Is there a point?

[Черный Дракул]

I mean, you can have a pretty realistic-flying virtual model, which is very good. You can use it as a virtual museum-stuff-like clickable cockpit trainer, which is also good. It has a lot of damageable systems, each affecting aircraft if damaged in its own way.

 

But when you pull the trigger... most of these planes have machineguns which fire mostly non-explosive bullets. And there is no news on updating the damage physics to allow internal ammo tracing. Which (as I see it) means that if you've got a .50cal bullet into the enemy's tail, say, from 6 o'clock, it won't go through the skin, airframe (if encountered), compressed air tanks, radio and electric firing control panel (if present), pilot seat, pilot and into the instrument panel -- it'll just "explode" on the tail section and that is it.

 

So is there a point in such an advanced damage model if the most frequent damaging elements don't do their job right? Or is there something I don't know and there actually are plans to remedy the bullet/flak/shrapnel situation?

[Art-J]

I have to admit that shooting other planes now ain't much fun when the damage modelling hopelessly lags behind even the old Il-2 Sturmovik series. I think that improvements in this part of the game are on the long "to-do-after-EDGE-implementation" list somewhere in ED office. I guess up till now there was just no urgent need to do that, with all the modern planes launching missiles at each other. But now, with more and more vintage machinery coming up, situation is changing.

[Random]

To be honest I wasn't aware of any damage model problems other than the 190D9 issues!

 

But as always im eager to see any improvements or fixes

[Buzzles]

I'm not quite sure I follow your complaints unless you're specifcially talking about the AI Dora in 1.2.8 and below, which is an utter farce.

 

There's issues with the damage models on AI planes, and there's a lack of information when it comes to visual representation of damage models, but whenever I get shot in a P51 or A10, various systems get broken during flight (might loose hydraulics or guns or sights etc), and the end of battle logs prove it.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Buzzles
Can't spell. Derp.

[airdoc]

I'm not quite sure I follow your complaints unless you're specifcially talking about the AI Dora in 1.2.8 and below, which is an utter farce.

 

There's issues with the damage models on AI planes, and there's a lack of information when it comes to visual representation of damage models, but whenever I get shot in a P51 or A10, various systems get broken during flight (might loose hydraulics or guns or sights etc), and the end of battle logs proove it.

 

 

+1

 

Internal damage modelling in the P51 is currently the most advanced in any sim I know of. Weak spots are the wing breaking only at one point and always catching fire, cockpit visual damage, pilot wounds, etc. It's largely the visual damage model that suffers in the P51. I think that the dora has been so bad in the DM up to now, because it wasn't internally modelled. Hopefully with the introduction of the dora module, this will be remedied. But it would be nice to get an official response to this issue, since a lot of people have raised it.

[WinterH]

Now, systems damage in DCS level aircraft are very detailed and awesome alright but...

 

What I believe OP means is that, he thinks there is no internal ballistics modeled so that a bullet entering a body (an aircraft in this case) continue doing damage on various parts as it crash / penetrate through them inside said body.

 

Don't know if this relly is the case or not, but I certainly agree that damage modeling is one of the things DCS can improve A LOT. Actually seeing how many frontal hits can a Huey get, have it's windscreen shredded, yet pilots don't have any problem leads me to believe he just may be right. I am not talking about visual reprsentation of damage, as it is, it's fine by me, don't care a lot about eye candy. But pyhsics modeling behind damage is not too convincing at many areas like :

 

- Armored vehicles (and their health bars...)

- Damage done by different types of ordnance to different things (basically AP vs HE munitions, also I am not sure if HEAT type of munitions are modeled at all)

- Su-25 and A-10 still appear to have some lift after losing both wings

- AI Hueys just bounce a few times and land peacefully after falls that should have break them to bits

- Fast aircraft like F-15, Su-25 and L-39 can lose their entire nose section, yet seem to only superficially get affected aerodynamically.

- Hueys and Hips feel like aerial King Tigers (funnily one would expect Hip to be more resilient one but Huey is more resilient, at least if AI models are concerned as I don't actually have those modules)

- According to published inofrmation about their warhead types and sizes, relative damage done by various air to air missiles feel quite inconsistent among each other.

[Art-J]

I would rather argue about Mustang's DM being "most advanced in any sim I know of". The plane is cool, but I can't perceive it through rose-tinted glasses. Coming from Il-2 and CloD world, when I first got hit by AAA in my fresh-bought DCS Pony and spotted a major leak off my left wing I expected to run out of fuel pretty quickly (at least from the left tank). To my surprise, however, I could fly to distant home base easily, while after-landing-inspection showed plenty of fuel left in all tanks. That reminded me of AI Mustangs, which in 1.2.8 can still fly full-power and run circles around you even when they're trailing all kinds of fluids, black smoke and whatnot. So it looks like the problem doesn't affects AI-Dora only. Don't know whether it's a a damage modelling issue, or bullet/cannon shells modelling issue, but it causes some silly results.

 

I also hoped that switching from Mustang in Il-2 to Mustang in DCS would relieve me of dreaded "prop-governor-made-of-glass" issue, but looks like guys over here have to deal with it as well :D. As a result, when flying air-to-ground sorties, I'm not really bothered about AAA hitting infamous radiator under the belly. However, prospect of almost-guaranteed loss of prop governor gives me thrills ;).

 

All and all, I think there's still a room for improvement and addition of other WWII planes will make this need more urgent.

[NeilWillis]

I could ask the same about this discussion, is there a point to it?

 

DCS has always been building new facilities, and improving gradually. You'll get your damage model, just be patient.

[Черный Дракул]

What I believe OP means is that, he thinks there is no internal ballistics modeled so that a bullet entering a body (an aircraft in this case) continue doing damage on various parts as it crash / penetrate through them inside said body.

You are correct, this is exactly what I suggested to discuss.

 

I'm not quite sure I follow your complaints unless you're specifcially talking about the AI Dora in 1.2.8 and below, which is an utter farce.

 

There's issues with the damage models on AI planes, and there's a lack of information when it comes to visual representation of damage models, but whenever I get shot in a P51 or A10, various systems get broken during flight (might loose hydraulics or guns or sights etc), and the end of battle logs prove it.

The problem is that AFAIK there's no physics in the game to model this behaviour correctly. Yes, the systems shut down -- but can you confirm they don't just die at random in the hit portion of the aircraft? There's a definite feeling in every aircraft I got (including P-51) that this is the case.

 

I could ask the same about this discussion, is there a point to it?

 

DCS has always been building new facilities, and improving gradually. You'll get your damage model, just be patient.

Actually, there is no point at this discussion but to check if I missed an official update or something. You see, IMO the order of this happening is reversed: we should get a renewed damage model first, and then be able to buy aircraft sporting the new physics and getting the most out of it. Especially when it comes to guns and bullets aircraft (although missile ones could benefit from this even more).

[NeilWillis]

Well, how about this for a point...

 

If there was less rubbish spoken about when stuff might or might not be released, we might all stand a better chance of picking out the announcement from the background chatter!!!

[Isegrim]

The Germans (Propably other nations to) used Explosive rounds from 20mm MG151/20 to 30mm MK-108.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minengescho%C3%9F

[NineLine]

The internal damage model of the PFM aircraft is probably the most advanced of anything out there in a combat flight sim, that said, the graphical representations of that damage as well as issues of the AI using simplified systems, is an issue... Damage modelling has been noted as an area of improvement to be done at some point by the Devs.

 

I love the damage in CloD, animated bits and pieces flapping in the wind... etc... but much of it is scripted, and wouldnt be as dynamic as the stuff happening under the hood of ED's PFM aircraft.

 

I would rather argue about Mustang's DM being "most advanced in any sim I know of". The plane is cool, but I can't perceive it through rose-tinted glasses. Coming from Il-2 and CloD world, when I first got hit by AAA in my fresh-bought DCS Pony and spotted a major leak off my left wing I expected to run out of fuel pretty quickly (at least from the left tank). To my surprise, however, I could fly to distant home base easily, while after-landing-inspection showed plenty of fuel left in all tanks. That reminded me of AI Mustangs, which in 1.2.8 can still fly full-power and run circles around you even when they're trailing all kinds of fluids, black smoke and whatnot. So it looks like the problem doesn't affects AI-Dora only. Don't know whether it's a a damage modelling issue, or bullet/cannon shells modelling issue, but it causes some silly results.

 

I also hoped that switching from Mustang in Il-2 to Mustang in DCS would relieve me of dreaded "prop-governor-made-of-glass" issue, but looks like guys over here have to deal with it as well :D. As a result, when flying air-to-ground sorties, I'm not really bothered about AAA hitting infamous radiator under the belly. However, prospect of almost-guaranteed loss of prop governor gives me thrills ;).

 

All and all, I think there's still a room for improvement and addition of other WWII planes will make this need more urgent.

[Art-J]

If only devs can make leaks and smoketrails actually mean something (upcoming engine seizure or bingo fuel just as it is in CloD), instead of being there "just for show", that will already be a welcomed improvement. Because as of now, peculiar things can happen, as seen in attachment below - AI Mustang in "airshow configuration", courtesy of a few bursts from my .50s ;).

[RNeves]

Battle of Stalingrad also brought an interesting feature to the damage model.

 

When you hit a wing and weaken its structure, you can see it breaking shortly after the hits, or when the pilot pulls some G's to escape.

 

Would be nice if ED added details like this to the damage model

 

;)

[Черный Дракул]

Well, how about this for a point...

 

If there was less rubbish spoken about when stuff might or might not be released, we might all stand a better chance of picking out the announcement from the background chatter!!!

Point not taken since these are different channels.

 

The Germans (Propably other nations to) used Explosive rounds from 20mm MG151/20 to 30mm MK-108.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minengescho%C3%9F

Speaking of germans and their MK-108, they also used a shell which would explode only if inside a fuel tank. It was used to take the big bombers out, but nevertheless, try imagining workarounds and scripting to make something like this work in the current DM logic (in case it is possible at all).

I'd add for example that the newly released F-86 is armed with BMGs. I understand that P-51 was a nice side project where corners could be cut for simplicity -- but a whole new cohort of aircraft with a new era is coming up, and there it definitely should not be the case.

 

The internal damage model of the PFM aircraft is probably the most advanced of anything out there in a combat flight sim, that said, the graphical representations of that damage as well as issues of the AI using simplified systems, is an issue... Damage modelling has been noted as an area of improvement to be done at some point by the Devs.

 

I love the damage in CloD, animated bits and pieces flapping in the wind... etc... but much of it is scripted, and wouldnt be as dynamic as the stuff happening under the hood of ED's PFM aircraft.

So you consider creating internal model of this complexity is justified without working damage tracing inside AC? I think not -- and the problem isn't in some non-pretty visuals. In CLoD, Il-2 or RoF you knew that to hit something -- be it engine, fuel tank, structure element or hydraulic stuff -- you actually must put a bullet or shrapnel through it. And you knew there is a whole lot of ways to do it. So what is the point of carefully and correctly modelling, say, a battery if you can't put a bullet through it to damage it directly? Isn't it quicker then to just add a random effect corresponding to power loss when hit, without sacrificing realism of what's happening but speeding up the aircraft creation process? Edited August 3, 2014 by Черный Дракул

[remon]

So you consider creating internal model of this complexity is justified without working damage tracing inside AC? I think not -- and the problem isn't in some non-pretty visuals. In CLoD, Il-2 or RoF you knew that to hit something -- be it engine, fuel tank, structure element or hydraulic stuff -- you actually must put a bullet or shrapnel through it. And you knew there is a whole lot of ways to do it. So what is the point of carefully and correctly modelling, say, a battery if you can't put a bullet through it to damage it directly? Isn't it quicker then to just add a random effect corresponding to power loss when hit, without sacrificing realism of what's happening but speeding up the aircraft creation process?

 

I'm guessing that you're talking about ballistics and penetration modelling and hit boxes when you speak about internal model. Is there a quote by any dev that things don't work that way? From what I understand is up to the plane creator to make hit boxes, or cells, and link certain parts with certain effects on the plane. For example, I'd consider the P-51 not losing fuel when the tank gets hit more of a bug than anything else.

 

About the visual aspect of the damage modelling, I'll repost here an older video by VEAO.

 

http://www.twitch.tv/ells228/b/500255397

[Черный Дракул]

I'm guessing that you're talking about ballistics and penetration modelling and hit boxes when you speak about internal model. Is there a quote by any dev that things don't work that way? From what I understand is up to the plane creator to make hit boxes, or cells, and link certain parts with certain effects on the plane. For example, I'd consider the P-51 not losing fuel when the tank gets hit more of a bug than anything else.

 

About the visual aspect of the damage modelling, I'll repost here an older video by VEAO.

 

http://www.twitch.tv/ells228/b/500255397

I'm generally speaking of terminal ballistics, the part of ballistics which comes into effect after the hit occures. Penetration is the ability of a projectile to penetrate on hit so it is included in this term (along with projectile deformation and trajectory change, secondary shrapnel from the armor and so on), thus I am intentially narrowing the discussion to internal projectile tracing. Not ballistics itself (although the projectile remains a ballistic body after impact, ballistics describes all the way of a projectile), not armor penetration (BTW, I am not aware of how complex it is at this moment), not amount or position of internal hitboxes. Just a path of a projectile inside aircraft, tearing through modules it passes through and leaving the others intact.

C'mon ppl, stop guessing, the terms are obvious! And if they would not be, I've explained them several times already!

 

I won't be able to link a quote by the devs (it was a long time ago, in LO-non-FC era), nor is it needed. Check your own video link, 04:47. The plane was riddled with MG fire through the side of a cockpit, all the side area, tail and engine. The other side is clean and polished (except for the tail which is obviously a single piece), the pilot lives, not a single round hit it. Obviously, the engine on the other side is not hit. This would not be the case if internal tracing was present.

 

I can live with that on some Ka-50 where missed and exploded behind you rocket would shower you with shrapnel (which it doesn't), but accepting this lack of damage modelling in WW2 or pre-guided-missile era is way more. Seing, say, a wing coming off without scoring enough hits to its structure after playing IL-2, RoF and WT is just lacking. It is equally lacking if your Ka-50 or UH-1 is being shot at with MGs, but this case is rare. With WW2 it is constant. And IMO it is a bad thing.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Черный Дракул

[NineLine]

I

I won't be able to link a quote by the devs (it was a long time ago, in LO-non-FC era), nor is it needed. Check your own video link, 04:47. The plane was riddled with MG fire through the side of a cockpit, all the side area, tail and engine. The other side is clean and polished (except for the tail which is obviously a single piece), the pilot lives, not a single round hit it. Obviously, the engine on the other side is not. This would not be the case if internal tracing was present.

 

Damaged is displayed by simple texture swaps as damage levels increase, I am sure this is what you are seeing, the visual representation of damage isnt always in line with actual damage.

[Черный Дракул]

Damaged is displayed by simple texture swaps as damage levels increase, I am sure this is what you are seeing, the visual representation of damage isnt always in line with actual damage.

Did you see a texture swap on the other side? You didnt -- because it has an original shiny texture until directly shot at. This shows that none of the bullets which hit one side did actually pass to and through the other side to change it's "damage levels".

 

Of course, showing is not proving, but checking for the proof yourself would be easy -- just have your buddy man a jeep and shoot you a bit. Or better yet, a tank -- I'm guessing that 120mm AP shells should generally not do any noticeable damage untill they directly hit something hard, like an engine or gearbox.

[NineLine]

You miss my point, the point is the damage that is done may not be reflected by the visual damage model....

[Random]

Sithspawn I don't think this is about the visible damage decals at all. More the damage to be modelled based on where the rounds go after striking the aircraft. I.E. a 20mm AP round in one side and actually out the other damaging any systems it passes through in between.

 

Simple test would be to park a couple of aircraft very close and fire single shots from various weapons through the vertical stab. Shoukd register hits to both aircraft in the debrief if the rounds are travelling through

[NineLine]

Sithspawn I don't think this is about the visible damage decals at all. More the damage to be modelled based on where the rounds go after striking the aircraft. I.E. a 20mm AP round in one side and actually out the other damaging any systems it passes through in between.

 

Simple test would be to park a couple of aircraft very close and fire single shots from various weapons through the vertical stab. Shoukd register hits to both aircraft in the debrief if the rounds are travelling through

 

Well that is something different as well... I dont think physical penetration is modelled to the degree that a round will go through and hit another object, much like fragmentation of a bomb. But I do believe its modelled within one plane, that the rounds do internal damage, but the visual system doesnt show that.

[Random]

Well if it's within one aircraft its good enough IMO. Though I'd love some way of actually seeing what damage is done in a track file or something.

[NineLine]

Well if it's within one aircraft its good enough IMO. Though I'd love some way of actually seeing what damage is done in a track file or something.

 

 

I would think ED has a way to debug damage, but no idea how myself. The model internal systems to work as they do in real life, and fail as they should...

[Черный Дракул]

You miss my point, the point is the damage that is done may not be reflected by the visual damage model....

If you have doubts even after video demonstration, launch the game and do a check it yourself. In fact, a simple mission where infantry shoots directly at you through the UH-1 is more than enough. You will die only when your helicopter is "destroyed". Then try the same infantry head-on to check how the "direct hit to a pilot" is scripted.

Although I wthought it was obvious for people actually playing the game.

 

But I do believe its modelled within one plane, that the rounds do internal damage, but the visual system doesnt show that.

You believe wrong, my friend. Rounds will not go through the model and damage something on the other side. Edited August 11, 2014 by Черный Дракул