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

[Baikingu]

Notice how it takes 5-10 hits to kill. Yet when the bullets hit the ground it looks like 20mm canon hit (almost)
Note: I have been shot down/badlt damaged by inf. small arms(ak-47) in the Huey/Gazelle after taking just what seemed like maybe 20 hits. (Have not tested this for a fact. But it has happend more then once)
So if 20 hits to a helo can take it out/badly damage it then surely 1-3 hits on an inf. unit should be a kill.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Baikingu said:

Notice how it takes 5-10 hits to kill. Yet when the bullets hit the ground it looks like 20mm canon hit (almost)

 

A one forum member, Taz1004 does maintain own mods for various effects, example

And one should be with some effect changes as well for various water splashes and especially for smoke (better smoke or something).

 

But that is one of the old legacy methods where small caliber bullets and other impacts are heavily exaggerated, but then larger explosions are faint or vanish very quickly.

Like we should barely see anything from a 7.62 so, some slight dust effects could be here and there but nothing major like now. So only when you are spraying more hits on the same area there would dust get raised etc.

 

1 hour ago, Baikingu said:

Note: I have been shot down/badlt damaged by inf. small arms(ak-47) in the Huey/Gazelle after taking just what seemed like maybe 20 hits. (Have not tested this for a fact. But it has happend more then once)
So if 20 hits to a helo can take it out/badly damage it then surely 1-3 hits on an inf. unit should be a kill.

 

Just like infantry, we need to wait to get the vehicles get the new damage modeling. So example shooting through a Mi-8 cargo area is just mainly penetrating walls and not the engines or other instruments. While hitting to turbine location is more effective, and cockpit is very vulnerable for the small caliber fire as pilots are there.

So considering that if we get a decent damage modeling, then lots of things should start changing a lot. At least in ED own images of WIP of damage modeling, they do have the pilots added as simple shaped forms, where pilot head seems to be very vulnerable.

 

 

If you do not hit the individual components, it is just through etc.

These damage calculations are not CPU consuming tasks, as it is done only when unit receives impacts. And not many unit is going to receive simultaneously hits that would generate to such large loads that it would consume so much processing time to affect the performance.

 

For a aircraft it is the flight modeling changes that is heavy task when damage starts to change it. For infantry it is easy thing as you have just couple animation states / positions that affects them individually if flagged such.

 

So we need to simply wait that ED is advancing in their new damage modeling at near future so we can start to have better effects and results for attacking, making more challenging (and rewarding) experiences.

 

 

 

[Shadow KT]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

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.

Seems like a lot of people don't realize how much depth DCS actually has...

 

Anyway, that is all cool and you make a wishlist thread, but this is a bug thread and I would like to have what is in the game already... fixed.

 

A lot of what is desired can already be achieved with what is in the game, if ED decides to spare some time to do tweaks, or even work with some of the community members, who have thought about a lot of the issues

[schmiefel]

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

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

 

and again: you are going to 'wish' that DCS 'advances' more towards ARMA, that is mainly designed for simulating RTS ground battles and lacks a lot in air operations and flight dynamics and anything else that is done in the skies that DCS is one of the most advanced simulations for today. Maybe that is possible some day and would be really 'nice' to get a battle simulator that covers all aspects of 'modern' battlefield action.

 

But then: what about the navy part? There are even players that like to drive big destroyers or even manage a whole battle fleet... and and not to forget: SDI - there are even those 'neat' surveillance satellites, killer satellites and global communication systems, ICBMs etc. that need to get operated, defended or destroyed with a high simulation grade ... and while you are there don't forget the electronic and information warfare, assymetric warfare etc. all those parts DCS is lacking a lot or even hasn't anything to play with...

 

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

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.

 

Looking at the ARMA community versus the action oriented FPS players base I really doubt there is much effort in putting ARMA kind of play stuff into DCS as there are not so much players you could attract by this.

 

Plus: You are aware that all further development of Combined Arms has been stopped for now as developers have a lot more important tasks to achieve. Draw your conclusion from this...

I predict that is because the most part of the DCS community is about air combat with all of its aspects and not highly sophisticated ground battle with simulation of every individual fight situation. And most times air combat was and is used since WW-II to achieve the control over a battlefield and to get strategic advantages by killing support lines, destroying industrial infrastructure or attacking assembling or retraction areas - i.e. attacking big structures and vehicles or masses of soldiers. That individual soldiers or even small groups of them get killed from an air attack happens most times by chance and not by planning.

 

So back to the 'problem': as far as I can see all that DCS needs in some parts is a more balanced weapon and ammunition system that better calculates the impact of different kind of weapons and ammunition on different targets. Everything else like hit boxes for individual parts of a soldier or calculating where a single bullet has to hit a tank, truck, car etc. to gain a certain kind of damage is wishful thinking and has the potential to lead to more problems atm. than it would solve real problems of the actual main focus of DCS . For the air to air battle it makes sense to have an advanced damage model because the main focus here is like in any FPS the fight head-to-head where every single hit may have a more or less severe consequence.

Edited December 21, 2020 by schmiefel

[Flappie]

I agree with @Shadow KT, all what is asked here is some balancing so infantry units don't look like T-800 Terminators.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Flappie

[Renko]

+1 with that change on values.

The Helicopter/Combined Arms Operations needs some love, or at least any attention.
And in 2021 we are gonna get two new helicopters, maybe

[BIGNEWY]

We dont have a unit damage model currently, we plan to. 

 

For now we have heath bars and penetration values, its the same for all units in DCS currently. 

 

 

[Shadow KT]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We dont have a unit damage model currently, we plan to. 

 

For now we have heath bars and penetration values, its the same for all units in DCS currently. 

 

 

There is no modular damage, but there are different levels of damage and AI performance is degraded with more damage inflicted...

 

Anyway, as I am underlining couple of times now... This is not about feature requests... This is a bug report and what is wanted is that damage be adjusted to a realistic value.

 

I can go about such issues on multiple units

Edited December 22, 2020 by Shadow KT

[BIGNEWY]

I have reported it to the team for improvement, I cannot promise any change currently, it may require our unit damage model for improvement.

[BIGNEWY]

I have spoken to the team, infantry damage is adjusted for gameplay, if infantry die to easily it is difficult to create fire fight scenarios.

 

The infantry are considered to have body armour, closer engagements 7.62mm is lethal, at longer ranges like this they do have a higher chance to stay alive / require more hits. 

It will remain this way until we can address unit damage in a better way. 

 

thanks

 

[Shadow KT]

Well... Right now what happens is you see people struggling to kill infantry from the huey, wasting hundreds of rounds to get one guy.

 

AI in vehicles kills them easily anyway,so... 

 

Infantry already has poor enough accuracy at a distance to prolong a fight.... I believe we don't need this gameplay *feature*

 

Most people use bombs anyway. The huey is limited enough against everything, you even get a hard time against infantry

[Shadow KT]

Okey... What about this:

 

Lower the rate of fire for infantry, so they are shooting single fire or two-three shots per burst... That way inaccuracy is calculated every time they shoot and allows for infantry to survive a burst, when hit.

 

Combine that with increased engagement range up to a kilometer and keep the increasing inaccuracy,which comes with range.

 

This way you get your extended firefights as infantry doesn't waste so much ammo per shot, has less chance to cause a one burst kill and can simulate longer range fights, where no one hits anyone

 

This satisfies both sides and everyone can be happy. Please considerate, as it is solution, which again is based on what is already in the game and doesn't require new features @BIGNEWY

Edited December 23, 2020 by Shadow KT

[wilbur81]

I would love to see more mission builders creating fast mover missions that have realistic infantry movements on the ground. A player flying CAP at 35K feet in a Tomcat may never see any of it, but it adds an INCREDIBLE level of realism, interest, and sense of purpose for the fast-mover missions. Before kids when there was a bit more time  I used to create little intimate scenarios such as having a terrorist group occupying a 'safe-house' and adding triggers that caused Special Forces to start attacking the house... and then more triggers that led to the terrorists driving away in a truck convoy that some Warthogs needed to neutralize. I flew CAP for this while it was all happening. People know this, I think, but the mission editor is a remarkably powerful tool. But the big limitation for most of us is time and the fact that after creating cool missions, there's no surprise. All that said, 'boots on the ground' make all missions in DCS (including pure air-to-air) much more interesting in my opinion. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by wilbur81

[Shadow KT]

Bump, for the solution, which doesn't require new features and suits both sides

[Fri13]

On 12/23/2020 at 6:41 PM, Shadow KT said:

Okey... What about this:

 

Lower the rate of fire for infantry, so they are shooting single fire or two-three shots per burst... That way inaccuracy is calculated every time they shoot and allows for infantry to survive a burst, when hit.

 

Combine that with increased engagement range up to a kilometer and keep the increasing inaccuracy,which comes with range.

 

This way you get your extended firefights as infantry doesn't waste so much ammo per shot, has less chance to cause a one burst kill and can simulate longer range fights, where no one hits anyone

 

This satisfies both sides and everyone can be happy. Please considerate, as it is solution, which again is based on what is already in the game and doesn't require new features @BIGNEWY

 

 

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

For now I have marked the thread correct as is, this is the intended behaviour. 

[Shadow KT]

Well... I hope the idea is at least taken into consideration, as it aims to make DCS a more realistic simulation and doesn't require new, core features