Iron_physik

How do you find exact values by just playing the game and looking at 3D effects? I want to have these skills as well! IRL I would be able to approximate the amount of explosives by looking at the fireball size, but thats a mood point in DCS, because it repeats the same visual effects for multiple warheads sizes I mean when I did some testing the jumps for new effects of air explosions where at: 1kg 10kg and then I think above 100kg or so. so doing it by "just playing the game" is not only very inacurate, it also would rely on knowing at what amount of filler causes which FX to be displayed it also goes into the area of speculation I specifically mentioned to not be viable! the next thing is "just datamine bro" ah yes, and then loosing the syntax and all comments that often are needed to fully understand the code written by someone else. you could also just handwave it away by saying "you dont understand the code, topic closed" (happens over at the other communities I mentioned sometimes) no, for proper reporting I want a official way to look into the files to check each value, of not just warheads but also FMs (remember, I also mentioned the track rate, motor burn time and thrust and other things of the AIM-9, not just warhead) and the code for these things are more complicated than just a simple: Warheads["zuni_127"] = //Zuni 127 HE { mass = 22.0 expl_mass = 22.0 //Warhead 22kg,. Explosive ??? kg + fragments }; these comments are important without them I had no way of knowing what exact warhead model ED wants for their Zuni rockets, because there is 6-7 different warhead types for this rocket 3 of which are explosive. "zuni 127 HE" made it possible to figure out that ED wants the MK.24 warhead for the Zuni not the MK.32 or MK.63 for track rate of AIM-9: playing the game wont give a result, you need to get the actual value

im not talking about the modding side of things im only interested in reporting bugs, and for that I often need acces to the code to see if values of weapons are wrong, because thats the only way to get them. without having acces to the warhead.lua for example I am unable to check if the AIM-9 sidewinder has the right amount of explosives in it, because that file is the ONLY place where that is documented simply said: writing bug reports on speculation is dumb and likely wont give any results, because my findings can be just waved away (I mean, it was tried before with the GAU-8 dispersion) I rather be able to say: "currently Missile X uses 12kg of explosives, but it should be 6kg according to these primary sources" rather than: "I think this missile warhead is wrong, but I am unable to prove it, because some fool decided it was a good idea to hide the used values"

uh, fine pls answer my previous questions, thats where we stopped

ah, my favourite fallacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMJTWD2mzs no, thats not what I am saying But it makes reporting values of weapons nearly impossible. for example How do you think I can report the seeker track speed of the AIM-9 without knowing the ingame value? There is NO way to test it, thats a value that you would need to check in the files same with the exact explosive filler used, rocket motor thrust etc... But you seem to ignore all of this, just like you ignored most my other points

[edited version] AH YES, the good old: "lets take the trust we tried to build up again after the past fail and smash it again like a pot of flowers" this is just laughable let me tell you: you taking away the ability for people to create quality bug reports WILL hurt you in the long run there is no question about that. I did actually plan to write a ton of reports, just like im famous for in other Flight sim communities, where I single handetly fixed the performance of most US bombs, Air to Air missiles like AIM-7 and also brought up so well sourced reports that a certain "arcadey" game has a better implementaion of the AIM-9 sidewinder than DCS does as of now. I actually planned to create reports focusing on the AIM-9 first and get it up to exact (and I mean EXACT) historical specs, down to the exact torque of the Gas servos used in every submodel. But you spitting me in the soup really ruined that, so fix your own weapons and dont dare to come screaming at us when you dont want people to do it for you, this is the EXACT way you scare subject matter experts away from your game. just ask groove about my excitement on reporting these things, because I really like doing it, its one of my special skills as someone with ASD, its what im best at. but thanks to devs that are to scared of maybe 1 "ChEAter" or whatever dumb reason they want to give now after realöizing that we dont believe them, you now lost an important asset that helped you FOR FREE and thanks to that likely will end up with a game that cant even model proximity fuzes properly yes, without the original comments that often are extremely important to understand code here a example where I still cared before 2.7: without the comments I would not have been able to tell what warhead of the multiple options ED wanted to model. the devs CLEARLY need our help when they are so Clueless about certain things that they write "???" into the code and yes without whole comments and proper editing syntax often datamined files are near to worthless. in summary: stop the meaningless corporate double talk and actually tell us what is going on without ignoring basic, but important questions like mine from a while ago: im out, this is just beyond unbelievable.

oh ffs Then how about telling us what it is about instead of hiding behind a "iTS nOt ABuOt THat!" or a "MUltIPlayEr ChEaTiNg". So far all we got was some lame excuses and trying to hide behind reasons that are highly unbelievable at best so please, for once be transparant and give us the full line of reasoning behind that change that screws so many of us over so badly. I mean at least have the courtesy to take us out for dinner before considering to fiffle with our butts like that.

that makes little to no sense considering that most servers run the integrity check so that people cant modify their main files to gain a advantage with explosive power of bombs for example. a integrity check that even jumps to false alerts at minor changes in texture files. I will be brutally honest it currently sounds more like a bad excuse than a valid reason, so can you specify what is meant by "multiplayer cheating" How do you think this will work? if we cant check the Lua to see if something wrong, then how are we supposed to report it without prior knowledge of things being wrong or not?

would be cool to get some info, considering today its the 61st B-day of the A-6

+1 I've got more docs on US weapons warheads weapons I have primary sources on: 127mm HVAR 127mm Zuni 70mm FFAR 70mm Hydra AIM-9 family AIM-7 family more Bombs Gun projectiles of pretty much any caliber you can think of (.50 to 406mm Naval projectiles) and more miscelanous data I also got some data on some non US weapons Some german bombs and projectiles for example.

that comes down to the "Bang Bang" guidance of early LGBs like the paveway II Paveway uses a optical array to focus the laser reflection onto a specific point on a sensor disk: that sensor disk has 4 quadrants that can sense a laser: depending on what quadrant the focused laser lands on different fins are deflected Fin deflection is always 100%, so the laser spot dances back and forth on this disk, thats why LGBs have this "snake" like flight path. to get better guidance in all degrees of freedom the bomb also has a very slight spin. the name "bang bang" comes from the fins always switching back and forth at full deflection.

Bombs MK.80 series: Bombs old series: To prove the source below is 100% public (rule 1.16) here the link to it uploaded to wikipedia by the US army: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ATm_9_1300_214_U_S_Military_Explosives.pdf&page=314 Average RE factors of all explosives underlined in % TNT: 1 Amatol: 99,4 Comp B: 130 Comp H6: 128 Tritonal: 120,5

I found some detailed explaination on the function of the A-6's nuclear panel in this 1979 Stores loading manual I got it from here http://www.aircraft-reports.com/grumman-a-6-ea-6-ka-6-aircraft-airborne-weapons-stores-loading-manual-navair-01-85ad-75-1979/ what I noted is that you set in all values for fuzing on the outside of the plane into its ballistic panel, so aircrews have no control about it mid flight they can only select "airburst" or "ground burst" and not the height of that burst. I think this also applies to iron bombs with VT fuzes and propably cluster bombs as well

the RN-28 (1KT bomb) of the Mig-21 is about 6000x to strong compared the blast radius it should have. RN-24 (10KT) is even worse by a long shot, if I'd had to guess it acts more like a 30-60MT bomb when it comes to blast radius. properly implemented these 2 nukes wont be much of a issue anymore. im currently working on a video where I modded the A-4 mod with proper values for 10KT, in tests against flying aircraft it already is alot more realistic.

ah yes avoiding questions you dont like answering, a classic. Cluster munitions, WP and napalm are as immoral as nukes, but appearently they are 100% fine. just for info Nukes, unlike cluster bombs, WP and napalm are not banned, they are considered legal weapons of war in the most part, only directly harming civilians with them is banned: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Nuclear Weapons Under International Law.pdf

do you use cluster bombs in DCS? or WP rockets? or do you plan on using napalm when it gets added to DCS?

I only asked him to clarify what he meant also, yes, different tastes you are not forced to use the Nukes, DCS being a sandbox has the advantage that you have options. however outright saying "no" without any arguments or reasoning behind it is just lazy. because there is alot arguments to add nukes to DCS considering the time frame of the Game.

lol seems like I hurt you with asking simply questions, or ask to clarify what you mean by "just flip the power button off. " thats not how to hold a proper conversation

you really would just need to adjust the coded amount of explosives to fit the proper blast ranges and to get the B61 on the A-6 a 3D model of the bomb (not hard to get) is the only thing you really need the nuclear panel in the A-6 cockpit are just check lights if the bomb is armed and ready.

I checked, the blast radius of the RN-28 is about that of a 6MT bomb, not 1KT thats a roughly 6000x increase in yield!! no wonder people dont want nukes, cuz in DCS they are about 6000x as strong as they should be. when the 1KT RN-28 actually performs rather close to what a 6MT bomb would do (including kill radius for planes, the AI Mig-21 is just outside the 1PSI overpressure zone in this test) if these bombs would get their proper blast radius they would be less of a issue, and I think more communities would allow them on servers with proper blast ranges. (maybe not a infinite amount, but like a few bombs for each team to play around with)

Iron bombs dont cause the desired damage, or effect. what you mean by that? If you talk about EMPs let me tell you that all military systems are shielded against that, and only civilian systems are going to be affected. and why exactly? yeah, because very little games actually have vehicles that let you fire nuclear bombs its usually flight sims that get you close to this, and there only a handfull deal with the topic of a cold war gone hot IL-2 1946 in the Jet age mod allows nukes, and there they are a nice tool to use that game is also currently the only flight sim that has all requirements for nukes: Units that can carry them the right timeframe possibilities for nuclear missions and sensefull targets for tactical weapons devs actually knowing about the real effectiveness of nuclear bombs, and not a phantasy of what they are many other games lack several of these requirements, thats why not many games have playable nukes because some guy with a rifle cant fire nukes outside of sci-fi games, you need either: Submarines, Missile silos, Artillery pieces or, Aircraft NATO planning was extremely heavy on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop a soviet attack, because its pretty much the only chance NATO had to stop alot of tanks fast they even dveloped the Neutron bomb just for that specific task, to stop soviet tank formations. I've got 2 great books about this topic: Es geht ums Überleben. Warum wir Atomraketen ablehnen. "its about survival, why we reject the nuclear missile" At Work in the Fields of the Bomb by Robert Del Tredici https://nonuclear.se/deltredici.legacyshow2007.html ^^here are all photos from the book, further back there is some interviews that are missing in the link. On top I own documents from the Navy about the basics of nuclear weapons and about the nuclear capability of US aircraft. to do a proper nuclear strike without blowing ourself up requires alot more flying and navigation skill than doing a CCIP or CCRP drop with iron bombs because the only way to safely deliver such a weapon is to Loft them, and a LOFT requires a perfectly flown 4g Half Cuban eight, not just pointing your nose at a spot over the target to then drop the bomb on a warehouse. I simply challenge you, get into a plane of your choice loaded with 1x 250 - 500kg/ /500-1000lbs bomb and get it within 600m of a warehouse, while also staying 3km away from the bomb when it impacts doing this is pretty difficult, and that would be for just a 10KT weapon for a bigger challenge do 1.5km precission while staying away 10km (340KT) note that you also have to face away from the eplosion, not fly towards it, or above it. all in all im not just some dude that wants big bombs, im actually pretty well informed about nuclear weapons to be able to tell you that they wont cause a massive problem when you implement them properly into DCS, and when you stay in a lower tactical yield (50KT MAX)

not true, ED said that they dont plan develop it themself third party devs are not ED, so when a third party make a nuke its likely to be added (as seen with the Mig-21) here the official statement I found from a older thread: ED has no plans of making nukes themself. and? lets be serious about nukes proper implementation may actually be a good thing, because it opens a very large set of possible missions for "cold war gone hot" and maybe "war with china escalates" it also adds stakes to intercept missions right now its: oh no this bomber with some small bombs may get through with nukes you actually have to worry about something, and for the person flying the aircraft: you need to do more pre planning for the attack, a nuclear bomb is not just your typical MK.82, it needs to be set to the proper burst alt, you need to decide if you want to use a parachute or not and you need to decide on attack patterns more than you do with conventional bombs. nukes require a very different skillset compared to conventional bombs https://vimeo.com/341822377 also there is very little games where you personally can control nuclear bombs and use the power of them I thought people like blowing virtual things up, so why not use the biggest bombs imaginable? large bombs are fun to use the best kind of kill is overkill. there is some kind of enjoyment in droping large bombs on small targets in DCS, like using a GBU-10 on a single guy with an AK, why not go bigger and turn our Pixel people into dust? as someone who just likes messing around with the mission editor nukes would be a great tool, not only for cool visuals, but also as basis for great missions (lonely and brave)

Fallout only happens on ground detonations, or detonations very close to the ground both of which are highly ineffective when you want to have a strong blast wave for maximum destruction lets say we use a 10KT bomb and drop it on batumi airfield: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=10&lat=41.6099878&lng=41.5997744&hob_psi=20&hob_ft=1286&crater=1&fallout=1&fallout_wind=12&ff=50&fallout_angle=230&psi=20,5,1&cloud=1&zm=12 optimized for a 20PSI overpressure (At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.) you wont get any Fallout (burst height needs to be about 200m lower) lets again take our 10KT example Airplanes only really take major damage at a 5PSI shockwave, which for 10KT is only 1,36km radius the nuke of the Mig-21 is greatly extravagated with its 30km kill radius for 10KT even if we make planes gest destroyed by a 1PSI overpressure that still is only 3.62km away from the bomb so all you need to tell people is to clear the city of batumi, or fly above 6km (20kft) alt. and yes, even when you use the maximum 340KT of a B61 bomb you wont get any of the effects against planes the Mig-21 bomb does: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=340&lat=41.6099878&lng=41.5997744&hob_psi=20&hob_ft=4167&crater=1&fallout=1&fallout_wind=12&ff=50&fallout_angle=230&psi=20,5,1&cloud=1&zm=12 People greatly overestimate the destruction capabilities of nuclear bombs.

and why not? so far you only stated that you dont want it, without any good reasoning behind it ethically they are fine, considering we got cluster bombs, White phosporous and soon Napalm and also because we only shoot pixels other flight sims have them as well, and there they are a nice option to play around with for different missions such as a long range low level deep strike on a airfield to then Loft a nuke at it and try to escape the blast, its a kind of rush you wont experience with other weapons and its great fun to do in IL-2 1946 with Mods, I wish we had something like that in DCS as well.

same with Mig-21, and many other nuclear capable aircraft you propably also would not apply "but it never used it in anger, so it should not have" argument with other weapons, right? because it is not a strong argument that would just artificially limit aircraft to weapons they actually fired in anger. A-6 did carry nukes, not only that but the crews also all went through nuke school until about the mid 90s. A-6 crews after Nuke Cert: Nukes where also present on US CVNs while on deployment in Desert storm: small tactical nukes (sub 10KT) would open up alot of options in tactics and missions you can fly and create its not just "bomb the city", it would be more like: "stop this russian tank formation pushing through fulda" or "take out this airbase" tactical nukes would be used on the battlefield, rarely ever to destroy cities, because thats the job of strategic weapons in the megaton area. and because we do have Cold war gone hot as scenarios, nukes most definately would be one of the main weapons used, more so than other weapons like cluster bombs.

what about all the Cluster bombs in DCS? WP rockets? the planned Napalm for the F-18? all weapons that are frowned upon today, but we use them all the time to blow eachother up in a pixel world. Nukes are a big part of the cold war and would fit perfectly to the A-6, a cold war attack aircraft build for nuclear delivery, specially when you do "cold war gone hot" missions. the Mig-21 already has 2 nuclear bombs in DCS with the RN-24 (10KT) and the RN-28 (1KT), giving one to the A-6 (B61 would fit best in 2 settings to mirror the russian ones) would just give NATO a option as well.