot. Presenting different in-game-boxes for Red and Blue pilots certainly enlarges the code - not sure it's worth the effort. Anyhow, I added suggestions for Red & Blue codes, too. unitCategory for BothSides Blue Red single engine = Light = Snapper = Indianer twin engines = Medium = (RAF-code?) = Auto 3 or 4-engines = Heavy = (RAF-code?) = Möbelwagen not in script = Unknown = Bogey = Fragezeichen Any UnitType missing (mods f.e.) per default is neutral, "unkown". But easily to add to the script using a table like this: 2) If there's an elegant way to group contacts flying together in a distance below 500 m without the script bringing the CPU to it's knees? In that case it would be elegant to further replace the UnitCategory with unitFormation. Even modern radars are not able to distinguish between a return from a large airliner or a close formation of 4 fighters. Same for the WW2-radar-operators. Looking at the details of a radar-return they often were able to distinguish between a single large contact and a few small planes in formation. But not much more and so the messages usually were not more detailed than codes for single, few and many. UnitFormation = BothSides / Blue / Red single = 1 = (Light,Medium,Large)/(Snapper,Medium,Heavy)/(Indianer,Auto,Möbelwagen) few = 1-4 = few / Few (RAF-code?) / Welle many = >4 = many / Many (RAF-code?) / Staubwolke 3) If you see the beauty of a localized message-box in game, too, here's a suggestion for the headers: Nice source offering exhaustive details for the German fighters brevity code: https://www.gyges.dk/Operational brevity code.htm https://www.gyges.dk/Operatonal brevity code Ver 10_1.pdf 4) Within your script you asked for gaps in the ewrs.acCategories. I've added most WW2-planes, I-16 is missing.

First our Newcomers: ["M8rocket"] = { explosive = 2 }, --US, 18 kg 4.5-inch-rocket, ca. 13 kg warhead, 2 kg explosives, fragmentation ["HVAR USN Mk28 Mod4"] = { explosive = 3.5 }, --US, 5 inch 61 kg high velocity aircraft rocket, 21 kg warhead, 3.5 kg explosives, penetration, fragmentation ["Tiny Tim"] = { explosive = 68 }, --US, 36 inch 569 kg rocket, 227 kg warhead, 68 kg explosives, penetration, fragmentation over blast ["ASM_N_2"] = { explosive = 240 }, --WW2, US, radar-guided 850 kg ASW-glide-bomb, build around a 1000-lb-gp-bomb-warhead, The relevant lines from the splash-lua (hopefully complete ...) Discussion about a recent update dealing with the bombs A bit older with interesting hints on weapon-values in the lua-files by AeriaGloria: "When looking at DCS LUA warhead expl_mass values, also bear in mind that sometimes ED doesn’t always use the explosive weight, but uses the entire warhead weight as the explosive weight, this is done for M151 screenshot you posted and M229. This is almost always to make up for DCS not having fragmentation modeling." "Also, I said piercing has no value in DCS AFAIK. The cumulative field is for armor penetration. Cumaltive thickness is in meters of armor. And if armor it hits is less then cumulative thickness in size, then cumulative factor is applied. In case of S-8KOM, it’s .3 for thickness and 3 for cumulative factor. So if it hits armor less then 300mm in thickness, expl_mass is multiplied by 3 for total damage dealt" I won't subscribe his sentence here: "As far as I know, the piercing_mass figure has no effect in DCS. It seems to be related to true explosive weight in some way regardless of LUA figure for expl_mass." Hmm ... the German's WW2-bombs efficiency against somewhat hardened targets was always low compared to US or British WW2-bombs. German bombs have in common "piercing_mass = 1" - even the semi-piercing SD-models. While that variable for the Allied bombs is much higher and rises more or less reasonable with their penetration-capability. Just an educated guess, never checked it out here, consequently. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/tree/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs Please be cautious with your invest of time. It's always sad to see engaged community-members drift into resignation just because DCS remains what it is.

I took a closer look ... here're suggestions for Germany and the UK, just WW2. I went over all the bombs, rockets and checked the data. WW2-US-ordnance will follow. I tested all the stuff and "my" values in single-player DCS-test-missions. Using your script in server-missions for me never resulted in differences to single-player. So hopefully testing in SP is good enough. The values for the explosives are copied from the sources and show kg of the original explosive fillers. There was no conversion into any kind of "TNT-equivalent". If there's a need to balance blast- and fragmentation-damage via the weight of explosives it's up to you, please. In three cases I did changes myself. The German cluster-bomblets got an explosives-upgrade and the British AP-rocket a small charge, too. There's a remark in the comment. The other rockets need an adaption certainly. Newcomer bomb from Fw-190 A8: ["SC_250_T3_J"] = { explosive = 127 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose Newcomer rocket from Fw-190 D9: ["R4M"] = { explosive = 0.5 }, --Germany, R4M Rakete 4kg Minenkopf, 4 kg rocket, ca. 1kg thin-walled warhead, 0.5 kg explosives, blast Suggestion for the WW2-chapter: ... explTable = { --*** WWII BOMBS *** ["British_GP_250LB_Bomb_Mk1"] = { explosive = 31 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_250LB_Bomb_Mk4"] = { explosive = 31 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_250LB_Bomb_Mk5"] = { explosive = 31 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_500LB_Bomb_Mk1"] = { explosive = 65 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_500LB_Bomb_Mk4"] = { explosive = 65 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_500LB_Bomb_Mk4_Short"] = { explosive = 65 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_GP_500LB_Bomb_Mk5"] = { explosive = 65 }, --UK, general purpose, blast and fragmentation ["British_MC_250LB_Bomb_Mk1"] = { explosive = 51 }, --UK, medium capacity, blast over fragmentation ["British_MC_250LB_Bomb_Mk2"] = { explosive = 51 }, --UK, medium capacity, blast over fragmentation ["British_MC_500LB_Bomb_Mk1_Short"] = { explosive = 102 }, --UK, medium capacity, blast over fragmentation ["British_MC_500LB_Bomb_Mk2"] = { explosive = 102 }, --UK, medium capacity, blast over fragmentation ["British_SAP_250LB_Bomb_Mk5"] = { explosive = 19 }, --UK, semi armour piercing, penetration, fragmentation over blast ["British_SAP_500LB_Bomb_Mk5"] = { explosive = 41 }, --UK, semi armour piercing, penetration, fragmentation over blast ["SC_50"] = { explosive = 25 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose ["ER_4_SC50"] = { explosive = 25 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, 4 bombs in ER-4-bomb-rack ["SC_250_T1_L2"] = { explosive = 127 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose ["SC_250_T3_J"] = { explosive = 127 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose ["SC_501_SC250"] = { explosive = 127 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, fits to SC-500-bomb-rack ["Schloss500XIIC1_SC_250_T3_J"] = { explosive = 127 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, fits to SC-500-bomb-rack ["SC_501_SC500"] = { explosive = 255 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, fits to SC-500-bomb-rack ["SC_500_L2"] = { explosive = 255 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, ["SC_500_J"] = { explosive = 255 }, --SC Minenbombe, thin-walled, blast damage, general purpose, ["SD_250_Stg"] = { explosive = 80 }, --SD Splitterbombe, thick-walled, Stg Stahlguss cast steel; penetration capable, fragmentation over blast ["SD_500_A"] = { explosive = 180 }, --SD Splitterbombe, thick-walled; penetration capable, fragmentation over blast --*** WWII CBU *** (moved to cluster) -- ["AB_250_2_SD_2"] = { explosive = 100 }, -- ["AB_250_2_SD_10A"] = { explosive = 100 }, -- ["AB_500_1_SD_10A"] = { explosive = 213 }, --*** WWII ROCKETS *** ["3xM8_ROCKETS_IN_TUBES"] = { explosive = 2 }, --USA, 18 kg 4.5-inch-rocket, ca. 13 kg warhead, 2 kg explosives, fragmentation ["WGr21"] = { explosive = 10 }, --Germany, WGr21 WerferGranate 21 cm, 110 kg rocket, 39 kg warhead, 10 kg explosives, fragmentation and blast ["R4M"] = { explosive = 0.5 }, --Germany, R4M Rakete 4kg Minenkopf, 4 kg rocket, ca. 1kg thin-walled warhead, 0.5 kg explosives, blast ["British_AP_25LBNo1_3INCHNo1"] = { explosive = 1 }, --UK, RP-3, 29 kg rocket, AP-1 11 kg steel penetration warhead, no explosives, kinetic, original no explosive ["British_HE_60LBSAPNo2_3INCHNo1"] = { explosive = 6 }, --UK, RP-3, 45 kg rocket, 27 kg SAP HE warhead, 6 kg explosives, blast and fragmentation ["British_HE_60LBFNo1_3INCHNo1"] = { explosive = 2 }, --UK, RP-3, 44 kg rocket, 21 kg fragmentation warhead, 1.5 kg explosives, fragmentation ... --*** CLUSTER BOMBS (CBU) *** ... ["AB_250_2_SD_2"] = { explosive = 0, cluster = true, submunition_count = 144, submunition_explosive = 1, submunition_name = "SD-2" }, --WW2 Germany 144 SD-2 fragmentation bomblets, original explosive 0.2 kg ["AB_250_2_SD_10A"] = { explosive = 0, cluster = true, submunition_count = 17, submunition_explosive = 5, submunition_name = "SD-10A" }, --WW2 Germany 17 SD-10A fragmentation bomblets, original explosive 1 kg ["AB_500_1_SD_10A"] = { explosive = 0, cluster = true, submunition_count = 37, submunition_explosive = 5, submunition_name = "SD-10A" }, --WW2 Germany 37 SD-10A fragmentation bomblets, original explosive 1 kg ... --Table for cluster submunitions clusterSubMunTable = { ... ["SD-2"] = { explosive = 1 }, --WW2 German cluster bomblet 0.225 kg explosives; AB_250_2_SD_2=144 bomblets; fragmentation, original explosive 0.2 kg ["SD-10A"] = { explosive = 5 }, --WW2 German cluster bomblet 0.9 kg explosives; AB_500_1_SD_10A=37 bomblets, AB_250_1_SD_10A=17 bomblets; fragmentation, original explosive 1 kg ... Somewhat work in progress for me are the cluster-bombs. First of all: the German-WW2-cluster-bombs are somewhat effective now and useful finally - THANK YOU! I adapted your settings for tests with the German-WW2-cluster and the cold-war BL-755-cluster. All these CBU don't use a rotation of the container to spread the sub-munition. Resulting in a lengthy distribution pattern, 2:1 to 3:1 in real-life. Unless you decide to use different spread pattern for different types of cluster-bombs some "square-"settings might offer a compromise. ... ["cluster_enabled"] = true, ["cluster_base_length"] = 150, --Base forward spread (meters) ["cluster_base_width"] = 150, --Base lateral spread (meters) ["cluster_max_length"] = 300, --Max forward spread (meters) ["cluster_max_width"] = 300, --Max lateral spread (meters) ["cluster_min_length"] = 80, --Min forward spread ["cluster_min_width"] = 80, --Min lateral spread ["cluster_bomblet_reductionmodifier"] = true, --Use equation to reduce number of bomblets (to make it look better) ["cluster_bomblet_damage_modifier"] = 1.3, --Adjustable global modifier for bomblet explosive power ... With that settings your script-produced "cluster-display" is a bit better in line with the (usually) more dense and concentrated cluster-pattern produced by DCS. The DCS-cluster-spread-pattern imho are far from real-world-data, too. It's all we have ... Looks like your script-produced "cluster-display" is lagging behind a bit, usually. The DCS-cluster-centre mostly seems to be in the forward 25 - 33 % of the splash-damage-script. No deviation to the sides and maybe more obvious with smaller cluster bomblets ... any idea why?

Little add-on for the explTable, WW2-bombs: ["SC_500_J"] = { explosive = 213 }, In use with the Fw-190 D9. Same data for the near relative of the SC_500_L2-model. (thx for the script!)

Just to clear the facts: in my version DCS 2.9.17.12034 this file: ...\DCS\CoreMods\WWII Units\SpitfireLFMkIX\SpitfireLFMkIX.lua looks encrypted to me. No way no longer to enhance this Seafire-mod, right?

Thx, that's the correct values & easy to replace in the lua. I've checked > dozen different lua-files from ship-mods, sadly there was no properly commented or documented version about the values used. Some of the comments one can translate from Italian or Russian, others are educated guess-work, but remain vague ... try and error, if there's need for a certain mod (and time for it). btw: the bow-waves of the German cruiser seem to be a bit more complicated - Hipper is fine, Eugen and Blücher show that set-off (s.a.) on the Kola-map. On the WW2-Marianas-map all three are aligned correctly. Without a well-kept and documented sim-engine the time-requirement for such kind of maintenance becomes a serious show-stopper.

THAT's the way to go - please!

Hopefully the Corsair blows the fire below the DCS-WW2-boiler ... steam, Chief, steam! German Navy ships 4y later still look great in Norway's fjords! Z39 (bow wash & exhaust) Prinz Eugen (bow wash set to the right and very low) If there's a chance to fix such cosmetics via lua and a tutorial nearby ... please point on it!

Thx, that's good to know. No deadline expected or intended - can't be that easy or you'd done it already. when it's done -

I know the not-feature "automatic release" for years now ... from time to time I check the forums if there has been any progress. Sadly parts of DCS more and more drift into an attitude "good enough to pre-sale is good enough at all". Heatblur has been at the quality-side over the years - I hope they remain on that path. Sufficient communications sometimes is part of it, too. The handbook is done fine, but you use that "light grey" in an unusual manner. You expect people to read that content printed in that very light grey? To me that is a way of hiding content. To me it contains a message: Dear reader, ignore the light grey parts because that's "w.i.p." It will become readable when the feature is finalised. @Zabuzard my key point has been "a feature like 'automatic chaff release' is that obviously useful most pilots sooner or later will try it". Low hanging, ripe fruits imho.

Sorry, a feature like "automatic chaff release" is that obviously useful most pilots sooner or later will try it. Most tutorials out there state "there's an automatic chaff release, too". Even the official manual has it, in light grey letters. No warning, no hint "don't trust, don't use, broken". That's a very effective way to frustrate newbies and learners ... Where's the problem to place a description like "inactice - WIP" next to the "A" at the selector? And just one sentence in the handbook?

Plus another year ... no message, no results

Heclak was seen last in the DCS-forums 26. Sept. 23 ... he is/was part of the A-4-project, too. Looks like he's very much into other projects now: https://github.com/heclak https://github.com/heclak/flybywiresim-aircraft The most relevant part of the site presenting his ELINT-App seems to be written in Java-Script. Maybe enough for an inspiration what direction to go for new solution of the problem?

Here's an original bomblet-pattern from a BL-755-test to offer some evidence to play with: Roughly simplified there's a rectangle "core-zone" of 100 * 50 m = 5000 sqm. 1/3 of the bomblet outside, duds etc pp there's still 100 bomblets inside, one for every 50 sqm. Each of the bomblets had a forward AT-capability and produced 1400 fragments ... Really bad options for any-one or -thing unprotected or lightly armoured in that zone - something like 90% targets with damage >50% seems reasonable to me. 50 sqm is a 5 * 10 m rectangle - 2 scouts or 2 armoured carriers and maybe 1.5 larger tanks like MBT or SPG. So something like a 25 - 50% chance for a direct hit.