DCS World 1.5 and 2 Discussion

[Buzzles]

Do you noticed the F-5 ( mig-28 ) in last L-39 stream?

I know its just an AI. but I can dream good stream thanks matt

https://www.youtube.com/user/wagmatt/videos

 

 

Dartuil, all info is here, it's looking like a new module:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144487

[X93355]

Hi ED,

 

Not sure if this has been asked, but what will happen with the activation of modules for DCS World 1.5 / 2.0?

 

I only ask, as I've used up a lot of my activation's via upgrades/rebuilds etc.

 

Thanks

[dartuil]

I noticed matt is looking many sometimes in the F-5 direction before he took off.

Smart move matt. :)

Maybe Im paranoid so dont follow me.

But I liked this stream very much give me the need to buy L-39!

[TomOnSteam]

Hi ED,

 

Not sure if this has been asked, but what will happen with the activation of modules for DCS World 1.5 / 2.0?

 

I only ask, as I've used up a lot of my activation's via upgrades/rebuilds etc.

 

Thanks

 

I believe your DCS World installation will be patched, just like it always is with the minor patches. I don't think any activation will be required for already installed modules.

[thxne]

I believe your DCS World installation will be patched, just like it always is with the minor patches. I don't think any activation will be required for already installed modules.

 

That would be cool. I'd prefer that over having two separate versions.

[SilentGun]

DCS World 2 Discussion

 

I noticed matt is looking many sometimes in the F-5 direction before he took off.

Smart move matt. :)

Maybe Im paranoid so dont follow me.

But I liked this stream very much give me the need to buy L-39!

 

 

:) he also said "hey what's that F-5 doing there?" :P

 

Looking forward for the release of the L-39 and the ghost F-5 project.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Matts comment in the L-39 intro " Hey whats that F-5 doing there..." I died.

[Silver_Dragon]

F-5 discussion here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2440135#post2440135

[karambiatos]

"former mig-31 pilot"

 

ohhhhh man, my heart strings are being pulled.

[Fri13]

About 13:35 position about dropping 250kg (500lb) bomb next to tank (or older MBT like T-55) would not destroy it but just detract it etc:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o-EsH_kNTCIJ:sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf+&cd=17&hl=fi&ct=clnk&gl=fi#10

 

beginning in 1988 and reviewing the results of this four-yeartest of the effects of the basic Soviet 152-mm and US 155-mmrounds.Background. In the early 1970s, the Army began develop-ing force-on-force models to work effects issues. An out-growth of this work has been the development of battlesimulations used for training. The realism of these models andsimulations depends on the accuracy of the database used torepresent the effects of combat on the battlefield.

 

Both the US and Soviet estimates on effects against “soft”targets, such as personnel, trucks and radar, were about thesame. But there was a significant difference between theamount of HE the Soviets and US estimated it took to defeator kill armored targets.For example, to achieve 30 percent effects against an ar-mored personnel carrier, the Soviets estimated it would take2.8 fewer rounds than US estimates. “Thirty percent effects”was defined as damage that would keep the vehicle fromcontinuing the battle, but it wasn’t enough damage to “de-stroy” it. The number of HE rounds in the Soviet estimates for30 percent effects against tanks was only slightly higher thanthe number required for armored personnel carriers.

 

 

Further research revealed the Soviets had a large data-base developed by an extensive live-fire test program.A basic difference existed in the way damage criteria wereused. The Soviets had two criteria: “damaged,” which meansunable to continue to fight, and “destroyed.” The US used“estimated time of repair” as the yardstick for damage inmodels. If damage could be repaired in less than 30 minutes,it was not counted; 30 minutes to one hour was assigned as avalue; one hour or more had a value; and so on.

 

Test Results. The first test was conducted in 1988. Re-searchers confirmed that the US 155-mm HE round was areasonable surrogate for the Soviet 152-mm HE round. AnM109 155-mm howitzer battery using Soviet fire directionand gun procedures fired the test. The targets were manikinsplaced in fighting positions, US trucks, M113 and M557armored vehicles, and M-48 tanks. Several different com-puter models were used to predict results. The test was firedthree times using 56 HE rounds with point-detonating (PD)and variable-time (VT) fuzes.The resulting effects on the trucks and personnel were closeto model predictions. However, the effects on the armoredvehicles and tanks were significantly higher than modelpredictions.The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehiclesand tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Frag-mentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored ve-hicles, destroying critical components and injuring the mani-kin crews. (See an example of such damage in Figure 1.)

 

Myth #1—It requires a direct hit with an artillery roundto damage or destroy an armored vehicle.

Not true; 155-mm rounds that impact within 30 meters cause consider-able damage (Figure 5). Air bursts using VT or dual-purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) canstrip away communications, sights, vision blocks andanything stored on the outside of the vehicle. These airbursts are especially effective against soft targets such asmultiple-rocket launchers (MRLs). (See Figure 6.)

 

Myth #2—It takes 50 artillery rounds to destroy ordamage a tank.

Not true. It takes one round (Figure 7). Ifan artillery battalion engages an armored formation (54rounds), more than one tank will be destroyed or dam-aged.

 

Myth #3—Artillery cannot engage moving targets.

It isdifficult, but it can be done. The issue is not lethality, butthe tactics, techniques and procedures to hit the movingtarget. Units must train to shift fires.

 

Myth #4—Modern armor cannot be defeated by artil-lery.

Tanks are designed to kill tanks, and most of the armor is designed to protect against direct fire. HE roundswith VT or delayed fuze and DPICM are very capable ofdefeating “modern” armor (Figure 8).

 

Myth #5—Armored vehicles can button up and drivethrough artillery fire.

Yes, they can. But as soon as theybutton up, their ability to see is reduced by approximately40 percent. And as they drive through the artillery fire,there is a high probability they will have mobility andfirepower damage or that the formation will change itsdirection of attack. The results are delay and suppressionof armor.

 

 

 

A 155mm HE shell is "just" 10.8Kg TNT projectile. While 250kg FAB-250 bomb has 120kg TNT.

 

Here is video of WW2 era german 50kg and 250kg HE bomb. WARNING, starts with loud volume!

And here is the documentary for that testing:

 

Dropping such to 50-150 yards from a armored vehicle isn't pleasure, and it will do way more damage than a single 155mm HE shell with 10kg TNT.

 

The armor in even modern MBT sides and rear isn't very thick, it can be just a inch or two at weakest points where even a normal RPG-7 can penetrate from the side at weak position easily. And a 250kg bomb will deliver even higher impact than that chemical grenade.

A 250kg bomb fragment can penetrate at 100m distance even 84mm RHA, and that hitting a armored vehicles is a devastating.

 

So sure I hope DCS2 will include better modeling for ground units, where 250kg HE bomb dropped to 30-100m distance can damage the vehicle so it can't anymore operate (the soviet determination), but will not blow it up, so it can be recovered and maybe repair in a time (but not in minutes or hours).

[NineLine]

Sorry, this is pretty off topic for this thread, might try it somewhere else.

[ekg]

What is DCS 1.5? I thought there were no more updates between DCS 1.28 and 2.0

[Nate--IRL--]

What is DCS 1.5? I thought there were no more updates between DCS 1.28 and 2.0

 

Basically 1.5 = 2.0 -Nevada.

 

Nate

[kontiuka]

What is DCS 1.5? I thought there were no more updates between DCS 1.28 and 2.0

Like Nate said, it won't include Nevada.

 

It should at least include the following (stolen from first post):

 

Direct X 11 support

Improved performance

Improved lighting

Higher object counts

Better graphical effects (at least better smoke, flares, and contrails)

Better use of multiple GPUs (CPU multi-threading is not being pursued as it will provide little if any gain)

Unified front end and simulation .exe

Improved API sound support

Improved visibility of other aircraft and ground units

New GUI

New task options for AI

 

There should also be several bug fixes and hopefully a few more toys: L-39, P-40F, Enemy Within campaign.

Edited July 28, 2015 by kontiuka

[cichlidfan]

So 2.0 will just be the release of an optional map?

[NineLine]

So 2.0 will just be the release of an optional map?

 

The updates and changes to the core to allow new maps to be added. Its a bigger deal than it might sound.

 

Also I think a number of features wont make it into 1.5, so I would imagine the will follow with 2.0 or later.

[kontiuka]

So 2.0 will just be the release of an optional map?

plus a lot of stuff that might not be ready for 1.5. Could be improved clouds, better explosions, better ATC, etc.

[ekg]

The updates and changes to the core to allow new maps to be added. Its a bigger deal than it might sound.

 

Also I think a number of features wont make it into 1.5, so I would imagine the will follow with 2.0 or later.

 

I'm assuming 1.5 will come out before 2.0? Is there a release date for 1.5?

[NineLine]

They are hoping for September.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2440065#post2440065

 

You can watch the latest News & Q&A there...

[ekg]

They are hoping for September.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2440065#post2440065

 

You can watch the latest News & Q&A there...

 

thanks!

[Raven68]

Dedicated server feature wont be implemented in 1.5...correct? I was hoping since we are basically gonna be beta testing the hell out of this release it would be nice to see how well the multiplayer code can handle the numbers. Maybe dedi-server is not needed to see how well it responds?? :dunno:

[NineLine]

Dedicated server feature wont be implemented in 1.5...correct? I was hoping since we are basically gonna be beta testing the hell out of this release it would be nice to see how well the multiplayer code can handle the numbers. Maybe dedi-server is not needed to see how well it responds?? :dunno:

 

There are features that just simply arent ready, if dedi-server was ready I am very sure they would want all of you testing it. I dont think its going to make 1.5 though.

[Raven68]

There are features that just simply arent ready, if dedi-server was ready I am very sure they would want all of you testing it. I dont think its going to make 1.5 though.

 

It's cool Sith. I will be optimistic in hopes that we will see 2.0+ before the years end and enjoying the new map/s and most of the desired (multiplayer) features over the holidays. :)

[joebloggs]

Percentage wise - What performance gain can we expect to see in the black sea map with 1.5? My frame rates are between 50-60 on the current engine, but I'd like to know if this will increase significantly when 1.5 is introduced? Are we looking at something like a 20% increase or more?

 

Will 1.5 use more of the GPU or is it still going to be CPU dependent like the current engine? One thing Matt never says during the streams is what FPS he is getting.

[SkateZilla]

Percentage wise - What performance gain can we expect to see in the black sea map with 1.5? My frame rates are between 50-60 on the current engine, but I'd like to know if this will increase significantly when 1.5 is introduced? Are we looking at something like a 20% increase or more?

 

Will 1.5 use more of the GPU or is it still going to be CPU dependent like the current engine? One thing Matt never says during the streams is what FPS he is getting.

 

That would be hard to Answer realistically as Optimizations are likely still taking place.