Mines

[Tank50us]

Yes, those little buggers. The things that armies deploy, forget about, and then some cow discovered 50yrs later creating instant steak. Many aircraft in the game are capable of deploying mines in the real world, we have ships and vehicles designed to both deploy them and remove them. So why don't we have them? They're excellent area denial weapons, which in a PvP Multiplayer Campaign could give the two commanders additional options for force deployment. Does one side have a bunch of ships docked up in a harbor that's surrounded by an IADS? Just slip an aircraft in with some glide bombs that have a few naval mines embedded, and deploy them in the harbor entrance to bottle the ships up until they can clear the mines. Need to hold three bridges but only have enough forces to adequately cover two? deploy a bunch of mines to each one, and hold your main force in reserve while some observers look for signs to mine clearing.

 

As for how they could be implemented, at Sea that's not a big issue, just create a series of 'fortifications' that can only be placed on the water, and those are the mines. On land it's bit more difficult. In the ME it could be represented using trigger zones, but beyond that, I'm not 100% sure.

 

What do you guys think? Should mines be a factor? Or should I go swat golf balls towards the minefield? (bonus points to whoever gets that one)

[Northstar98]

Yeah I agree, and I'm a bit salty about the mines the Hornet was supposed to get, though on the other hand we don't really have the requisite damage models and underwater explosion modelling for those.

As for land mines, there is a landmine static object, and it does work (if you drive over it, it goes off. But yes +1 for at least air dropped mines such as the CBU-78/B and -89/B GATOR (AT/AP mines), as well as the Destructor and Quickstrike naval mines and their Soviet/Russian equivalents.

I guess naval mines will be more appropriate once DCS gets more of an ASW presence, but right right now it's basically non-existent.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fri13]

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Yes, those little buggers. The things that armies deploy, forget about, and then some cow discovered 50yrs later creating instant steak.

 

In the history of the landmines there has been only two countries that has never in a wartime (or any military conflict) had lost any unused mines because they kept extremely accurate minefield maps after every deployment. Of course they didn't use any submunition rockets or bombs with mines either, but every mine was placed by hand and marked on the maps properly, even middle of the forests etc. 

 

The problem is really that they stay where they have been placed, and even with a chemical batteries for self-destruction after specific deployment time, they don't always work. So it is critical that after minefield layout you would go and retrieve them or at least disable them by blowing them up, because you should care about your own people after the war. 

 

So in DCS we would as well need to see a requirement for the player to design the minefield maps manually, as well by command structure when commanding to layout them.

Example when a authority commands specific area to be mined, it would get automatically the minefield map generated for it (example when the infantry would be placing the mines to the wanted positions). If the player decides to place mines by own authority (example flying with Mi-8MTV2 with mine deployment sled) then it would be their responsibility to mark the generic areas to map by themselves)

 

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Many aircraft in the game are capable of deploying mines in the real world, we have ships and vehicles designed to both deploy them and remove them. So why don't we have them? They're excellent area denial weapons, which in a PvP Multiplayer Campaign could give the two commanders additional options for force deployment.

 

The mines would be required. We should again forget all the real world politics and such, and just make there a player responsibility to understand the downsides and upsides of mines.

Especially that minefield map accuracy and following the rules there. 

There is no better defense between you and the enemy than a minefield, no one with any senses and wish to live does not attack on the fortified position that has mines laid around it. It is suicide. 

 

The mines primary effectiveness is the cosmetic effect. Anyone who has seen someone stepping or driving on the mine will forever remember the visual horror from it. Then they will remember the sounds of it and the fear that it laid out around everyone. 

 

This is something where we need again a moral system for the AI. 

As you would never get anyone to step to the minefield unless you are ready to kill them yourself in that position if they do not take their change to get through alive.

 

There are many who oppose anti-infantry mines for moral reasons that they cause death to civilians, but that is the political part where you have troops that doesn't know how to use them, or use weapons that randomly scatter them to unknown locations where civilians move. Where a highly trained and caring militaries does not such mistakes but can deploy effectively the mines because the have moral in their operations in the begin.

 

But in DCS we should have both, all of them. But before that we need as well the AI to have the moral system in them as well. Those that command minefields to be made, and those who are building them, and those who are stepping in them.

As once AI enemy realizes that there is a minefield in area X * Y, it doesn't go there no matter how player would command them to move there, unless you have combat pioneers to clear you a path through it first. It is a complex military task to do, but it should be available as much as the mines are.

 

Many modules in DCS would become completely different with proper mines implementation. Mi-8MTV2 and Mi-24P are both capable layout mines quickly. We have sub-munition bombs, rockets and other methods too.

 

If we are talking about military simulation, there is not so much place for a "Killing is bad" moral questions when the whole game is about destroying a vehicle on the ground that has multiple person inside, or shooting down a another aircraft that has a another human inside. Sorry, but war is ugly, but we are all here for a reason and that is that we are not wanted to play some civilian airliner captain to do a 12 hour flight with autopilot... Let's just admit that.

 

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Does one side have a bunch of ships docked up in a harbor that's surrounded by an IADS? Just slip an aircraft in with some glide bombs that have a few naval mines embedded, and deploy them in the harbor entrance to bottle the ships up until they can clear the mines. Need to hold three bridges but only have enough forces to adequately cover two? deploy a bunch of mines to each one, and hold your main force in reserve while some observers look for signs to mine clearing.

 

As for how they could be implemented, at Sea that's not a big issue, just create a series of 'fortifications' that can only be placed on the water, and those are the mines. On land it's bit more difficult. In the ME it could be represented using trigger zones, but beyond that, I'm not 100% sure.

 

What do you guys think? Should mines be a factor? Or should I go swat golf balls towards the minefield? (bonus points to whoever gets that one)

 

We seriously need so many things to be done properly in DCS that will deny, slow down, advance and speed mobilization. That is the modern war. We don't anymore have a thousands of men walking side by side to open field and stand in formation while other side is firing at you because your commanding officer gives them the first change to do so.... 

 

If we have a river and bridge over it, that bridge is critical component in the strategy to get over that river by majority of vehicles, unless your vehicle is designed to cross such rivers.

So where example a BTR-60, BMP-1, PT-76 etc are fully amphibious many other ain't, be it trucks, some SAM systems, artillery units etc. Many needs time to prepare for crossing the water and that is something you don't do in a open combat area. 

 

How to deny the crossing elsewhere than from that bridge? You use mines, you fortify the river banks and mine them. You place them to positions where enemy could cross river without you having capability to destroy them before or after doing so.

 

The combat is about denying units movement. Making bottlenecks where they can move and utilize various simple strategies and tactics. At some point enemy needs to come through some specific points because their objectives are in generic area and routes there are defended. 

And if we don't have a mines, we have limited changes to build defenses and use tactics. 

 

But that is challenging task to program for a AI to operate with mines.

If we would get idiotic AI that would just rush their units through a minefield destroying 80% of them just to get to waypoint, it is no good. 

 

This is as well why we need the forests to become places where you do not go with vehicles, they should slow down seriously. They should have almost zero visibility to outside as infantry will destroy them in those places very easily as there is dozens of kill zones in there. We need infantry, we nee proper terrain functions and capabilities. 

We need so many basic things for ground units warfare that one can not just have vehicles rolling around on open fields and such because they have better armor or larger gun. Those things needs to be such that every meter is required to be fought for. Every forest is a threat, a obstacle, a challenge for attacker. And so on every forest is a cover, defense and benefit for every defender.

 

We need possibilities and requirements to utilize roads realistic manner. Build a ambush positions by mining the sides of the roads for the ambush point so when the remaining vehicles will drive off the road, they drive to minefields. We need logic where a column doesn't move with 10 meter spread but actually 500 meter spread so you can only ambush one vehicle instead all. We need means to actually make a defense position on the road like lay a thick sand layer on it and mine it. Cut the trees on road to slow down the vehicle movement without clearing the obstacles. We need ways to blow up bridges at command (possible already with triggers etc but should be more as a action for the bridge by pioneers).

We need trees denying vehicles movement to drive off roads so easily because every larger tree is a risk that they will even disable your MBT, even a smaller diameter ones can be too tough opponent. Why you don't go to forests to slow you down, risk get pinned down and flanked and destroyed. 

 

But if players don't have any reasons to try to care about their units because "we can always get more", it doesn't work. But dynamic campaign can not work properly without proper elements and requirements for defenses, offences etc. And mines are critical part of any defense. 

[Fri13]

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah I agree, and I'm a bit salty about the mines the Hornet was supposed to get, though on the other hand we don't really have the requisite damage models and underwater explosion modelling for those.

 

I think the underwater explosion modeling is enough as .50 cal bullet will make the proper splash effect, and then just have a area of effect damage for the ship in water as the water is anyways a flat surface where boats just moves over (with top of a wave animation as visual). 

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I guess naval mines will be more appropriate once DCS gets more of an ASW presence, but right right now it's basically non-existent.

 

Seamines, sonar buoys, torpedos etc... We need so many basic things to make the ASW and any shore operations for amphibious landing operations etc for marines.

We have massive maps with all kind shores and landlines, but we don't have means to perform a required landing operations. And before that is possible, we need proper sea warfare etc.

 

[Northstar98]

On 5/25/2021 at 8:23 AM, Fri13 said:

I think the underwater explosion modeling is enough as .50 cal bullet will make the proper splash effect, and then just have a area of effect damage for the ship in water as the water is anyways a flat surface where boats just moves over (with top of a wave animation as visual).

It's more approximating bubble jet effect - even if it's just approximated by making cylindrical blast zones.

This is particularly important with bottom mines (such as the Mk40 and Mk63 we were supposed to get on the Hornet).

Quote

Seamines, sonar buoys, torpedos etc... We need so many basic things to make the ASW and any shore operations for amphibious landing operations etc for marines.

We have massive maps with all kind shores and landlines, but we don't have means to perform a required landing operations. And before that is possible, we need proper sea warfare etc.

Exactly, and the naval environment is the one the least developed, and ASW is as good as non-existent. Fortunately there are a lot of torpedo schemes in 2.7 under Scripts -> Database -> Weapons -> schemes -> torpedoes, though the straight running WWII gyroangle torpedoes (tested with the G7a T1 from the S-100 E-boat) still does a snake search pattern past a certain distance. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fri13]

44 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's more approximating bubble jet effect - even if it's just approximated by making cylindrical blast zones.

 

This is particularly important with bottom mines (such as the Mk40 and Mk63 we were supposed to get on the Hornet).

 

I don't think it would be a challenge for any person responsible for the effects to make a somewhat proper look.

But we are waiting so many other proper effects like a proper CBU bomblets explosions and strikes etc that I think this would be so far in the list of "small things". 

 

44 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Exactly, and the naval environment is the one the least developed, and ASW is as good as non-existent. Fortunately there are a lot of torpedo schemes in 2.7 under Scripts -> Database -> Weapons -> schemes -> torpedoes, though the straight running WWII gyroangle torpedoes (tested with the G7a T1 from the S-100 E-boat) still does a snake search pattern past a certain distance. 

 

AFAIK our ASW is limited at the moment that couple submarines we have can finally at least submerge.... It is something to the decade old situation that they couldn't.

I have no idea what status even the torpedos have, but that sounds so wrong by so many ways that so basic things as even three different torpedo types doesn't exist (a gyro one, a target search capable and command guided).

 

There is so huge untapped market in just naval actions that ED could make a lot of money by making "above par" quality naval combat simulation. No need to mention even simple old games that offer so much for that in simple manner that ED could easily do better, but the current master of the industry I think would be difficult if not impossible to challenge for a moment. But it is doable. Considering that naval operations are just in three layers. Air, Surface and Submerged. Things get even more challenging when adding a ground to it, shore operations and support etc. But that is already offered.

Maybe the main challenge really is that we don't have a earth curvature that severely limits everything.

 

Sea mines should be fairly simple subject in all considered that how radically different it is in the land warfare.

So just dropping some mines to harbor port etc is easy. Dropping a torpedo from a bomber or helicopter would be cool. 

But that again screams for a KA-27.... 

 

Helicopter pilots would have plenty of things to do with the mining.

Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24P and if KA-27 would come a thing, we would have possibility perform all kind fancy mining and ASW operations. 

 

 

[Northstar98]

On 5/25/2021 at 9:52 AM, Fri13 said:

I don't think it would be a challenge for any person responsible for the effects to make a somewhat proper look.

But we are waiting so many other proper effects like a proper CBU bomblets explosions and strikes etc that I think this would be so far in the list of "small things".

Sorry, my bad, I meant the actual physical effects of underwater explosions, not the graphics themselves. The graphics should be fairly simple, the dynamics and the damage modelling is more tricky, though I'm sure it could be approximated.

You could apply this to other explosions too, like bombs imparting forces onto objects and blowing them over.

Quote

AFAIK our ASW is limited at the moment that couple submarines we have can finally at least submerge.... It is something to the decade old situation that they couldn't.

I have no idea what status even the torpedos have, but that sounds so wrong by so many ways that so basic things as even three different torpedo types doesn't exist (a gyro one, a target search capable and command guided).

The WWII ones we have gyroangle guidance, you launch them, they run straight for a couple of metres, and then turn to a preset course and climb/dive to maintain a preselected depth. After that they run straight until they fuse or expend whatever they use to propel it (be they batteries, fuel, steam, compressed air, whatever).

I'll have to wait and see what the various schemes defined in the database above do.

Quote

There is so huge untapped market in just naval actions that ED could make a lot of money by making "above par" quality naval combat simulation. No need to mention even simple old games that offer so much for that in simple manner that ED could easily do better, but the current master of the industry I think would be difficult if not impossible to challenge for a moment.

It would be a heck of a lot of work, but maybe we can do the very basics. Especially with regards to hydroacoustics, which will mandate a major upgrade in the sound engine (that's if you wanted to do it more directly, even if it meant making up sound profiles and approximating how loud the radiated noise is). Let alone things like thermoclines, surface ducts and convergence zones.

We'd also have to have unique sounds for at least every class of ship - right now all ships in DCS sound exactly the same regardless of propulsion system; an oil fired heavy aviation cruiser sounds with 4 screws sounds exactly like a diesel powered oil tanker with 1, which also sounds the same as a nuclear aircraft carrier, which sounds like a gas turbine powered missile boat, which sounds the same as a submerged diesel-electric submarine.

Personally however, I would prefer to really flesh out the surface naval environment some more, though many things carry over (countermeasures, sensor modelling, weapon modelling, damage modelling, physics etc).

Quote

But it is doable. Considering that naval operations are just in three layers. Air, Surface and Submerged. Things get even more challenging when adding a ground to it, shore operations and support etc. But that is already offered.

Well, there's still a lot to do for purely ground based stuff.

Quote

Maybe the main challenge really is that we don't have a earth curvature that severely limits everything.

Yeah, that's a big part of it - it's vital for accurate visual LOS.

Quote

Sea mines should be fairly simple subject in all considered that how radically different it is in the land warfare.

So just dropping some mines to harbor port etc is easy. Dropping a torpedo from a bomber or helicopter would be cool.

Yeah, in a completely fictional scenario on the Marianas map, I was planning to do some mining operations to deny access to ports or in defence of submarines landing special forces for example (if we could do that in the first place).

Quote

But that again screams for a KA-27...

I'm not sure the Ka-27PL can drop mines, it can at least drop PLAB-50 and PLAB-250 depth charges, as well as 400mm air dropped torpedoes of various types (the UMGT-1 being the most suitable). It also carries RGB-NM and RGB-NM-1 passive-only omnidirectional sonobuoys, as well as the VGS-3 active/passive dipping SONAR, and APM-73B MAD. There's also obviously the RADAR which can be used to detect periscopes and masts.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Fri13]

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sorry, my bad, I meant the actual physical effects of underwater explosions, not the graphics themselves. The graphics should be fairly simple, the dynamics and the damage modelling is more tricky, though I'm sure it could be approximated.

 

You could apply this to other explosions too, like bombs imparting forces onto objects and blowing them over. 

 

How much different it would really need to be from the current damage modeling? A underwater mine exploding on ship hull is pretty devastating action. If no hole itself is made, then there is some kind serious leak.

 

As liquid can not be compressed, the effects are severe from explosion.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It would be a heck of a lot of work, but maybe we can do the very basics. Especially with regards to hydroacoustics, which will mandate a major upgrade in the sound engine (that's if you wanted to do it more directly, even if it meant making up sound profiles and approximating how loud the radiated noise is). Let alone things like thermoclines, surface ducts and convergence zones.

 

We'd also have to have unique sounds for at least every class of ship - right now all ships in DCS sound exactly the same regardless of propulsion system; an oil fired heavy aviation cruiser sounds with 4 screws sounds exactly like a diesel powered oil tanker with 1, which also sounds the same as a nuclear aircraft carrier, which sounds like a gas turbine powered missile boat, which sounds the same as a submerged diesel-electric submarine.

 

That goes nicely for the future radar simulations, as both are just little different but in programming perspective almost same thing. You detect something by emission and you try to define what it is. At least I wouldn't be waiting any massive audio work to be done for long time as recording them and creating new ones must be fairly big work to those who does them.

 

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not sure the Ka-27PL can drop mines, it can at least drop PLAB-50 and PLAB-250 depth charges, as well as 400mm air dropped torpedoes of various types (the UMGT-1 being the most suitable). It also carries RGB-NM and RGB-NM-1 passive-only omnidirectional sonobuoys, as well as the VGS-3 active/passive dipping SONAR, and APM-73B MAD. There's also obviously the RADAR which can be used to detect periscopes and masts.

 

I don't believe they can drop mines either. But KA-27 could be used for anti-mine operations. At least there is no need to see anyone doing the work as it is submerged but having a crew disabling the mines etc would be as important as laying out the mines.

 

It is little difficult to say which ones would be more important, ground mines (anti-vehicle, anti-personnel) or sea mines.... In a modern era the sea mines has probably run their course as against ships you go with anti-ship missiles and such so much easier, and against submarines you again want to go at sea. So the mining operation is more for denying some beach operations so easily, or getting to rivers etc. 

[Tank50us]

3 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

How much different it would really need to be from the current damage modeling? A underwater mine exploding on ship hull is pretty devastating action. If no hole itself is made, then there is some kind serious leak.

 

As liquid can not be compressed, the effects are severe from explosion.

 

What he's getting at is that in order for the damage to be handled realistically, the ships themselves would have to have a rework to have a proper damage model. Things like the engine rooms, fuel storage, magazines, even the crew spaces and CIC would have to be accurately represented inside the ship. That way when a mine or torpedo goes off below the waterline, the actual effects on the ship will be realistic, from blowing a big gaping hole in the side and letting lots of water in, to snapping the ships keel like a twig and watching it sink within minutes, or go up like a roman candle because the explosion set off a bunch of secondaries that ultimately set off the ships ammunition stores. Imagine if a Kirov took such a hit and all of the Shipwreck ASMs simultaneously exploded in their tubes, which sets off a number of other missiese in their tubes, ultimately leading to the forward section of the ship being blown off..... all from a single Harpoon that managed to get through the ships anti-missile defenses, pop-up, and slam into that part of the ship.

[Northstar98]

On 5/25/2021 at 11:34 AM, Fri13 said:

How much different it would really need to be from the current damage modeling? A underwater mine exploding on ship hull is pretty devastating action. If no hole itself is made, then there is some kind serious leak.

Yes, however, ships in DCS currently don't have any realistic sinking mechanics - they don't take into account how much flooding there is and where they were hit (unlike say for instance, Cold Waters or SH3/4). It's just HP = 0, and the ship sinks, they sink in exactly the same way taking the same amount of time every time.

As for ship damage modelling, apart from weapon mounts and some RADARs, the rest of it is purely eye candy. The rest is handles by a crude HP system.

Speaking about purely eye-candy, there's still work to do with the effects. And what I'd love to see is a 1-1 graphical representation, so we see impact holes exactly where weapons impacted (at least for larger weapons) - exactly what DCS does already with the craters on land (which even does it for autocannons above 20mm AFAIK).

How I envisage it is we'd have ships with approximated, low detail, internal, compartments that look burnt out on the inside, then when a weapon hits, it places an invisible texture where it hit, such that it looks like a hole. It should be said that this isn't far beyond what DCS already does - it already places craters textures of different sizes exactly where weapons appeared to land, and some ships already have some internal areas and textures that are invisible approximating holes (at least for larger), all we have to do is combine the 2 together, and make compartments throughout ships (these can be low detail and even be approximated).

Getting back to mines, it's not really critical, but as you said water is incompressible (well essentially incompressible), so you might see ships being lifted out of the water from explosions before falling back in. Essentially it's about modelling forces from explosions, and tying that into proper ship physics modelling with regards to buoyancy (which should tie into the damage model, even if we have to approximate (even loosely approximate) compartments. Though this might necessitate approximate soft-body physics, like on aircraft of that other WW2 simulator. Though again it's not critical if we can get the damage right.

Quote

That goes nicely for the future radar simulations, as both are just little different but in programming perspective almost same thing. You detect something by emission and you try to define what it is. At least I wouldn't be waiting any massive audio work to be done for long time as recording them and creating new ones must be fairly big work to those who does them.

I agree with the audio stuff, it doesn't need to be super accurate but they should differentiate based on propulsion system and power setting. Underwater it's more about propeller configuration and RPM, as well as things like cavitation.

There a numerous recordings online of various ships underwater (and even active SONAR pulses).

Quote

I don't believe they can drop mines either. But KA-27 could be used for anti-mine operations. At least there is no need to see anyone doing the work as it is submerged but having a crew disabling the mines etc would be as important as laying out the mines.

Well, we'd have to have mines in the first place before we can talk about demining stuff, but yes an important aspect.

Quote

It is little difficult to say which ones would be more important, ground mines (anti-vehicle, anti-personnel) or sea mines.... In a modern era the sea mines has probably run their course as against ships you go with anti-ship missiles and such so much easier, and against submarines you again want to go at sea. So the mining operation is more for denying some beach operations so easily, or getting to rivers etc. 

We already have a generic land mine, and they're probably more applicable for short timeframes (as well as things like the runway denial JP233 dispenser for the Tornado, if we ever get them). Naval mining is more strategic, and lends itself more to dynamic campaigns.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yes, however, ships in DCS currently don't have any realistic sinking mechanics - they don't take into account how much flooding there is and where they were hit (unlike say for instance, Cold Waters or SH3/4). It's just HP = 0, and the ship sinks, they sink in exactly the same way taking the same amount of time every time.

 

As for ship damage modelling, apart from weapon mounts and some RADARs, the rest of it is purely eye candy. The rest is handles by a crude HP system.

 

Speaking about purely eye-candy, there's still work to do with the effects. And what I'd love to see is a 1-1 graphical representation, so we see impact holes exactly where weapons impacted (at least for larger weapons) - exactly what DCS does already with the craters on land (which even does it for autocannons above 20mm AFAIK).

 

How I envisage it is we'd have ships with approximated, low detail, internal, compartments that look burnt out on the inside, then when a weapon hits, it places an invisible texture where it hit, such that it looks like a hole. It should be said that this isn't far beyond what DCS already does - it already places craters textures of different sizes exactly where weapons appeared to land, and some ships already have some internal areas and textures that are invisible approximating holes (at least for larger), all we have to do is combine the 2 together, and make compartments throughout ships (these can be low detail and even be approximated).

 

Dividing ship to a compartments would be a big improvement for the simulation. If there is no information about exact design, then at least use educated guesses as ships does follow some patterns and design laws. 

 

We would at least get the minor damages like even if the ship doesn't sink completely because leak is in small compartment that was sealed shut in time, it would slow down the ship, cause operational downtime or just slow it down. The ship would sink deeper and start to slow it down, a repair would be commenced and these takes time that naval warfare is about, long distances and slow speeds. 

 

This is important especially on the WW2 era ships where guns and bombs are the main weapons. And there the visuals are even more seen.

 

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Getting back to mines, it's not really critical, but as you said water is incompressible (well essentially incompressible), so you might see ships being lifted out of the water from explosions before falling back in. Essentially it's about modelling forces from explosions, and tying that into proper ship physics modelling with regards to buoyancy (which should tie into the damage model, even if we have to approximate (even loosely approximate) compartments. Though this might necessitate approximate soft-body physics, like on aircraft of that other WW2 simulator. Though again it's not critical if we can get the damage right. 

I agree with the audio stuff, it doesn't need to be super accurate but they should differentiate based on propulsion system and power setting. Underwater it's more about propeller configuration and RPM, as well as things like cavitation.

 

There a numerous recordings online of various ships underwater (and even active SONAR pulses).

Well, we'd have to have mines in the first place before we can talk about demining stuff, but yes an important aspect.

 

The different audio sources for ships is now easy to do for torpedo etc to track them, but IMHO we shouldn't consider DCS to enter to submarine warfare any further than just use submarines as special units that dive and surface and can launch some missiles, deck gun and torpedo. Would there be any sources where we would hear these audio differences?

As even if going or such state as in DCS to offer a sonar display or something, I see it more as a ID number in some cases for those to react. 

 

But likely as smaller boats would be the main victims to drive to seamine on harbor or near shore etc that they would totally blow up in the air. So some work there is required in the future. Similar as driving to a mine in car or tracked vehicle, the force is high so it is supposely part of the new physics modeling that vehicles going to mines (or getting exploded near) to have the capability jump in the air etc. 

 

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

We already have a generic land mine, and they're probably more applicable for short timeframes (as well as things like the runway denial JP233 dispenser for the Tornado, if we ever get them). Naval mining is more strategic, and lends itself more to dynamic campaigns.

 

Checkout the latest M2000C news report from MyHellJumper. The M2000C just was announced to receive the anti-runway bombs.

A JP233 would be very nasty for cleaning up, that would really open up these missions for Harrier, helicopters etc to operate in more suitable locations.

 

 

[Northstar98]

On 5/25/2021 at 4:34 PM, Fri13 said:

Dividing ship to a compartments would be a big improvement for the simulation. If there is no information about exact design, then at least use educated guesses as ships does follow some patterns and design laws. 

 

We would at least get the minor damages like even if the ship doesn't sink completely because leak is in small compartment that was sealed shut in time, it would slow down the ship, cause operational downtime or just slow it down. The ship would sink deeper and start to slow it down, a repair would be commenced and these takes time that naval warfare is about, long distances and slow speeds. 

 

This is important especially on the WW2 era ships where guns and bombs are the main weapons. And there the visuals are even more seen.

Basically, what I'm after is seeing things like ships listing and capsizing and sinking realistically, in realistic times. Instead of what they do now, which is when they run out of HP, they sink the exact same way in the same amount of time, regardless of what hit them and where.

Quote

The different audio sources for ships is now easy to do for torpedo etc to track them, but IMHO we shouldn't consider DCS to enter to submarine warfare any further than just use submarines as special units that dive and surface and can launch some missiles, deck gun and torpedo.

True, I'm not expecting anything like a 'lite' submarine simulator for a while if ever.

Quote

Would there be any sources where we would hear these audio differences?

You can get examples online of various propulsion noises underwater. In terms of the underway noise we have right now, the most critical thing is differentiation, a small motorboat shouldn't sound the same as a gas turbine missile boat, which shouldn't sound the same as a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which shouldn't sound the same as a submerged-diesel electric submarine. I'm not even sure you will here an underway engine noise from ships like you do in DCS (apart from smaller vessels), but right now they all sound exactly the same.

Underwater, propeller noises from various propulsion systems are fairly easy to find, there aren't many examples, but I'll list a few:

Video 1 (mostly active SONAR, though a couple of examples of propulsion sounds)

Video 2 (active SONAR, probably SQS-510 or SQS-53)

Video 3 (tonnes of stuff; biologics, propulsion sounds, seismic air guns, underwater beacon (sounds like an air raid siren), geological phenomena and a few unknowns).

Video 4 (as above)

Video 5 (active SONAR)

Video 6 (active SONAR)

Video 7 (analysis of Hårsfjärden incident, would recommend the channel for more analysis)

Underwater it's mostly propeller noises, which should be doable, and they should have things like blade rate for instance. There's also flow noise from the hull.

Quote

As even if going or such state as in DCS to offer a sonar display or something, I see it more as a ID number in some cases for those to react.

In terms of sound profiling? Yes, and it can be completely made up - it's what Cold Waters does, without any actual sound emitted from contacts (beyond more generic underway noise and flow noise). Though it should take into account things like background noise, with an SNR.

With mines it can obviously be approximated; here cmano does basically a perfect job. With SONAR it obviously only comes in with mines with acoustic fuses, which I'm pretty sure are the go to fuse when you want to do target discrimination.

Though in general, proximity fuses for mines, can be a bit more complicated, owing that there are different kinds of target detection systems with their own quirks that would need to be factored in for a proper implementation. It gets further complicated when some may even use combinations of sensors (which I think the Mk40 and Mk63 the Hornet was supposed to have use).

In general the main types of fuses are (and this applies to torpedoes as well):

• Acoustic influence; this will probably be the most capable with regards to target discrimination. There's differentiation in terms of sophistication (i.e will it just fuse on any suitably loud noise, is it narrow band or broadband? etc). Obviously though, good luck on finding particulars.
• Magnetic influence; this is more simple, but you've got variables like hull material, and whether or not it's degaussed, as well as variance with sophistication of the fuse.
• Pressure - which will probably discriminate vessels based on their displacement and speed.
• Contact (self explantory)
• Seismic
• Remote controlled; these will be placed close to coasts or in vital water areas and connected to a shore facility. They'll also probably be deployed with a hydrophone array for ASW. This incidentally relates to the Hårsfjärden incident.

Quote

But likely as smaller boats would be the main victims to drive to seamine on harbor or near shore etc that they would totally blow up in the air. So some work there is required in the future. Similar as driving to a mine in car or tracked vehicle, the force is high so it is supposely part of the new physics modeling that vehicles going to mines (or getting exploded near) to have the capability jump in the air etc.

Yeah, blasts imparting forests, shunting vehicles and pushing vessels upwards - as can be seen with numerous SINKEX tests. Though it's not that critical, but nice to have.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting