The nuclear poll (version 2)

[GGTharos]

IIRC ARMA is an excellent example of countermoeasures not keeping cheats out.

[RedTiger]

I'm going to renege a bit on what I said earlier. Some are saying there's not reason to include them, as did I. What would you all say to the idea of including them, or any weapon for that matter, simply for the sake of authenticity and completeness?

[GGTharos]

Then we may as well start including chemical and biological agents ... WMDs are always a special case I think.

[Ferocious_Imbecile]

Then we may as well start including chemical and biological agents ... WMDs are always a special case I think.

 

Yes, and really what do chem/bio/nukes add to war?

 

Horrible clumsy clothing is what.

 

Do you want to simulate wearing a rubber suit with diapers on a hot summer day?

 

Basically any warzone with tactical nukes in it is going to grind to a halt in short order. I've seen people who've been irradiated and all they do is flop around in a feverish delirium vomiting and soiling themselves with diarreah. Not something you want in a helicopter sim.

[bandera]

If you fail intercept them, you'll see a big result :)

Guys, we must remember, that now it will be only helicopter in DCS. If somebody will can intercept an atomic bomber by black shark, he will be a national hero :).

[159th_Viper]

Guys, we must remember, that now it will be only helicopter in DCS. If somebody will can intercept an atomic bomber by black shark, he will be a national hero :).

 

Never Fear - The Trusty 'ol Vikhr will sort out that Bomber :D

[RedTiger]

Yes, and really what do chem/bio/nukes add to war?

 

Horrible clumsy clothing is what.

 

Do you want to simulate wearing a rubber suit with diapers on a hot summer day?

 

Basically any warzone with tactical nukes in it is going to grind to a halt in short order. I've seen people who've been irradiated and all they do is flop around in a feverish delirium vomiting and soiling themselves with diarreah. Not something you want in a helicopter sim.

 

This is a good point, and its something you have to consider. I can remember back when the original Combat Mission came out, some people were not satisfied with out the game showed casualties. To those who weren't satisfied with this, the question was asked "where do we draw the line"? Should they have shown limbs being blown off? Soldiers soiling themselves?

 

These questions become more interesting when you talk about a simulation since the ultimate goal is probably zero abstraction. I think GG is right, WMD are a special case. I'm not saying I would be against having them, but I am saying that it seems unlikely a developer would want to bother. It'd be like a pandora's box opening. Once you decide to have them, you're going to have to simulate them correctly, even all the nasty after-effects. I think nukes in a modern sim are unlikely unless its some sort of nuclear bomber sim where the bomber is too high to see the direct effects and doesn't stick around to find out.

[SUBS17]

You can model the after effects by missions in the campaign or even online missions as it would create an area where there is high radiation it would just mean the addition of a geiger counter and no go areas. It basically depends on the mission types that the developers plan on making and how creative they are at making missions. COD4 had a nuke mission which was quite good and it certainly added alot to the story. Other sims that had nukes just show the flash and a mushroom cloud to improve on it you could also have EMP effect on the ground such as all civ traffic stops, house lights and street lamps off and a radius of destruction from where it explodes. Biological and chemical weapons would either be a smoke bomb effect or it might be a vehicle or aircraft that needs to be destroyed or stopped. You could go as far as having 3d models of ground troops wearing NBC kit. Theres no need to go any further than that unless you have different sized nukes from ICBMs with MIRVs to small suit case bombs. It would make a good addition to DCS or even as a mod I don't see any harm in it since the bulk of mission tend to be to stop the nuke going off.

[GGTharos]

It's a waste of time when there are so many other things, MUCH MORE RELEVANT to the applications of a combat helicopter of fixed winged aircraft, to develop - IMO anyway.

 

There's no need to model WMD's as anything other than part of a story, and if you REALLY want to simulate some sort of 'after effect', there's triggers and other fun things for the mission builder to use.

 

DCS is about combat flight simulation, not WMD devastation simulation, at least from what I can tell.

[amalahama]

I've seen people who've been irradiated and all they do is flop around in a feverish delirium vomiting and soiling themselves with diarreah. Not something you want in a helicopter sim.

 

Where are you seen that, dude? Really, I'm intrigued. Are you been in Chernobil or somewhere like that?

 

Regards!!

[Zembla]

Nukes...

 

No.

 

As people have said before me plenty enough. It doesn't fit the bill.

 

As people have said before me, there's plenty of other stuff that needs priority.

 

Wiping out half of your tactical map with one bomb... thats not why I fly sims. Even if it's in the game, I would find it highly unrealistic to fly around with a bomb like that under my wings. There are of course exceptions, but with the scenarios ED seemingly wants to portray, there's no real interest in escalating the war beyond conventional. There's no point, especially because the story wouldn't be any more interesting with nukes added.

 

-Z

[eurofor]

Many seem to think that all nuclear weapons are one-size-fits-all. There are smaller tactical nukes with not a bigger blast radius than a powerful conventional bomb. Just want to point that out. As I said I wouldn't mind seeing one in DCS (if they can get the data they need for it which I doubt) but of course there are hundreds of more important things with higher priority.

[joey45]

Only if they model one of the V bombers... But that will never happen.

[RedTiger]

Many seem to think that all nuclear weapons are one-size-fits-all. There are smaller tactical nukes with not a bigger blast radius than a powerful conventional bomb. Just want to point that out. As I said I wouldn't mind seeing one in DCS (if they can get the data they need for it which I doubt) but of course there are hundreds of more important things with higher priority.

 

Yes, I'm confused too. Why does everyone think nuclear weapons would do something like destroy a huge chunk of the map? As eurofor said, there are ones that are smaller than conventional bombs. Not all nukes are city-flateners.

[SUBS17]

Yeah theres a small back pack sized nuke thats used by both US and Russia for demolitions but I don't know if they are still used now. Can also get them to fit in 155mm/200mm shells which can be used. There was also the small nuclear missiles carried on tracked vehicles like the Honest John. I suppose they would be good for a cold war type scenario which is ideal for BS you can have quite alot of different scenarios that would fit with a KA50 sim where the mission end result might be to prevent one going off or escort a helicopter or vehicle carrying one. Nukes in most sims tend to add another aspect to missions you certainly know straight away if ones used. In Falcon if you use them in the campaign it becomes political and suddenly other countries join the fight against you. If you have a bigger terrain area covering more countries then nukes add a political aspect to the campaign and on a worldwide map would effect a countries support and possibly loose a campaign because of its use.

[GGTharos]

I believe - I might be wrong on this - that the fissile material in the shell-type nukes degrades very quickly.

 

In any case, if you would like a nuke to land on your spawn base, please dial 1, now :D

[Boberro]

Hmmm... after read next posts I think I really don't care about that atomic will destroy 1\4 of City or big 1 000 000 people city. Nuclear weapon exist in Russian arsenal and other countries, so IMO how DCS will be so realistic without this main fear weapon? It was designed to kill like other weapons...

[Groove]

You guys know that simulating nuclear explosions takes more than your tiny little CPUs to be done well ?

 

Im just saying "Roadrunner" or Top 500 No.1 place ;)

[Zembla]

Fair enough, I exaggerated. They could very well come in the form of something small to suit a specific objective. I dunno, bomb a bunker or something.

 

But do you really think they'd be used to have a small effect?

 

If they'd be used it would be as a last measure, a worst case scenario. It would be with the idea to whipe out as many as you can with one blast. A nuke doesn't have to be strategical to have the same goal.

 

I can think of little applications for a weapon like that. So if it isn't going to be giving a big bang, why use it? Why not use a conventional weapon?

 

You see the logic here? It doesn't matter whats out there, it's about the logic of using it.

 

-Z

[amalahama]

You guys know that simulating nuclear explosions takes more than your tiny little CPUs to be done well ?

 

Im just saying "Roadrunner" or Top 500 No.1 place ;)

 

Oh yes. And CFD is very computer-intensive as well ;). Obviously, some simplifications are taken for aerodynamics, the same for nuke effects.

 

Regards!!

Edited June 20, 2008 by amalahama

[SUBS17]

You guys know that simulating nuclear explosions takes more than your tiny little CPUs to be done well ?

 

Im just saying "Roadrunner" or Top 500 No.1 place ;)

 

I'd expect graphically a similar effect to a FOAB maybe a larger mushroom cloud and damage area depending on the yeild. For a flight sim its not necessary to model the bomb in great detail as such just a blast area where all objects inside are destroyed you would also want a mushroom cloud and the flash modeled as well. Probably make the screen go black to simulate blindness if you looked at it whilst it went off. Stuff like that precise detail isn't required for the sim to reflect it but you don't want a damage radius where everything inside is blown up.

[Peyoteros]

Yes please, nuke them all... does not have to be in the first release thou... with new engine the nuke is most welcome! Good simulation of nuke boom would look nice from inside of the cockpit.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Peyoteros

[159th_Viper]

At present - and I'm guessing when I say probably due to Engine Limitations - the explosion effect in LockOn leaves much to be desired.

 

Now I'm willing to go out on a limb here and vouch that the effect has in all probability not been improved at all for Black Shark. Honestly wishing I'll be called out and proved wrong here - who knows.........

 

That said - At this stage of the game - even if a Nuke would be implemented - I honestly cannot see how the effect would be able to be properly modelled due to again - Engine/Hardware Limitations etc etc etc in order to do justice to the Ordinance and the effect thereof subsequent to deployment.

 

"If you cannot do it properly then don't Bother" will IMHO probably find applicability here.

[Bucic]

"If you cannot do it properly then don't Bother" will IMHO probably find applicability here.

In this case there would be no simulators of the first two generations ;)

Still against nukes in DCS :P

[Peyoteros]

At present - and I'm guessing when I say probably due to Engine Limitations - the explosion effect in LockOn leaves much to be desired.

 

yeah, agree, explosion visuals and sound are so weak in LOMAC, I'm really hoping that in BS "ED" did put some effort to make it look and sound more real than Xmas fireworks. Cos now I'm not sure, did 500 lbs exploded or not ... :smilewink:

 

about the nukes in BS, sure, only planes which are able to carry nuke weapons should have them in armament, in this case AI planes only, cos no planes which are scheduled in future DCS release are nuke carriers. And IMO giving a human player ability to carry a nuke is a big mistake :D (talking about myself, u better hide)

Edited June 20, 2008 by Peyoteros