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

[Hextopia]

The only possible reason I can see is trying to slow down (not prevent) memory editing cheaters or to prevent malicious mod code being executed, though any malicious code would have to be in plaintext in a lua file, so it's very likely it'd be spotted quite easily.

[PetRock]

12 hours ago, NineLine said:

I know it's not gonna be the answer you want, but right now this is what we have decided is the best for DCS going forward. I will talk to the team about concerns as far as modding and bug reporting. Sorry guys.

I have asked for:

1. Modding use, another solution to work with this
2. being able to see the values some other way or form for testing

Our intent certainly isn't to stop modding or hide mistakes, I can understand some jumping to that, but I promise, it's not about that.

 

Hello @NineLine,

 

While I am a complete amateur at proper modding in the DCS community, I know I have seen the other more serious modders/coders/testers ask for things like some sort of API system or approved limited SDK to play with in the past without much being provided in that direction in recent years. I know @Grimes has been tirelessly advocating for API features for the Mission Editor. Some previously requested tools/features for ME alone that I can think of off the top of my head right now:

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/jgz9ub/so_you_want_better_multiplayer_missions/

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/hiw52u/scripting_usage_request_for_info/fwk41h1/

 

https://pastebin.com/Drh8ugS2

 

There was TREMENDOUS progress made on APIs and the like in the past when a dev was assigned to core engine/ME QOL fixes, but I understand he has moved on and no one has really stepped up to replace him. This is something tangible that could be done now or soon that would really show that ED wants to extend the olive branch and work with instead of around the user community.

 

A serious discussion with specifics and rough timelines or roadmaps with the more serious modders should be a priority with the changes that have been implemented with 2.7 to find ways to protect the game in the new design while still providing tools for them to experiment and create content with.

 

Also, still looking for answers to my 2 questions posted earlier:

On 4/20/2021 at 11:10 AM, PetRock said:

...

 

1: is the numerical value in this line of code in the warheads.lua supposed to be TNT in lbs? (underlined/bolded) If not, what does it stand for and how was it derived?

warheads["Mk_81"] = simple_warhead(90.0); -- Explosive 45 kg + fragments bonus

 

2: are these values still present in 2.7 and will there be a review of these values if they are in fact TNT in lbs?

 

 

A lot of the tools/features/quality of life fixes have been requested for YEARS on these very forums and the people asking for them are known in the community. A lot of low hanging fruit could be had if ED would commit resources to interfacing and working with your already engaged community members.

Edited April 22, 2021 by PetRock
formatting

[LetMePickThat]

As a contributor to the HighDigitSAMs mod, I am quite dissapointed (that's an understatement) at this change. 

 

DCS is still missing 80% of the SAMs we would need to build any credible scenario set between the 60s and the 90s, and various units like the default S-300PS has been literally decades late for an upgrade. 

Knowing this, we managed to get into the game some SAMS that are used all around the world yet absent from DCS, and to update the legacy systems from LOMAC with new 3D models, textures and flight models. 

 

And now, for whatever reason (cheating? Seriously There are probably more mod makers than MP players in this game) we are prevented from even looking at what is going on under the hood? And all that just because that rickety IC, already so prompt to prevent us from making harmless changes to some core files, is allegedly unable to catch the three and a half people cheating in multiplayer ?

 

That is very dissapointing, to say the least.

I can't even see how we will be able, not even to create new mods, but just to maintain and update the ones we already released.

 

As a sidenote, ED has always relied on the community to suggest changes, identify bugs and produce content. What is even the point of having an Open Beta branch if the game is that tightly controlled in the first place and we aren't free to explore the files to test stuff?

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by LetMePickThat

[spec10]

I wish I could refund all the planes I just bought in the sale before realizing what they did. Not having the SAM mod basically kills everything I had in mind for the Viggen and F5.

 

Way to go ED, clouds, yay.

 

There is no widespread problem with cheating. There is a widespread problem with bugs, broken and missing features that get fixed by mods. You might have to tell people "disable your mods" during support a lot, that seems to be the problem you're trying to fix. And it is a bad way to fix it when it impacts the gameplay for so many people so much.

Edited April 22, 2021 by spec10

[Torun]

I bet encrypting sounds was also done to stop cheating. Can't have cheaters replace all missile sounds with questionable anime soundclips.

[GumidekCZ]

19 hours ago, NineLine said:

I know it's not gonna be the answer you want, but right now this is what we have decided is the best for DCS going forward. I will talk to the team about concerns as far as modding and bug reporting. Sorry guys.

I have asked for:

1. Modding use, another solution to work with this
2. being able to see the values some other way or form for testing

Our intent certainly isn't to stop modding or hide mistakes, I can understand some jumping to that, but I promise, it's not about that.

That how it is, we cant do much about it, our best hopes are now in hands and minds of ED.

I think that we all can enjoy DCS without mods for some time, till the solution is find.

I really hope, that they will find smart way how to solve this without harm to anyone contributing to the DCS gameplay by any good way (reporting bugs, creating great mods).

Fingers Crossed

If they dont, than Im afraid that many toxic post will be written by the DCS commnity. (not here on forum - censorship)

[spec10]

6 minutes ago, GumidekCZ said:

That how it is, we cant do much about it, our best hopes are now in hands and minds of ED.

I think that we all can enjoy DCS without mods for some time, till the solution is find.

I really hope, that they will find smart way how to solve this without harm to anyone contributing to the DCS gameplay by any good way (reporting bugs, creating great mods).

Fingers Crossed

If they dont, than Im afraid that many toxic post will be written by the DCS commnity. (not here on forum - censorship)

 

Unless people keep talking about this being an issue, it will be de-prioritized again and again and again. Heck even moaning about it will most likely not lead to any change but it's all we can do. I am invested deep into this product and I will keep questioning horrendous decisions like this, especially when we get "it's about cheating guys, you need this!" - It's insulting.

[headbreaker_ger]

Well ED just beeing ED again,...

 

Quote

You help us reach for the skies, Thank you!

Well, I guess, no more need necessary, so pls move on ED will raise the hand, if they need help again,.... but money is still welcome

I'm really sry, but like last years F/A 18 fiasco or the "there will be a statement"-SuperCarrier-Postponement-OnReleaseDay-Debakle, I have to take the whole thing a bit humorous. 
Because I really not sure, why and how, a Business with such a "faithful" Community can be so bad in making decisions and communicate them. 

 

There would be soooo many, way better excuses,... ED chose the laziest.... and goes the usual way of freezing the community,... eat or die,... 
 

I personally hope, there will be a competitor one day,.. not because I want ED to go down, but because I think without we will always be in the position to hope that ED does the right thing, and often they do not,.... #cough# ED breaks the expansive half backed supercarrier for communities,... no one blinks an eye #cough# 

[NineLine]

Dear all,

As I stated. This was more than just meets the eye, it not only protects the integrity of MP, but the entire sim itself, it protects us and you from some nefarious people, we don't go into details about this stuff for a very good reason. 

 

So I understand your frustration, but know this was done for the betterment of the sim, community and moving forward. For Modders we will address their needs, for testers, someone already popped the encrypted files, but know that we are not trying to hurt anyone with this, only keep us, you and all stronger for the long haul.

 

Thanks.

[PetRock]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Dear all,

As I stated. This was more than just meets the eye, it not only protects the integrity of MP, but the entire sim itself, it protects us and you from some nefarious people, we don't go into details about this stuff for a very good reason. 

 

So I understand your frustration, but know this was done for the betterment of the sim, community and moving forward. For Modders we will address their needs, for testers, someone already popped the encrypted files, but know that we are not trying to hurt anyone with this, only keep us, you and all stronger for the long haul.

 

Thanks.

 

@NineLine, while I understand you are in the difficult position of trying to justify something you can't go into details about, nor one that you have much decision making authority on, it is abundantly clear that ED needs to engage with the modding community about what they intend to make available in the game and to the community going forward. I highly suggest ED take the initiative and start a conversation with noted community members about what they will be losing in the new design and find real and tangible solutions. As a Community Manager, I am sure you also recognize the damage that the unannounced changes in 2.7 has done to community good will and how that needs to be conveyed to the ED management. I wish you luck in explaining that to them. I will also try and organize some sort of group to start a new thread on the forums here to specifically address this new issue since the original thrust of this thread has blown up into a much larger problem.

 

Having said that, I still need answers to these two questions:

 

13 hours ago, PetRock said:

  On 4/20/2021 at 11:10 AM, PetRock said:

...

 

1: is the numerical value in this line of code in the warheads.lua supposed to be TNT in lbs? (underlined/bolded) If not, what does it stand for and how was it derived?

warheads["Mk_81"] = simple_warhead(90.0); -- Explosive 45 kg + fragments bonus

 

2: are these values still present in 2.7 and will there be a review of these values if they are in fact TNT in lbs?

 

Is this something you can investigate and find out or direct the knowledgeable dev to this thread to answer?

 

Thanks,

 

PetRock

[NineLine]

24 minutes ago, PetRock said:

 

@NineLine, while I understand you are in the difficult position of trying to justify something you can't go into details about, nor one that you have much decision making authority on, it is abundantly clear that ED needs to engage with the modding community about what they intend to make available in the game and to the community going forward. I highly suggest ED take the initiative and start a conversation with noted community members about what they will be losing in the new design and find real and tangible solutions. As a Community Manager, I am sure you also recognize the damage that the unannounced changes in 2.7 has done to community good will and how that needs to be conveyed to the ED management. I wish you luck in explaining that to them. I will also try and organize some sort of group to start a new thread on the forums here to specifically address this new issue since the original thrust of this thread has blown up into a much larger problem.

 

Having said that, I still need answers to these two questions:

 

 

Is this something you can investigate and find out or direct the knowledgeable dev to this thread to answer?

 

Thanks,

 

PetRock

If you heard my interview, or remember back in the day, I was trying to get into modding myself, with dreams of creating a module one day, I took a different path, but the idea of modding is always on my mind, be it user created objects, cool free mod aircraft, etc. I love it all, and DCS should be the perfect place to do that. That said, it isnt right now, but we know that. We are working towards documentation and examples that we can share and help foster that creative spirit. If you look back to 2013, and you look at Redbeard'd mod guide, even on that first page, there are some big names in the 3rd Party world, it cannot be denied that modding is the gateway to 3rd Parties and more fun stuff to do in DCS.

 

So long story short, it would have been better to have all our ducks in a row, instead of making one change, and not having another path to work with that change in place. Its a constant battle for sure, we still are not 100% where we need to be on that, but we hear all this, and take it all in, and me and BN make sure everyone hears it internally as well.

 

For your weapon question, I will get you an answer. 

 

Thanks.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, PetRock said:

Having said that, I still need answers to these two questions:

 

15 hours ago, PetRock said:

  On 4/20/2021 at 11:10 AM, PetRock said:

...

 

1: is the numerical value in this line of code in the warheads.lua supposed to be TNT in lbs? (underlined/bolded) If not, what does it stand for and how was it derived?

warheads["Mk_81"] = simple_warhead(90.0); -- Explosive 45 kg + fragments bonus

 

2: are these values still present in 2.7 and will there be a review of these values if they are in fact TNT in lbs?

Expand  

 

Is this something you can investigate and find out or direct the knowledgeable dev to this thread to answer?

 

Thanks,

 

PetRock

Ok, so all numbers are kilograms for measurements and explosives. So the above line is 45kg explosive + fragment bonus = 90.0kg total.
The fragment bonus is to compensate for the lack of fragmentation modelled right now.

[LetMePickThat]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Ok, so all numbers are kilograms for measurements and explosives. So the above line is 45kg explosive + fragment bonus = 90.0kg total.
The fragment bonus is to compensate for the lack of fragmentation modelled right now.

Thank you for the heads up.

When you say "right now", does it means that a fragmentation model is considered for the future?

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

Thank you for the heads up.

When you say "right now", does it means that a fragmentation model is considered for the future?

I believe its planned, but I don't know when/where it will show up.

[Iron_physik]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear all,

As I stated. This was more than just meets the eye, it not only protects the integrity of MP, but the entire sim itself, it protects us and you from some nefarious people, we don't go into details about this stuff for a very good reason. 

 

So I understand your frustration, but know this was done for the betterment of the sim, community and moving forward. For Modders we will address their needs, for testers, someone already popped the encrypted files, but know that we are not trying to hurt anyone with this, only keep us, you and all stronger for the long haul.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[edited version]

 

 

AH YES, the good old: "lets take the trust we tried to build up again after the past fail and smash it again like a pot of flowers"

 

 

this is just laughable let me tell you: you taking away the ability for people to create quality bug reports WILL hurt you in the long run there is no question about that.

 

I did actually plan to write a ton of reports, just like im famous for in other Flight sim communities, where I single handetly fixed the performance of most US bombs, Air to Air missiles like AIM-7 and also brought up so well sourced reports that a certain "arcadey" game has a better implementaion of the AIM-9 sidewinder than DCS does as of now.

 

I actually planned to create reports focusing on the AIM-9 first and get it up to exact (and I mean EXACT) historical specs, down to the exact torque of the Gas servos used in every submodel. But you spitting me in the soup really ruined that, so fix your own weapons and dont dare to come screaming at us when you dont want people to do it for you, this is the EXACT way you scare subject matter experts away from your game.

 

just ask groove about my excitement on reporting these things, because I really like doing it, its one of my special skills as someone with ASD, its what im best at. but thanks to devs that are to scared of maybe 1 "ChEAter" or whatever dumb reason they want to give now after realöizing that we dont believe them,

you now lost an important asset that helped you FOR FREE and thanks to that likely will end up with a game that cant even model proximity fuzes properly

 

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

someone already popped the encrypted files

 

yes, without the original comments that often are extremely important to understand code

 

here a example where I still cared before 2.7:

 

without the comments I would not have been able to tell what warhead of the multiple options ED wanted to model.

the devs CLEARLY need our help when they are so Clueless about certain things that they write "???" into the code

 

and yes without whole comments and proper editing syntax often datamined files are near to worthless.

 

 

 

in summary: stop the meaningless corporate double talk and actually tell us what is going on without ignoring basic, but important questions like mine from a while ago:

 

 

 

im out, this is just beyond unbelievable.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Iron_physik

[NineLine]

44 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

stop the meaningless corporate double talk and actually tell us what is going on without ignoring basic, but important questions like mine from a while ago:

 

Are you saying we will no longer get quality bug reports because you cant see weapons.lua? Because its a very small percentage of users that actually report a bug and ever referenced that file.

 

46 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

yes, without the original comments that often are extremely important to understand code

See my answer above this, someone asked, I found the answer, and that was, as far as I am aware, before the file was encrypted.

 

46 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

im out, this is just beyond unbelievable.

While we are never happy to see anyone go away, I understand that if reading and analyzing the weapons.lua was one of your joys in DCS, I can understand now why you might want to go elsewhere. I hope you will reconsider, especially when our modding guides come around.

 

Thanks.

[Iron_physik]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Are you saying

ah, my favourite fallacy

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMJTWD2mzs

 

 

6 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Are you saying we will no longer get quality bug reports because you cant see weapons.lua? Because its a very small percentage of users that actually report a bug and ever referenced that file.

no, thats not what I am saying

 

But it makes reporting values of weapons nearly impossible.

 

for example

How do you think I can report the seeker track speed of the AIM-9 without knowing the ingame value?

There is NO way to test it, thats a value that you would need to check in the files

same with the exact explosive filler used, rocket motor thrust etc...

 

 

But you seem to ignore all of this, just like you ignored most my other points

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

ah, my favourite fallacy

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMJTWD2mzs

 

Appreciate you are upset but if you are going to be condescending it is not welcome here. 

 

Feel free to give your feedback but please keep within the rules. 

[LetMePickThat]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I believe its planned, but I don't know when/where it will show up.

Thanks for the answer.

 

While I'm at it and annoying you, what are the plans for supporting modders in the future ?

[NineLine]

12 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

ah, my favourite fallacy

I am willing to have an open and fair discussion about this, when you are, I welcome your return.

 

Untill then others can share their concerns as they have been in a mature and constructive manner, so I can take those concerns to the devs responsible. Thanks.

Just now, LetMePickThat said:

While I'm at it and annoying you, what are the plans for supporting modders in the future

Not annoying in the least. Based on this and more feedback we want to build a Modders Bible for DCS, with actual examples. As it develops I'll share more, but keep the feedback coming. Thanks.

[JNelson]

29 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I am willing to have an open and fair discussion about this, when you are, I welcome your return.

 

Untill then others can share their concerns as they have been in a mature and constructive manner, so I can take those concerns to the devs responsible. Thanks.

Not annoying in the least. Based on this and more feedback we want to build a Modders Bible for DCS, with actual examples. As it develops I'll share more, but keep the feedback coming. Thanks.

 

Forgive me if this is slightly off topic. 

 

It's good you guys are putting together a modding guide.

 

Do you know if ED plans to add some quality of life improvements to the existing API? For example allowing the radios to be connected without requiring a hack or allowing avSimpleWeaponSystem to give a tone from the frontal aspect with all aspect IR missiles?

[Iron_physik]

31 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I am willing to have an open and fair discussion about this, when you are, I welcome your return

uh, fine

 

 

pls answer my previous questions, thats where we stopped

[NineLine]

5 minutes ago, JNelson said:

 

Forgive me if this is slightly off topic. 

 

It's good you guys are putting together a modding guide.

 

Do you know if ED plans to add some quality of life improvements to the existing API? For example allowing the radios to be connected without requiring a hack or allowing avSimpleWeaponSystem to give a tone from the frontal aspect with all aspect IR missiles?

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.

[Iron_physik]

2 minutes ago, 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.

im not talking about the modding side of things

 

im only interested in reporting bugs, and for that I often need acces to the code to see if values of weapons are wrong, because thats the only way to get them.

 

 

without having acces to the warhead.lua for example I am unable to check if the AIM-9 sidewinder has the right amount of explosives in it, because that file is the ONLY place where that is documented

 

simply said: writing bug reports on speculation is dumb and likely wont give any results, because my findings can be just waved away

(I mean, it was tried before with the GAU-8 dispersion)

 

I rather be able to say:

"currently Missile X uses 12kg of explosives, but it should be 6kg according to these primary sources"

 

rather than:

 

"I think this missile warhead is wrong, but I am unable to prove it, because some fool decided it was a good idea to hide the used values"

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Iron_physik said:

How do you think I can report the seeker track speed of the AIM-9 without knowing the ingame value?

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.