correct as is It takes an absurd amount of bullets (7.62) to kill a soldier at a distance

[Shadow KT]

Alright, did a quick test. it takes 3x7.62 to kill an infantry man at point blank... which is ... I guess reasonable, you can debate that it might need only 2, but body armor... yadayada...

At a 1000 meters tho... different story. 1 hit from 7.62 at that range deals 10 or less percent, which seems absurd. Meaning I literally need to shoot someone with 10-15 bullets at any reasonable distance for a helicopter to engage at.

It might be a placebo, but I definitely feel like miniguns did more damage not long ago (no I am not talking about the update, before which they could kill tanks)

7.62 Damage.trk

[Fri13]

We need more infantry types from usual ones, and majority shouldn't have a body armors. Anyways most that has body armors would have just them against fragments and not bullets.

So making a 5.45-7.62 kill a infantry with one hit would just be more realistic if there is no damage zones for soldier like limbs, upper and bottom torso and head.

 

But we need those calibers be deadly up to 1000 meters.

[Shadow KT]

Maybe not one hit... 2-3 hits seems a reasonable middle ground.... but having to hit an infantryman 15 times to kill him at 1000meters is just absurd. I don't even dare to check any bigger ranges. 
 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Shadow KT

[Fri13]

7 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Maybe not one hit... 2-3 hits seems a reasonable middle ground.... but having to hit an infantryman 15 times to kill him at 1000meters is just absurd. I don't even dare to check any bigger ranges.

 

If we would have a few status for infantry, it would be more acceptable for 2-3 hits.

 

Mental states

-Calm

- Worried/fearful

- Suppressed

- Paniced

- Aggressive (courage boost etc)

 

Physical states

- Healthy

- Injured Lightly

- Injured Seriously

- Incapacitated

- Dead

 

Now make any combination of those, and it would affect to the soldier capability perform their tasks.

And each infantry, on foot or inside any vehicle, would have such effects.

 

Now if we could have such accuracy that a small arms caliber impacts a torso and it is either incapacitated or dead, and for limbs it is various injure level, and head is dead. Then we could just have 1 bullet hit effects for each three hit areas.

 

We as well need extra protection and capabilities for the infantry. Standing, Crouched, Prone. Speed in Slow-Normal-Fast-Sprint.

Capability to quickly dig a small defensive prone position, in time to be able crouch there etc.

Now we would have smaller targets, cover, soldiers ducking in, taking cover etc and all weapons effects would start to be different. You would suppress enemy, get them fearing you, even if you don't even damage them at all.

 

So you don't even need to hit a infantry to be effective. Someone flying near you and spraying your location with minigun or firing MG at your position and you are suppressed, fearful and maybe panic even, but artillery etc weapons would be very effective for such moral states.

 

While infantry would gain lots of advances with extra protection and such, all weapons would become more effective against them as well. And suddenly the game starts to be more about combat than utilizing weapon in proper manner.

 

 

[Nealius]

I assume 7.62x51mm NATO? Those are not designed to kill out to 1000m, and expecting such is what's unreasonable. Depending on the weapon system and who's shooting it, 1000m is the maximum firing range, which is not the same as maxium effective range. Max effective range for a 7.62NATO fired from an M14--which is typically regarded as having high accuracy--is something like 460m.

[Shadow KT]

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

If we would have a few status for infantry, it would be more acceptable for 2-3 hits.

 

Mental states

-Calm

- Worried/fearful

- Suppressed

- Paniced

- Aggressive (courage boost etc)

 

Physical states

- Healthy

- Injured Lightly

- Injured Seriously

- Incapacitated

- Dead

 

Now make any combination of those, and it would affect to the soldier capability perform their tasks.

And each infantry, on foot or inside any vehicle, would have such effects.

 

Now if we could have such accuracy that a small arms caliber impacts a torso and it is either incapacitated or dead, and for limbs it is various injure level, and head is dead. Then we could just have 1 bullet hit effects for each three hit areas.

 

We as well need extra protection and capabilities for the infantry. Standing, Crouched, Prone. Speed in Slow-Normal-Fast-Sprint.

Capability to quickly dig a small defensive prone position, in time to be able crouch there etc.

Now we would have smaller targets, cover, soldiers ducking in, taking cover etc and all weapons effects would start to be different. You would suppress enemy, get them fearing you, even if you don't even damage them at all.

 

So you don't even need to hit a infantry to be effective. Someone flying near you and spraying your location with minigun or firing MG at your position and you are suppressed, fearful and maybe panic even, but artillery etc weapons would be very effective for such moral states.

 

While infantry would gain lots of advances with extra protection and such, all weapons would become more effective against them as well. And suddenly the game starts to be more about combat than utilizing weapon in proper manner.

 

 

This is way out of proportion and unnecessary for the issues at hand. Sure would be nice to have, but way too far fetched for now... 

What we need, like a lot of DCS issues, is a quick fix/adjustment.

Besides AI, in all its shapes, already has forms of degradation in terms of performance with sustained damage. Anything below 50% means slower movement to barely moving, degraded accuracy and reaction time with more damage inflicted (radar not working for radars at 50%) and if low enough on health, they will not engage at all.

 

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

I assume 7.62x51mm NATO? Those are not designed to kill out to 1000m, and expecting such is what's unreasonable. Depending on the weapon system and who's shooting it, 1000m is the maximum firing range, which is not the same as maxium effective range. Max effective range for a 7.62NATO fired from an M14--which is typically regarded as having high accuracy--is something like 460m.

We are talking miniguns here and NO... expecting 2-3 shots at that range to be lethal is not unreasonable. You get hit by that, it is not going to tickle, even though you are at a 1000meters. 15 shots to kill someone ... No!

But I am in no way saying that it should be 1 shot kill. Two, three or even is reasonable at any range, especially when we are talking for weapon systems mounted on vehicles... 

Even if you test ranges between 250 and 500 meters, it still takes 5-10 rounds to kill a soldier.

P.S. Just tested it... it took 5 shots to kill an infantry at 425 meters.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shadow KT

[WinterH]

4 hours ago, Nealius said:

I assume 7.62x51mm NATO? Those are not designed to kill out to 1000m, and expecting such is what's unreasonable. Depending on the weapon system and who's shooting it, 1000m is the maximum firing range, which is not the same as maxium effective range. Max effective range for a 7.62NATO fired from an M14--which is typically regarded as having high accuracy--is something like 460m.

Looking at some bullet mass and velocity figures, and a ballistic energy calculator online, it looks like 7.62x51 at 1000 yards (somewhat less than a kilometer, but not a lot) is still more than 10 times higher than a 9mm out of an MP-5 barrel point blank... Now, my test might be inaccurate, but even if we assume my result is wrong by a factor of 10, it would still be as powerful as a point blank shot from an SMG with 9mm.

As far as I know, maximum effective range figures are meant to show what is considered maximum distance where reasonably accurate aimed fire can be achieved, not necessarily the maximum distance where the projectile is still deadly.

 

So yeah, I would think 2 rounds tops, maybe 3 against a super-human dude on a lucky day, would be more reasonable to expect at that range.

 

Edit: and this should apply almost universally to 7.62 guns in DCS apart from AKs on infantry. 7.62 NATO and Russian 7.62x54R are fairly close ballistics wise, Russian round is a bit more powerful I think, but not hugely so.

 

Even 12.7x108 from Mi-8's YaKB seem to take 2-3 hits to take and infantry down from those ranges last I tried. Will test again later if I can.

Edited December 20, 2020 by WinterH

[Madone]

So far weapon effect is broken especially when you think about effect radiuses, I don't know if ED just doesn't have the data or if they don't want to do it bc that's not where the money is.

There are so many variables to body wounds but right now, AI behavior when getting shot at is ridiculous (moving 20m away and staying there for 2nd round). On the amount of bullets for a kill, it's not only the amount but also the power, that's why protected targets have an importance. 

 

Other than that, @Fri13 is pretty much on point on how it should be and I don't think it's too complicated, you don't need ballistics as good as in a FPS, the effect on target is what makes it interesting. I understand ED has trouble with their AI logic so that might take some time! The issue I see with this would be conflicting states with multiple engagements.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Nealius said:

I assume 7.62x51mm NATO? Those are not designed to kill out to 1000m, and expecting such is what's unreasonable. Depending on the weapon system and who's shooting it, 1000m is the maximum firing range, which is not the same as maxium effective range. Max effective range for a 7.62NATO fired from an M14--which is typically regarded as having high accuracy--is something like 460m.

 

Even a .22LR caliber is deadly for few kilometers, question is not that can someone hit you by aiming at you, but hat happens IF a such bullet will impact you.

A main battle tank like Leopard 2 with MG3 as its Coaxial is like a sniper at those ranges.

If someone even thinks that they are unharmed from a bullet from couple kilometers that hits directly on them and be just "Nah, just a scratch on a skin" is just fooling themselves.

If someone has a high level armor, then we can start to speculate when something will become effective to cause injury through those. But back on the day majority of soldiers didn't wear body armors, and those who had armored vests did have only against fragments and didn't want to carry multiple kilos weighting ceramic plates etc.

 

We do not have a body damage modeling in DCS, it has been irrelevant feature for long time because focus was heavily on fighters and those shot a 20-30 mm HE shells. And relative to ground wars for long time the infantry was just a "it is there" and nothing else.

But after adding Combined Arms that allows to man ground vehicles, to start adding more of a ground units capabilities and especially helicopters with smaller calibers (against infantry and unarmored or lightly armored vehicles) the required effectiveness with those weapons is mutual, as infantry shoots at helicopters and vehicles, and vehicles and helicopters need to shoot infantry.

 

That requires advanced damage modeling. We do not need to go for a old-school Soldier of Fortune 2 level, but even Soldier Fortune 1 from 2000 could be acceptable, but even that just "too much".

 

 

If we think about that in DCS context, that is more of a pilot level of damage modeling.

But it would be totally enough (IMHO) to have just fewer body parts than that.

 

Head

Upper Torso

Lower Torso

Left Arm

Right Arm

Left Leg

Right Leg

 

Like, for a sake of simulation one needs to just hit a arm to injure one badly or limit the accuracy, speed to react etc. HIt to leg and you make them slow, incapable to move or so.

HIt to head and they are dead. HIt to torso and they are alive but incapacitated.

We could even simplify the system from that, combine both arms and legs, so you just have "Arm" or "Leg". Combine torso to one. So you are left with four damage zones.

 

Head

Torso

Arm(s)

Leg(s)

 

Now there is enough damage zones to still make effective simulator. You came strafing with a P-47 a enemy lightly armored vehicle and you hit the troop transport section? You might have just killed 1-2 and injured 1-2 more. Vehicle would stop and you take 14 men - 4 so left is 10 men to form a self-defensive pattern and leave the wounded with even couple taking care of them from action.

Suddenly large amount of infantry and "low-end" (lightly armed) vehicles becomes more effective and critical major part of the ground combat.

 

In any manned vehicle, the weakest and most advanced element is a man. A pilot is responsible and capable to perform complex decisions quickly in fast situations, but same time it is heavily G limited, disoriented, stressed and damaged. On the ground majority are just "bullet sponges" but they are the forces that captures all areas, hold the ground and are the reason why air force etc exist as those ground troops needs to be supported by various means.

 

We can simulate the idea that bullet hitting some infantry from 1000 meters is "impact on arm" or "impact on leg". But it doesn't really fly even so as if someone would even lose a pinky toe because 7.62x51 hit it from 1000 meters, that person wouldn't really be walking anymore. It would be very painful experience. So idea that 10% damage would simulate it, is just absurd as there is nothing that one would die for impact on torso or head, or any critical area like artery etc.

 

If we do not have proper effectiveness of the small caliber weapons, it means as well that we need to drop a 250 kg bomb on each soldier as level of simulator dictates such action. And that means the combat loses its core element.

 We can keep flying at 10 km altitude and launching missiles at each others etc and believe that there is a war going on. But forgetting everything else just makes simulator extremely limited.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

But I am in no way saying that it should be 1 shot kill. Two, three or even is reasonable at any range, especially when we are talking for weapon systems mounted on vehicles... 

Even if you test ranges between 250 and 500 meters, it still takes 5-10 rounds to kill a soldier.

 

We need to remember one another flaw in DCS infantry simulation at this moment. It is same for all units really, but infantry is good example.

 

Every infantry shoots in full auto. They shoot bursts with short delay between. They can be either deadly accurate or then totally idiots that can't even hit a barn when inside it.

If one does a mission where infantry is in their engagement ranges and LOS, the engagement is over in couple seconds. As both sides will annihilate other side and there is just couple left after that.

 

You can not make any kind missions based to infantry engagements because you don't have any time to do anything there. So you are required to set the infantry as invulnerable and so on, so they would keep engaged while you are on area. But even then it is a such a light show that it is totally unrealistic.

 

With a 1 bullet to kill or injure, we actually can do lots of things to improve all that.

 

1) All soldiers to shoot by default single fire at longer ranges, full auto or burst at close ranges (< 25 meters or so).

2) All soldiers given a expected firing rate, slow shooting, slow aiming for accurate shots etc.

3) You really make the soldiers miss targets near their targets, not like 50 meters off at 150 meters, but really make them shoot at 1-2 meter radius.

4) Include the damage modeling, as eventually someone will hit enemy and there is need for Injured/Killed flags.

5) Every soldier should have means to take cover. No one is going to put their head out of the window if they know that there is a enemy aiming that window, waiting you to come to it. This will add length to the engagements.

 

Such will make possible to have very long firefights, hours or days long (in simulation mode etc) at longer distances, and at closer distances a ones that last minutes.

It means that automatically urban war is faster and more benefitical for defender than for attacker. In a forests it is more even as there is lots of cover but as well short distances. At open the defender has advantage in forest, while attacker on open field is vulnerable.

 

There just needs to be "one hit to kill" effects, as there should be sniper teams, a MG teams, average rifle infantry etc.

When logic and rules are added to simulator, it becomes more advanced and complex, without requirement to try to simulate it by the numbers as the game logic takes it by itself.

It is simple like: Two soldiers are 100 meters from each other. Other is standing and other is prone. Standing gives accuracy of 0.15, prone position gives accuracy of 0.7.  The other has capability to fire 12 rounds per minute (once every five seconds because aiming sway) and other has a 30 (prone has less sway, shooting from supported stance).

The target size (RCS) is changed by the stance (standing still = 1.5, running = 0.4, crouched = 0.9, prone 0.1) and so on aiming time (lock), spotting (detection) and firing rate are adjusted based those.

 

Simple rules like this automatically starts to make the ground war more complex.

 

And all this kind more advanced calculations are only required really be performed where player is watching or seeing the combat. In a large distant combat it is enough to have just a dice rolling by values. Like defender has bonus cover of X and attacker has disadvantage in accuracy because requirement of movement as Y. 15 soldiers vs 45 soldiers is 1:3 ratio so attacker wins.

 And this way it becomes more of a old school RISK game where dice is rolled and you want just more firepower. And CPU is not wasted for thousands of infantries modeling if there would happen tens of even couple hundred to engage each other suddenly (why the real calculations could be done, as if a 15 vs 45 men engagement could last in a real-time about 15-30 minutes then there is enough CPU time to do all the checking here and there).

 

 

[schmiefel]

A 7.62 NATO standard caliber is very deadly even fired at a distance of 1,500 meters if used in e.g. a G3 sniper version rifle. So, yes the MG3 in a Leo2 should be as deadly over such a distance. Not to mention the psychological effect a MBT firing at infantry has.

Its more or lese just matter of mass of the bullet, the energy it gets when fired and how good it gets stabilized through the barel and bullet design.

Therefrom it should be no rocket science calculating the impact over a certain distance. Multiplied with the chance of hitting certain parts of a soldier it should be possible to get good results simulating the different effects on infantry etc. without having to build a highly detailed damage model for such tiny elements of the sim.

Just my 2C

Edited December 20, 2020 by schmiefel

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

As far as I know, maximum effective range figures are meant to show what is considered maximum distance where reasonably accurate aimed fire can be achieved, not necessarily the maximum distance where the projectile is still deadly.

 

Maximum range is range that weapon can fire the bullet/missile etc itself as far as possible. So if you aim 30-45 degree up, you are going for maximum range. Some firearms can have little longer or shorter, as the barrel length etc are affecting the velocity the bullet will take-off, or just the platform that can't elevate weapon more upwards to shoot it further upwards.

 

Maximum effective range is what an average shooter is expected to hit as typical target. Scopes change the maximum effective range (iron sights vs 4x scope).

 

Then comes other terms like "accuracy" vs "precision". Precision is limited by the weapon + ammunition capability to hit at the aimed point. And accuracy is the skill that weapon can be aimed at wanted point.

So eventually you have accuracy limitations by the soldier, but final limitation is the weapon precision to be able shoot at aimed point so bullets doesn't hit something else than aimed point.

 

Many confuse the maximum effective range to maximum range.

And then is separate question, when does caliber become non-lethal?

And simple answer for that is: Never.

More complex answer is: Depends target protection and is the impact ricochet or direct hit and where it hits etc.

 

IIRC a 7.62x39 reaches its maximum penetration just past 600 meters. Before it the bullet is rotating around its axis with slight yawing. And at 600 meters range the bullet becomes perfectly stabilized so when it impacts, it will deliver all the energy straight in the bullet axis. Now the problem is that at 600 meters the bullet is traveling slightly downward/wind direction than from shooter perspective, so if you have a wall that you are shooting, it is traveling little longer distance through it than from closer range when it would be flying almost 90 degree angle.

 

But nothing of that kind is really required to be simulated as simple term is, if you hit someone with the 7.62 x 51 then it will be deadly. If the damage is calculated for whole body, it should be deadly. As that is same thing as if you would hit someone from 50 meters or 1500 meters, it should kill them same way. So if someone expects required to have 5 impacts from 1000 meters, then it is required 5 impacts from 5 meters.

 

As automatically right now we have other factors in, gun spread, trajectory change etc. So if someone manages to get a hit with minigun on soldier from 1000 meters, it should be deadly hit.

The caliber is not the limitation, weapon and shooter are.

[Fri13]

16 minutes ago, schmiefel said:

Therefrom it should be no rocket science calculating the impact over a certain distance. Multiplied with the chance of hitting certain parts of a soldier it should be possible to get good results simulating the different effects on infantry etc. without having to build a highly detailed damage model for such tiny elements of the sim.

Just my 2C

 

Why to make a complex probabilities and changes of something, when it can be simply modeled more easier manner?

The soldier models are under rework. First were in the Super Carrier for deck crew. But there is coming more for everything else.

 

We already have the bullet trajectories etc in the simulator. So accurate that we can really say that did the bullet impact an arm or a leg.

The only missing part is the soldier damage model to give the feedback "You did hit the arm/leg/head/torso" instead "you did hit the soldier".

 

We do not need to go to simulate anything more complex that "Roll a dice did you injure the enemy or did you kill it" when we already can know that did we hit the soldier on arm or leg.

We simplify that, hit on limbs is injuring, hitting torso or head is dead or incapacitation.

 

 

That is already far more complex than what would be for infantry. The current damage modeling is even more advanced than soldiers. So what would just be needed is to have a soldier modeled with current damage modeling level. No need to go for "heart, brains, lungs" etc. No need to try to solve it just random dice rolling at various ranges and so on.

 

Just use what already we have in ballistics simulation.

 

As this soldier/infantry damage modeling is required elsewhere as well, that is the pilot and vehicle crews.

For a pilot it is required to be for legs, arms head/torso as well. I don't think anywone would even require that is the hit a scratch or did it shatter a bone or go through artery etc. It is enough that if pilot either dies or get injured.

 

ED is not going to simulate a blood splatters etc in cockpit, but what could be done is to use G forces and hypoxia effects to simulate injure with pain, and then incapacitation and dying.

 

We need this for ground vehicles too as you don't need to destroy vehicles to render them incapable to fight. We have already models with vehicles where crews has hatches open and heads and upper torso visible. Now you have effect with MG's at them if surprising them in such case. Fragments etc effects right there. You can injure or kill part of the crews and render their capability fight effectively down.

And again just using body damage model and existing bullet trajectory simulation.

 

If the game logic is improved, it makes less demanding to script and do all other things just to get something more advanced done.

[schmiefel]

That's not the point: having a detailed damage model for one plane does not need as much calculating power than having one for a bunch of soldiers. Even if you take just a group (in the German army its about 12 soldiers) you have to caculate this for each member and follow the trajectory of each bullet in relation to them. I really doubt that our todays computers could handle this just for an ambush not to mention a whole battlefield. I would keep it much simpler as DCS is not Arma and just make a good assumption when a group of soldiers gets fired at with a certain type of ammunition from a certain weapon and distance.

Edited December 20, 2020 by schmiefel

[Nealius]

Maximum range is the range at which the projectile can be ballistically lobbed, regardless of how much energy it has at that point. Someone brought up the G3 sniper rifle. Precision rifles have specially designed barrels and shoot match-grade ammunition in order to be able to achieve such >1000m shots. Someone also brought up ".22lr can kill out to a mile".....no. At a mile it would only have 200fps left, and that will not kill a human. The official maximum range of an M134--the weapon focused here--is noted as being right at 1,000m. Sure it's probably going to be deadly, but the accuracy at that range is going to be shite and you'll be aiming the thing 10 degrees or more up into the air to arc the round that far. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Nealius

[WinterH]

Just tested it. Will try to put it in a quick and short video, but to write a few takeaways:
- It takes 5-6 rounds of 7.62x54R to put an insurgent infantry down at 1 km distance, tested from GShG on Mi-8 and PKT on BTR-80
- It takes freakin' 9 rounds of 7.62x51 to do the same at same distance. That difference doesn't seem right. Tested with M240 on Stryker and M1A2.

- Personally I would expect a solid hit from either on a vital area to be enough, but keeping in mind that damage model on infantry inside a flight sim might need to be somewhat simplified, I'd be mostly ok if it's 1-3 max.

Just to clarify, we are discussing effects of hits, not the ability to hit a pinpoint target at any given distance. So what I mean above are 5-6 hits and 9 hits with respective ammo types. Velocities of PKT, M240, and GShG should be within ballpark of eachother.

Edited December 20, 2020 by WinterH

[Fri13]

47 minutes ago, schmiefel said:

That's not the point: having a detailed damage model for one plane does not need as much calculating power than having one for a bunch of soldiers. Even if you take just a group (in the German army its about 12 soldiers) you have to caculate this for each member and follow the trajectory of each bullet in relation to them.

 

Doesn't change a thing from current one.

 

Right now the processing power goes for tracking each individual bullet that is fired. That is already done. Every single bullet trajectory, velocity etc is simulated, all to the impact of the infantry soldier.

You do not need to calculate anything on any count of soldiers - unless you hit them.

 

The damage modeling doesn't happen that the part that can be damaged, is performing check X times a second "Did I get hit?" and continue if answer is "No".

The damage modeling is just that when a hit is registered, it is then checked against that on what part of the model it was registered and then check from the table what is then the damage.

 

Nothing will change really than accuracy. As right now the soldier is one damage zone. And it is checked that after hit, how much health is taken away from the soldier.

We can split that damage model to four zones (head, torso, arms and legs) and still nothing changes in computational requirements. Now we just have a more accurate damage modeling where we can state more accurately the effect for the hit.

 

The damages are not calculated on the moment the bullet is spawned and trajectory is calculated, it is only done if the bullet hits in flight, that is to be predetermined in flight in long time. 

And if you shoot 500 bullets against 12 men group with a spread of 5 mil from 1000 meters, likely 495 bullets will not hit the soldiers, but the 5 bullets that does, gets processed just like now.

 

Only difference is really that lets say the 3 soldiers are hit, two of them twice.

1 Torso = Dead

2 Arm = Injured > Aiming and reaction time penalty

3 Leg = Injured > Movement and reaction time penalty

4 Leg & Arm = Injured > Movement, Aiming and reaction time penalty.

5 Arm & Head = Dead

 

Now you have two clear status for 5 soldiers of the 12, three of them has slowed speeds to move and inaccurate to shoot.

To have the bonus effect, two of the other soldiers from the 12 are required to take care of these three. Now you have just a 5 capable to fight back.

As the group effective strength has dropped to 40% it means that the group is ineffective to continue fight by any means.

So that group needs to be evacuated and replaced by a another (and that is another function and topic for dynamic campaign/mission) as AI logic features.

 

With those 500 bullets, you managed to kill two, and make the enemy squad withdraw from the location or stop their attack, making them vulnerable for counter attack for high change of victory and likely make them surrender.

Your gun made its task, and managed to save lives of your troops.

 

47 minutes ago, schmiefel said:

I really doubt that our todays computers could handle this just for an ambush not to mention a whole battlefield.

 

They manage it very well because it is not time sensitive things, of course if you try to make a scenario where you have 5000 soldiers vs 5000 on open flat field in row, and everyone starts shooting someone front of them at the same time.... That could put a slight slowdown for a second.

But that is the problem in DCS, CPU resources are wasted for useless and unnecessary calculations.

 

All the time your unit is performing checks inside its detection ring that is there an another unit that is enemy. Every second that check is made, check the LOS on them, check each individual that are they suppose to be attacked or not. And if there is a enemy unit, and the LOS checks out, then constantly is calculated tracking for aiming.

That is why when you put 500 units on the mission, they will kill the CPU as resources are wasted to check wrong things.

 

That is why we need a separate AI units, that are totally separate from each other AI. Where one AI task is to just cheat, by checking that what units should even perform such checks by looking around that when they are capable to spot other unit by range. If one soldier is 100 km from another, there is no reason what so ever for either one AI units to perform checks per second to see is there an enemy unit. Simply disable all those checks by the AI that simply waits that the units would get 500 meters from each other before considering such to be activated.

 

If you are standing in your base camp, you are not feeling threaten. You are not there check who can shoot you or who you can shoot. That is just waste of thinking and time. Only do that when you actually get dropped to such scenario where you are to engage someone, so after you have spotted an enemy. Even inside a transport vehicle you are just there chilling out.... You don't really see anything and there is no reason to do any checking if there is no enemy near by. You might not know that, but cheating AI knows that and it just disables the checkings from all that can't do it.

 

47 minutes ago, schmiefel said:

I would keep it much simpler as DCS is not Arma and just make a good assumption when a group of soldiers gets fired at with a certain type of ammunition from a certain weapon and distance.

 

So you want even simpler than it is now. You want to disable the ballistics, individual bullets damages, hit points, effects etc.

Even the Steel Panthers and similar hexagon map games has been doing for decades. Unit A is on the grid 122 and Unit B shoots at unit A, 15 rounds is shot in one turn, the values of moral, accuracy etc are rolled with dice and checked that what is the effect. Against each attack roll, the defender rolls a defensive roll that can they respond on fire on the same turn or need to wait for their turn.

 

The real war is not over in 5 seconds like in DCS. That is what DCS doesn't model, why it is wasting processing for trying to solve the whole war in split second, while in reality the combat could last hours to days.

 

 

 

[Fri13]

37 minutes ago, Nealius said:

The official maximum range of an M134 is noted as being right at 1,000m.

 

That is then a false information by official. As anyone can find out that M134 firing a 7.62x51 can fly further than 1000 meters.

 

37 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Sure it's still going to be deadly, but the accuracy at that range is going to be shite and you'll be aiming the thing 10 degrees up into the air to arc the round that far. 

 

It doesn't matter. Only thing that matters in this discussion is that what the caliber (7.62) in given cartridge (x51) is capable to do. 

 

If the bullet can fly past 1000 meters (as it will, unless the M134 is so ineffective that it will make the 7.62x51 have energy somewhere between .22 Short (about 1.5-2 km range) and a 4.5 mm air gun lead bullet (max range about 500 meters) so very very ineffective) then it will be deadly if it hits someone.

 

Now the topic is not that can you hit someone, but that what happens when you hit someone.

And currently it is that WinterH tested it to be 5-6 hits for x54 and 9 hits for x51.

 

That is already completely unrealistic. It is same thing as you would need same amount of hits from blank range!

 

The M134 minigun can have a maximum effective range of 1000 meters, because it is limited by the gun spread. So the weapon is not precise enough to allow average shooter aim accurately on the target and have expectation for hit with simple burst etc.

But nothing of that makes the bullet not lethal or ineffective at 1000 meters or past it.

 

The thing is, to spot a enemy soldier at 1000 meters, that tries to hide and avoid getting shot, is extremely unlikely to happen. The shooter is the limitation of the combination (man in the loop) and not the weapon itself.

 

And when you can not see enemy, but you know "It is top of that hill, somewhere 50-150 m area in there) then you want a weapon that has area effect, so you can shoot on that area and expect to have a effect on enemy.

Commonly that is called as artillery or mortar strike. You eliminate the target by firepower, instead precision.

 

And shooting with a minigun with such high spread is just wasting ammunition, even if the caliber itself is effective, because to hit something so small that you don't even see is so unlikely.

Considering that UH-1 would be flying just a couple hundred meters from the target etc, the minigun becomes extremely effective weapon because its spread, fire rate and caliber.

 

Now the problem is that miniguns are not effective because their calibers are not effective. It is like throwing a paper balls on someone and expect them to die for it.

 

[Shadow KT]

I think we all agree that the damage has to be adjusted.

 

The AI needing improvement is a whole new topic.

 

All I want is to get tweaks and adjustmenta of what we have right now...

 

Requesting features, won't get us anywhere... 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shadow KT

[schmiefel]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The damages are not calculated on the moment the bullet is spawned and trajectory is calculated, it is only done if the bullet hits in flight, that is to be predetermined in flight in long time. 

And if you shoot 500 bullets against 12 men group with a spread of 5 mil from 1000 meters, likely 495 bullets will not hit the soldiers, but the 5 bullets that does, gets processed just like now.

 

Only difference is really that lets say the 3 soldiers are hit, two of them twice.

1 Torso = Dead

2 Arm = Injured > Aiming and reaction time penalty

3 Leg = Injured > Movement and reaction time penalty

4 Leg & Arm = Injured > Movement, Aiming and reaction time penalty.

5 Arm & Head = Dead

You are well aware that calculation for 5+x (because overlapping of them has to be calculated as well) hit-boxes, instead of one with a statistical value (depending on armor, training and psychological status, kind of weapon, area. position ... etc.) which effect that one hitting bullet may have, has an impact on the CPU power you need for?

Again: I stand for that DCS is not Arma and we won't need more hit boxes for tiny objects like soldiers but maybe better tables for weapon and ammunition values and their impact on certain targets under certain conditions (which for sure have to be reduced as well or made out of good assumptions, because calculating every value that has influence on a bullet and its path, energy status etc. would require super computers just for a small amount of targets)

[Fri13]

21 minutes ago, schmiefel said:

You are well aware that calculation for 5+x (because overlapping of them has to be calculated as well) hit-boxes, instead of one with a statistical value (depending on armor, training and psychological status, kind of weapon, area. position ... etc.) which effect that one hitting bullet may have, has an impact on the CPU power you need for?

 

Penetration is not calculated. That can be left out completely for such small calibers (but not like a MBT firing APFSDS through a APC or truck full of people).

The hit boxes are already done, it is just currently just one hit box. It can very easily be divided to five zones without any extra resource requirements, just the contrary to make it lighter. The DCS engine is totally capable for that already.

DCS already does everything what comes to ballistics, hit detection and damage calculation, but it as well does everything very inefficient manner how all AI units are handled.

 

 

Quote

Again: I stand for that DCS is not Arma and we won't need more hit boxes for tiny objects like soldiers but maybe better tables for weapon and ammunition values and their impact on certain targets under certain conditions (which for sure have to be reduced as well or made out of good assumptions, because calculating every value that has influence on a bullet and its path, energy status etc. would require super computers just for a small amount of targets)

 

My argument is just the opposite, DCS is NOT THE ARMA. So don't try to make my argument as that it should be.

And we totally need more hit boxes for soldiers, because it is not just the infantry, it is every pilot, every vehicle crew member etc that requires more complex simulation for the overall digital combat simulation.

 

If you read my post again, I am not claiming that DCS should start to simulate the bullet penetration through a flesh and what kind a trauma modeling is made for it etc. Just the opposite, you either get hit or not. If you get hit, you either get injured or you die. It is very simple. There is no -20% HP or -5% HP calculations done. It is literally dead or alive.

If you get injured, the model gets the default capabilities adjusted (movement speed, reaction time, aiming accuracy, fire rate, spotting range etc) that already exist in the engine, for each individual soldier. Everything already exists in the DCS.

 What are requirements are new 3D models, new animations and all. And ED is currently working for it, starting with the Super Carrier deck crew where they have made skeleton modeling and animations etc.

 These same things are required for the ground crew for bases and to roadbases. It is mainly the difficult part of the 3D modelers and animators to make animated scenes for each required part, like how a driver will climb out of a T-72M3 and jump on ground. Then a another scene where that same model will change from standing to crawling or crouched, running etc.

Similar thing is required for the ground crew, a character steps in and out of a vehicle, walks meter away from it, to be able activate other scenes like walk vehicle rear to pull cable to aircraft fixed zone.

 

It really is not different from this how different animation scene is switched dynamically to another.

It requires extra work from the animator but it is doable. And considering that not all animations need to be super accurate, it becomes easier.

 

 

ED is currently working lots of the core features and such. And easy starting point is to make every small caliber bullet to kill any infantry on hit. As that is realistic compared to what is now. As we do not have capability to mark a soldier injured or dead, it just then needs to be dead.

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Fri13

[schmiefel]

I feel that debate leads to nothing ... I stand for that DCS is not a first person shooter but a highly sophisticated air combat and battlefield military simulation. I don't think we need such details for fighting with fighter aircraft against infantry. Maybe place more detailed hit systems for the aircrew members, but fighting from the air or on the ground with MBTs etc. against manpads or infantry squads doesn't need that kind of details to be plausible and immersive... plus: DCS has a lot more to fix and improve performance then adding more complex details that no one would really recognize from a few hundred feet obove the ground...

[WinterH]

So.... here goes:

This is the footage of me testing it.

BTW, just to clarify, while I often lament the lacking of AI in DCS units, this is about only damage done by rounds to infantry for me at this stage. AI is another whole another story, but this can be fixed a lot easier in my opinion.

[Fri13]

Considering how difficult it is already to hit a target, requiring so many hits is just totally unbalanced factor.

The DCS really needs more levels for effects, than just "working" and "killed".

And it doesn't get fixed by just adjusting the damage withstanding levels as in reality getting shot at puts a different aspect for defender and attacker relationships, and it is about time it should take to get the hit and effect, than just getting multiple hits to get the effect.

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, schmiefel said:

I feel that debate leads to nothing ... I stand for that DCS is not a first person shooter but a highly sophisticated air combat and battlefield military simulation.

 

Why we exactly need such.

 

3 hours ago, schmiefel said:

I don't think we need such details for fighting with fighter aircraft against infantry.

 

We are not talking about fighters only here. We are talking sophisticated air combat and battlefield military simulation that includes:

Infantry vs Infantry

Infantry vs ground vehicles

Infantry vs helicopters

 

As I already explained, fighters have typically 20-30 mm cannons with HE shells. That is devastating enough to kill any individual from direct hit, and even from near hit.

 

This is about how a small caliber bullets are ineffective against infantry from further distances and by requiring laughable amount of hits.

Why you can not model a sophisticated battlefield conditions as infantry is not properly modeled to begin with.

 

 

3 hours ago, schmiefel said:

Maybe place more detailed hit systems for the aircrew members, but fighting from the air or on the ground with MBTs etc. against manpads or infantry squads doesn't need that kind of details to be plausible and immersive...

 

Crews for vehicles etc are no different from the ordinary soldier.

The DCS is currently lacking severely everything about the ground combat. It is primarily MBT vs MBT or fighter/helicopter against MBT/SAM.

The infantry is there just to really have a MANPADS as a silent threat against air targets, while the AR/MG infantry is just to support a visual aspect for "they do exist" and more of a target practice for larger bombs and such than anything else.

 

The DCS lacks capability to model ground forces, the main branch of military to win (or lose in lack of) a war.

 

If we are going to get a dynamic campaign, the ground forces needs to be modeled acceptable level (much higher level than now). As war is not that where MBT platoon rolls everywhere fighting against other MBT's. Or SAM systems sit on open field to shoot fighters down from the skies.

All those are there to support and protect the ordinary soldier, those are the fist, the spine and the strength of any military. And when you strike to enemy troops, you cause devastating impact to enemy capabilities to operate in the area (so in the air or sea, not just on ground).

 

3 hours ago, schmiefel said:

plus: DCS has a lot more to fix and improve performance then adding more complex details that no one would really recognize from a few hundred feet obove the ground...

 

So we can as well then write off requirements for improved damage modeling, because you don't see the reason for it when a missile destroy target tens of kilometers distance.

We do not need the new weather engine or clouds either, because after all they don't affect to sensors or tactics to put a missile on fighter tens of kilometers distance.

We do not either need high texture or high polygon 3D models about fighters, as after all we just sit inside a cockpit.

We don't need any modeling for electronics, hydraulics etc because you anyway get hit by a missile and either die or eject and respawn again to fight a next day.

We don't need improvements to ground details like bushes, grass, trees or anything like that, because one doesn't enjoy those from 30 000 feet when trying to avoid a missile.

We don't need either any performance improvements because for years DCS has been possible be ran 90 FPS in VR or over that in display mode, and anyways there is nothing to stress the hardware in 30 000 feet and 50 km away from the enemy.

We can all use "That is not good idea, there are higher priorities elsewhere".

 

DCS has severe untapped potential, that is the Real Time Strategy element for RTS gamers, something that even ED has acknowledged, and works for to utilize in the future. The dynamic campaign, or even a semi-believable mission generator for 1-2 hour missions requires a lot more than what we have now. And key element in all that is the improvements for the ground troops behavior, functionality, capabilities etc. There is likely a 10 RTS gamers out there against every virtual pilot. And if one could make a detailed enough, complex RTS game with Combined Arms, one doesn't need much from the AI to run on servers, as humans would be there doing the complex missions.

This is not about FPS games, as you will not really find more than a handful FPS gamer that are ready to walk a 2-3 hour patrol on foot without seeing any action, but just enjoying from walking and looking around. But there are plenty of those who are ready to sit 12 hours to run a sophisticated strategies and tactics against other players in real time, even if it takes a 30 minutes to get one unit moving from one location to another, they enjoy from it. While FPS shooter would die for boredom if they would need to wait in one location for a transport helicopter or truck to arrive on their position so they can sit another 30-60 minutes in helicopter to arrive on location, to again travel something to get in the action, only to die for one bullet if putting their head visible.

 One can even play RTS game as in DCS and fly sorties and missions with in, as 30-60 minute session is nothing much on real time.

 

One can fly at 30 000 feet and pretend to be a Maverick's best friend, thinking that only thing that matters in world is him and the couple fighters far away. But that doesn't do anything else than push a DCS toward original Flanker from 1995.