Search the Community

Damage models: Most of them are FUBAR. I don't know if it's to be player friendly that way players can get away with more to benefit game play. I have personally put hellfires, GBU's into a hind and it shrugged it off. Tricker has tons of videos of him hitting helicopters with multiple 25mm from a Bradley. wow what a great segue. Weapon Damage: A burst of 25mm from the above example would wreck any aircraft, especially a helicopter. I proved that anything below a 30mm rarely damages anything past 4,500ft in my SA-6 thread. How I conducted my test: Using the previous known range of 4,500ft that was the constant. I started each test with a Bradley to engage with its 25mm(since it doesn't have AP/HE in DCS which should be fixed since the LAV does...) This is a good control to start with. - a common issue, the AI shooter would think a helicopter was destroyed and would stop engaging. This is after many rounds hitting target. - I would place the helicopter on the ground as a cold start(meaning they have to start up to get airborne) right above the 4,500ft mark so around 4,520ft. And run the editor. If the helicopter survived the 25mm event, I brought it within 4,500ft. - IF the 25mm was able to destroy the helicopter that was the end of the test, move on to the next helicopter. If not, I replaced the bradley with a common 30mm unit like a BMP-2, BTR-82A, and a BMPT for faster 30mm engagements. Same method, above 4,500ft, within 4,500ft. - IF the helicopter survived the 30mm test. I moved on to a 120mm test from an Abrams or Challenger II. That's where I stopped, no offense but the Russian 125mm tanks in the game are B.S so I didn't use them (prior master gunner, fight me). Test 1: CH-47F Survived all 25mm, 30mm and 120mm engagements, took off and flew away, even with damaged rotors. Truly amazing. Test 2: AH-64D Destroyed within a few bursts of 25mm from above 4,500ft. Test stopped. Test 3: Ka-50 III 25mm destroyed it right before take off above 4,500ft. Skipped straight to 120mm, it took 22 hits to destroy it, last hit was while it was airborne. Test 4: Mi-8 25mm above 4,500ft stopped engaging because it thought the AI was dead. Was able to destroy it within 4,500ft. 30mm above 4,500ft took it out within a few burst. Test stopped. Test 5: Mi-24P Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. 120mm needed 7 hits to destroy it. Test 5: OH-58D Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. Survived the 120mm above 4,500ft engagement and took off. 120mm within 4,500ft it almost took off but after numerous .50cal and 120mm hits it was finally destroyed. Test 6: SA342 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. Test 7: UH-1 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. CH-47 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk AH-64 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 120mm above 4,500ft(22 hits to kill).trk Mi-8 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 120mm above 4,500ft(7hits to kill).trk OH-58 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk OH-58 vs 120mm within 4,500ft.trk SA342 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk UH-1h vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk

The new incremental smoke on units frankly feels like a feature from ace combat the way it's implemented, having incremental smoke tied directly to unit health makes it a glorified health bar. Real life identifying the state of a vehicle (baring total destruction) is not easy, having the smoke being tied to health % and always the same (1) completely undermines what should be some ambiguity and (2) looks ridiculous when you attack a group of vehicles and they all start smoking identically. Ideally I would love to see it just removed, but I would propose a toggle for this feature in the same place as the current BDA settings, and or a change to make the smoke only have a small percent chance of triggering at different health values (so that it occurs only sometimes and when it does it is not a clear indication of the state of the vehicle).

12/16/22 Preface: In this Friday's OpenBeta update, the easy coding fixes have been added for the P-51, 190s, Spitfire, 109, and 47. However, the Mosquito has been missed. Additionally, the armor plates that are missing from DCS entirely haven't yet been included. Items that were fixed in the 12/16 OpenBeta update will be highlighted in green, and marked with the update date. TL;DR: Many warbirds have incorrect armor values, or are missing armor. If you open the x-ray.edm in the Modelviewer, and the individual aircraft's Lua, you can see the IDs from the Modelviewer and see what those objects' properties are. Please click on the photos here, as while I've minimized them in this post so it doesn't get cluttered, but if you click on them you will see them in better resolution. The P-51D (INCORRECT): [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest and seat back armor (aka XArmor01 and XArmor00) - If we open Aircorps Library and look at the drawings for the late P-51D, like ours, we will see that these are two pieces of armor welded together. The headrest being 7/16", or 11mm...and the seat back being 5/16", or 8mm thick. Meanwhile in DCS, it is given a thickness of 22mm! For both plates! Almost three times the value of most of the area of the armor. I have an idea on how this value came to be, but I'll drop it into the spoiler below: [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored glass (aka XArmor02) - In DCS, it is given a thickness of 75mm. Using the schematics from Aircorps Library, we can again see that it is 1.5" thick, or 38mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (aka XCockpitElement02) - In DCS, this is given a thickness of just 1mm! In truth, the instrument panel is a part that's for once, thicker in truth, coming out to 0.128", or 3.25mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The firewall (aka XArmor03) - This is given a value of 12mm in DCS, or just a scratch under 1/2". For our 51D, it appears that a more possible value would've been 1/4", or 6.35mm. The P-51D (MISSING): The coolant header tank armor - This is a piece of armor that has been missing from the Mustang's damage model. It is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm, and lies just forward of the coolant header tank within the engine nacelle, between the coolant header tank and the spinner. In summary for the P-51: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.008 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.022 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.038 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.012 to 0.00635 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XCockpitElement02 from 0.001 to 0.00325 -Add coolant header tank armor. Steel, 0.00635

Holes and damage on the engine cowlings will not be transparent like the rest of the damage on the aircraft

Fairly often there is a row over the damage model, and most often it ends with confusion because as users, the best we can get are the misleading graphics for damage from the outside, and a very simplified (doesn't catch nearly everything) debrief window that's only available to singleplayer. And aside from that, a small chat window that just says "Aircraft damage/destroyed" on the right side of the screen. It would benefit a lot of discussion and potential bug-finding if a tool such as featured here in Nineline's video we're available and open to OpenBeta users.

I have noticed there are some LOD issues on the Damage textures for the Perry class frigate. When the camera is close the damage disappears however when it gets a little farther away the damage becomes visible.

Part of the startup procedure is to sett the "fuel delimiter valve" rocker into the upward position (on/open). I have flown the module in SP and MP now since early release and having this valve either OPEN or CLOSED has had zero effect on the module behaviour and consequence states. Not in excess maneuvers, not in limit maneuvers, not in positive or negative g's, not in damage states, not in anything noticeable where it should result in a different turbine behaviour (to the point of fault). So it this actually background modelled in any way or is this (as of yet) just an animated rocker in the cockpit render? Which is not a problem either way, just some clarification would be helpfull. There is also no need for a trackfile, since you cannot "manufacture" a few small ones for the variety of testing scenarios, maneuvers and states applied. Furthermore since there is a noticeable difference in many things between SP and MP with the module, which can be a little bit confusing sometimes.

Someone informed me that they fired RB-15s onto a sub and the missile went right through and do no damage, I made a quick test to try and recreate it but I used a hornet with harpoons instead. Similar result. The harpoon goes right through as seen in these screenshots. I'll provide my .miz file i used for the test and a track file as well. I did another test but using a AGM-65F as well and similar result but the MAV still goes right through and explodes as it hits the water where the sub is and does splash damage instead. If memory serves me right a single AGM-65F should sink a submarine (Improved Kilo class) in 1 hit. Sub Harpoon Test.miz Submarine Harpoon.trk

Pretty much as in the title. If the uplatch for either gear leg is destroyed, that gear leg will drop. However as I understand, even if the latch is destroyed, the motor for the gear leg will operate in order to keep that gear held up....even if it's not locked. At the moment, either the motors are somehow broken automatically when uplatches are, or the motors simply don't function once the gear was successfully raised once. An example for what I'd expect would occur is the Dora. For the Dora within DCS, if you destroy or disable the uplatches for both gear legs, the gear will remain up and retracted. The load on the motors will also increase if you pull intense G-loads, and this will actually cause the gear's weight to overcome the strength of the motors, and the gear will momentarily peak out, before retracting back up when the aircraft stops pulling G. All of this isn't the case with the Anton, as of now. Of a slightly different note, it seems that the Dora's gear motors also don't burn out. You can destroy the D9's uplatches, causing the motors to constantly run, and they will continuously operate for at least 40 minutes. I haven't tested it for a longer period of time. But this is, again, on a slightly different note.

Hello, So, installed this map again as I was really interested in the July 22nd newsletter sentence: Amiens Prison that includes a comprehensive structural damage model. Can somebody explain to me how it works? Granted I am not carpet bombing it with B-17, but modern artillery, APCs and MBTs should turn it into pile of bricks, I thought. Was that assumption too much? Apart from some roof texture change after several hits from MBT and artillery, the Amiens nuclear bunker stands ground. Direct hit to brick wall or even gate makes no damage. Does it work for the Mosquito bombs only? PrisonDamage.trk

So while I was flying my F-16C on the Syria map I noticed a massive fps increase when the Slats and the wing tip got shot/hit off by gun/Missiles, my fps went from 10-20 to 40-120. So after I noticed this increase I did some testing and tried to remove non necessary variables like what other players are doing on a MP server. So I setup a testing area with the F16C controlled by player and some SA-9 (this is the same unit that caused the original fps increase). And after many attempts I got 3 tracks where you can see a massive fps increase when one full wing gets blown off and the 4th track file is an almost exact replica of what happened originally. F16 FPS increase Test 1.trk F16 FPS increase Test 2.trk F16 FPS increase Test 3.trk F16 FPS increase Test 4 best replica.trk

To destroy fuel or ammunition warehouses/storage on airfields, a 250kg bomb (500lb) direct hit does not sufficiently damage these buildings to destroy them. The minimum required is a 500kg, or a 1000lb bomb. For these types of buildings, especially considering they contain volitile ammunition or liquids, the minimum damage required is rather excessive. Something in the ballpark of perhaps a 100lb (50kg), perhaps 250lb, should be the minimum required to incapacitate these small supply buildings. 500lb bomb test.trk 1000lb bomb test.trk

For immersion reasons, I'd like to make it so that when I start playing a mission, some buildings are already pre-destroyed if you will, or otherwise set on fire. The alternative appears to mean using AI or something to blow up the buildings I wanna blow up before I start flying (or driving since I have Combined Arms). Any advice on what sort of trigger zone to use, what lines of code I must enter, and where?

Since last major update smoke trails (Spitfire inflicted damage, Channel map) and fuel dumps (F/A-18) appear purple. Purple Damage Smoke.tif

Is there any way to see list of damages after landing in multi player? In single player you'll get a list after mission end. Concrete example: Just had 109 tail wheel stuck out. This damage reduced speed at 1.4 ATA from 550 to 450 km/h. Seems a lot & I wonder if someting else was going on.