Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

[JNelson]

Just now, NineLine said:

That's all things I can bring up for sure, I will need to dig into it a little more to understand, I think there is certainly a disconnect between what the Team knows and what modders want.

If we wanted to raise issues like this what would be the best place to raise them? Feature requests?

 

The radio improvement would take very little time to implement a lua hook for (I know because we reverse engineered the radio to work for the A-4). It would make it much easier for modders to implement radios in their mods and make mid air refueling possible for those that have the ability. 

[NineLine]

Good point, let me give it a think and ask what the Devs would like, maybe we need a Wishlist/Bug section for modding.

[Iron_physik]

15 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Probably play the game and see if there is an issue? Or use one of the methods to view the files people find out? As I said, many people report issues without referencing the weapons.lua.

How do you find exact values by just playing the game and looking at 3D effects?

I want to have these skills as well!

 

 

IRL I would be able to approximate the amount of explosives by looking at the fireball size,  but thats a mood point in DCS, because it repeats the same visual effects for multiple warheads sizes

 

I mean when I did some testing the jumps for new effects of air explosions where at:

1kg

10kg

and then I think above 100kg or so.

so doing it by "just playing the game" is not only very inacurate, it also would rely on knowing at what amount of filler causes which FX to be displayed

 

it also goes into the area of speculation I specifically mentioned to not be viable!

 

the next thing is "just datamine bro"

 

ah yes, and then loosing the syntax and all comments that often are needed to fully understand the code written by someone else.

you could also just handwave it away by saying "you dont understand the code, topic closed" (happens over at the other communities I mentioned sometimes)

 

 

no, for proper reporting I want a official way to look into the files to check each value, of not just warheads but also FMs

(remember, I also mentioned the track rate, motor burn time and thrust and other things of the AIM-9, not just warhead)

and the code for these things are more complicated than just a simple:

Warheads["zuni_127"] = //Zuni 127 HE
{
	mass = 22.0
	expl_mass = 22.0 //Warhead 22kg,. Explosive ??? kg + fragments

};

 

these comments are important

without them I had no way of knowing what exact warhead model ED wants for their Zuni rockets, because there is 6-7 different warhead types for this rocket

3 of which are explosive.

 

 

"zuni 127 HE" made it possible to figure out that ED wants the MK.24 warhead for the Zuni

 

not the MK.32 or MK.63

 

 

 

 

for track rate of AIM-9:

 

playing the game wont give a result, you need to get the actual value

Edited April 22, 2021 by Iron_physik

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

for proper reporting I want a official way to look into the files to check each value

That is not currently planned. 

 

Otherwise you will need to trust our process and added testing. Or report bugs how other do. People were able to report issues with Spitfire guns without seeing the files for this. You can raise concerns when things don't act as expected. At the end of the day, you will need to adjust to these changes as we all do.

[Iron_physik]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

That is not currently planned. 

 

Otherwise you will need to trust our process and added testing. Or report bugs how other do. People were able to report issues with Spitfire guns without seeing the files for this. You can raise concerns when things don't act as expected. At the end of the day, you will need to adjust to these changes as we all do.

ah, yes

 

 

 

so here my report:

 

fix the darn sidewinder missile of the B, H, J, L, M, and P models

I cant tell you whats wrong about them but they are wrong in pretty much every aspect from memory the last time I had a chance to check the files

so fix them!

 

 

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Iron_physik said:

ah, yes

 

 

 

so here my report:

 

fix the darn sidewinder missile of the B, H, J, L, M, and P models

I cant tell you whats wrong about them but they are wrong in pretty much every aspect from memory the last time I had a chance to check the files

so fix them!

 

 

 

Do you have proof on how they should work? If so, please see my guide on how to make a proper bug report in my signature, thanks.

[Iron_physik]

7 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Do you have proof on how they should work? If so, please see my guide on how to make a proper bug report in my signature, thanks.

I have but I wont show you them, because I am affraid of cheaters

Probably you should Look at real missiles and see you can find data? Or use one of the methods to view the PDFs that I have on my harddrive? As I said, many people report issues without referencing the real docs.

 

mh, weird, thats sounds awfully familiar doesnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Iron_physik

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

I have but I wont show you them, because I am affraidn of cheater

Probably you should Look at real missiles and see you can find data? Or use one of the methods to view the PDFs that I have on my harddrive? As I said, many people report issues without referencing the real docs.

 

mh, weird, thats sounds awfully familiar doesnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We ask for proof on all reports, so no. It doesnt sound familiar. While we welcome people to test and report bugs, its not required.
 

 

8 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

I cant tell you whats wrong about them but they are wrong

That's not a good start. If you could see our data, how do you know its wrong if you dont know how they work?

[Iron_physik]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That's not a good start.

lol you mean like you hiding the data?

 

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

If you could see our data, how do you know its wrong if you dont know how they work?

im talking about the performance of the missile compared to the IRL counterpart

 

Im very well aware of the function of the AIM-9 sidewinder family, as I am someone who wrote a lenghty article about them backed up by tons of primary sources

im also one of the main contributors on getting sidewinder performance right within "that thunderous arcade flight sim" because these devs actually manage to list the values used on the weapons and with some leg work by looking through the files you can find even more data to write incredibly detailed reports on all that stuff, like:

• Motor burn time + thrust
• Seeker angles
• Seeker track speed
• seeker FOV
• SEAM (yes or no?)
• Speed
• maneuvering performance
• mass
• size
• warhead
• range
• lock ranges
• priximity fuze trigger ranges (lol, if ED actually manages to model prox fuzes)

all these values are now hidden in DCS

and most of them cant just be figured out at by "just playing the game"

 

that needs the files, and the comments to fully know what each value in the code does, because the way it is written takes time to fully get behind (unlike the competition)

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

lol you mean like you hiding the data?

 

im talking about the performance of the missile compared to the IRL counterpart

 

Im very well aware of the function of the AIM-9 sidewinder family, as I am someone who wrote a lenghty article about them backed up by tons of primary sources

im also one of the main contributors on getting sidewinder performance right within "that thunderous arcade flight sim" because these devs actually manage to list the values used on the weapons and with some leg work by looking through the files you can find even more data to write incredibly detailed reports on all that stuff, like:

• Motor burn time + thrust
• Seeker angles
• Seeker track speed
• seeker FOV
• SEAM (yes or no?)
• Speed
• maneuvering performance
• mass
• size
• warhead
• range
• lock ranges
• priximity fuze trigger ranges (lol, if ED actually manages to model prox fuzes)

all these values are now hidden in DCS

and most of them cant just be figured out at by "just playing the game"

 

that needs the files, and the comments to fully know what each value in the code does, because the way it is written takes time to fully get behind (unlike the competition)

So War Thunder is your source? What are your source documents? You keep dancing around that, not to mention its getting off topic, where is your bug thread on this?

[dundun92]

1 minute ago, Iron_physik said:

• Motor burn time + thrust
• Seeker angles
• Seeker track speed
• seeker FOV
• SEAM (yes or no?)
• Speed
• maneuvering performance
• mass
• size
• warhead
• range
• lock ranges
• priximity fuze trigger ranges (lol, if ED actually manages to model prox fuzes)

While im not a fan of this change, im not sure how it will be impossible (at least for now) to get those values. As has been mentioned, someone has already found a way to extract the numbers and field names. And by looking at the last version of the missiles_data.lua before 2.7, you can figure out the fields. Granted, if there are major API changes this wont work, but for now Its not really an issue

[nighthawk2174]

Just now, NineLine said:

So War Thunder is your source? What are your source documents? You keep dancing around that, not to mention its getting off topic, where is your bug thread on this?

No but there are documents out there with all of this stuff in them (up to a point older the more stuff).  And its kind of hard to make a bug thread if you don't even have access to the file to see if its wrong.  You can't guesstimate stuff particularly well from in game.

[Iron_physik]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

So War Thunder is your source? What are your source documents? You keep dancing around that,

 

for early AIM-9 alone:

 

and then also the tacman of the F-8 crusader and the F-4 phantom

for later AIM-9 a bunch of USAF documents, and some reports on the AIM-9L and M

 

 

am to lazy to list them all, but you props got the point
on AIM-9 docs alone I have about 600mb to 1gb of PDF files to chose from to make detailed reports.

 

 

Quote

where is your bug thread on this?

Hidden, out of fear for cheaters

Edited April 22, 2021 by Iron_physik

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, nighthawk2174 said:

No but there are documents out there with all of this stuff in them (up to a point older the more stuff).  And its kind of hard to make a bug thread if you don't even have access to the file to see if its wrong.  You can't guesstimate stuff particularly well from in game.

I'm confused I guess... if the values are off in the code, it will not function correctly in the sim. Right?

[Iron_physik]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

it will not function correctly in the sim. Right?

yeah you are confused

 

tell me, how do you tell the difference between 12°/s track rate and 11°/s in a game that does not simulate the seeker movement in the 3D model?

 

thats the difference between the AIM-9E and B

 

or 20°/s and 25°/s

difference between 9H and 9L

 

 

you cant without checking the code, its impossible to measure this value by just playing, because there is to many variables

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

Hidden, out of fear for cheaters

I'm sorry you chose not to read anything I wrote. 

Just now, Iron_physik said:

yeah you are confused

 

tell me, how do you tell the difference between 12°/s track rate and 11°/s in a game that does not simulate the seeker movement in the 3D model?

 

thats the difference between the AIM-9E and B

 

or 20°/s and 25°/s

difference between 9H and 9L

 

 

you cant without checking the code, its impossible to measure this value by just playing, because there is to many variables

Luckily we have professionals working on the game, if you think there is an issue, then use one of the methods discussed to look at the values... not sure what you want anymore? 

[dundun92]

14 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I'm confused I guess... if the values are off in the code, it will not function correctly in the sim. Right?

to some extent yes; however, many issues may not be immediately obvious unless you do detailed/in depth testing that ideally could have been avoided by just seeing that the value is off.

 

Ill give a specific example: for the HB AIM-7, there was a point where it was kinda broken and not tracking very well. Now this was because it was still on the old API/FM and had not been moved over. I dont think any amount of testing would make this obvious. Instead, the ability of users to quickly cross-check the values for the HB AIM-7 with the ED AIM-7 allowed HB to pinpoint the issue very quickly. Would they have fixed it on their own? Probably, but it may have taken some time.

But ultimately, I completely understand, and if this is indeed the path ED is taking, the so be it.

Edited April 22, 2021 by dundun92

[NineLine]

Just now, dundun92 said:

to some extent yes; however, many issues may not be obvious unless you do detailed/in depth testing that ideally could have been avoided by just seeing that the value is off.

Fair enough, but we have said, encryption is needed. For MP integrity and sim integrity, so unfortunately, this is where we are at, and its not going away, so people need to adjust the best they can.

[Iron_physik]

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Luckily we have professionals working on the game

 

???

 

is that from one of your "professionals"?

thats such a simple thing.

or the total lack of proximity fuzes of missiles

 

 

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

if you think there is an issue, then use one of the methods discussed to look at the values... not sure what you want anymore? 

holy handgrenate of antioch

 

I want that YOU tell me the exact proper approach to get the exact values for seeker track rate by just playing DCS and without performing a memory dump to get the code thats then unformated and without comments, good luck trying to make sense from this

 

also: performing the steps to datamine is not trivial, you make it out to be "so easy"

 

"just datamine bro" is a weak argument

 

 

8 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

to some extent yes; however, many issues may not be immediately obvious unless you do detailed/in depth testing that ideally could have been avoided by just seeing that the value is off.

 

exactly what I have been saying

 

 

specially when some values (track rate) are impossible to measure by looking at game values, even with tacview enabled!

Edited April 22, 2021 by Iron_physik

[dundun92]

1 minute ago, Iron_physik said:

or the total lack of proximity fuzes of missiles

OT but they do have them and they work. Both SP and MP. The poor netcode though makes it look like its broken in MP

[nighthawk2174]

Just now, dundun92 said:

OT but they do have them and they work. Both SP and MP. The poor netcode though makes it look like its broken in MP

Hmmm I mean that's what they say but even in SP I've had stuff like SA2's pass within feet of my jet many a time and nothing so i'm not so sure anymore.  Maybe the code is there but if its working (especially working as it should) i'm not so sure.

[dundun92]

Just now, nighthawk2174 said:

Hmmm I mean that's what they say but even in SP I've had stuff like SA2's pass within feet of my jet many a time and nothing so i'm not so sure anymore.  Maybe the code is there but if its working (especially working as it should) i'm not so sure.

Ive seen it working in SP. You could in the past test this by making the value in the lua for the kill_distance really big and it indeed worked. What you may have noticed is the fact that if the missile doesnt have a seeker lock the proxy fuze is disabled. So if you notch a missile at the last second, even if it flies within the kill distance it wont go off.

[M1Combat]

Iron...

Please try to work within the new deal bruh...

I get it makes things "harder" to both see what's wrong and make suggestions but if it's the new deal it's the new deal.

I'm just sitting here reading the thread thinking you likely have good input (or more correctly your PDF collection does...  why not just hand that whole thing over???  Hmmm...  I'll bet there's an answer for that...  explained perfectly earlier in the thread...) that could likely help make the sim more correct...  but you're only willing to share if ED plays your game and makes it easy for you to compare this or that number so YOU can tell them which number is wrong.  Well...  If you're really just interested in the accuracy of the sim then just hand over the data that you know to be correct and trust ED to make adjustments.

 

Oh I know...  GAU-8...  

 

But it's fixed friend :).  

 

There are ways to see the values.  There are ways to measure the values.  Even the seeker speed ones.  You just can't "check the file".

Apparently ED has a good explanation for why they can't allow you to do that any more.

Maybe you trust them and they trust you???

Maybe you ask 9L here for the value and he tells you and then you tell him what it should be and then viola...  

Problem solved???

But...  

"just like im famous for in other Flight sim communities, where I single handetly"

[NineLine]

7 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

I want that YOU tell me the exact proper approach to get the exact values for seeker track rate by just playing DCS

If you cant tell its wrong playing the game, then why do you need to look at the code?

 

You are going in circles. There isnt much more I can say to you at this point. This is the way it is. 

[Iron_physik]

1 minute ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Hmmm I mean that's what they say but even in SP I've had stuff like SA2's pass within feet of my jet many a time and nothing so i'm not so sure anymore.  Maybe the code is there but if its working (especially working as it should) i'm not so sure.

 

3 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

OT but they do have them and they work. Both SP and MP. The poor netcode though makes it look like its broken in MP

 

 

and thats a perfect prime example on why just relying on ingame data is so flawed
sure, it SHOULD be modeled, But does it work? nope, it does not.

 

 

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

So if you notch a missile at the last second, even if it flies within the kill distance it wont go off.

oh well, thats not how Prox fuzes work AT ALL

 

 

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Iron...

Please try to work within the new deal bruh...

I get it makes things "harder" to both see what's wrong and make suggestions but if it's the new deal it's the new deal.

I'm just sitting here reading the thread thinking you likely have good input (or more correctly your PDF collection does...  why not just hand that whole thing over??? Hmmm...  I'll bet there's an answer for that...  explained perfectly earlier in the thread...)

I did, gave it to someone from ED some days ago, all 16gb of my collection via my google drive

 

5 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

but you're only willing to share if ED plays your game and makes it easy for you to compare this or that number so YOU can tell them which number is wrong.

not just me, everyone is then able to check the files for errors

im at the point that im pretty unwilling to create reports after ED tried to bend us over.

 

6 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Oh I know...  GAU-8...  

 

But it's fixed friend :).  

you have no idea how long that took, do you?

several months of debating and a shitstorm over at reddit + the forums and then ED finally silently fixing it after the pressure of the community (including A-10 crewmen) was to high

ED simply did not admit to the mistake and gave the same excuses as they do now.

 

 

8 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

There are ways to see the values.  There are ways to measure the values.  Even the seeker speed ones.

oh?

 

tell me all about it

How do you measure the track speed in a body thats moving in all 6DOF without powerfull simulation software?

 

 

10 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Apparently ED has a good explanation for why they can't allow you to do that any more.

but they dont

 

lots of people dont belive ED one bit when they say "cheaters"

11 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Maybe you trust them and they trust you???

lol

 

11 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

"just like im famous for in other Flight sim communities, where I single handetly"

 

original thread from 2019:

To this day people still constantly ping me about the AIM-9 on that forum, on discord and elsewhere

thats not being "unknown" or "a nobody"

 

13 minutes ago, NineLine said:

If you cant tell its wrong playing the game, then why do you need to look at the code?

to check if the values are wrong?

 

isnt DCS the game that advertises highly accurate combat?

to that accurately modeled weapons also belong, and when you cant check if the weapons are accurate then how are you supposed to know that they are?

I dont want to trust on that when I know that devs put "???" into their code on a easily findable value of a rocket.

 

 

so I want to make sure that all AIM-9 models use the proper track speeds for the seeker, because the proper speeds are very important to combat ocilation of the missile body, and enemy targets suddenly changing direction.

 

when the track values are wrong then the missile either tracks to good (they are harder to dodge than they should be) or it does not track the target well enough and flying a sudden Split S makes the missile lose track of you the moment you change direction.

 

that can be observed over in WT (you mentioned it by name, I can now too), when you create a custom SP mission where the G load and of the missile is super high, but the track rate is low the missile often just loses its target and misses, however do the reverse and the missile likely still hits that target, because it keeps better track.

 

and thats within the actual track rate values of AIM-9 models

from AIM-9G to AIM-9H you have a 8°/s track rate increase, thats nearly doubled

the AIM-9H was over vietnam a ALOT more reliable dog fighting missile because of that (and smaller other factors)