Jump to content

Why is the explosive mass and thus the damage on the S-8KOM and the S-80FP2 so much less then the damage on the much smaller M151 rocket?


CrazyGman

Recommended Posts

So looking at the explosive mass stats in game. The S-8KOM (which is the standard most common S-8 rocket used) seems to be really weak compared to the M151 which is the smaller rocket for the Hydra pod. Even the S-80FP2 which is a newer rocket and with a much bigger warhead supposedly is a lot weaker then the M151 rocket in game?

Screenshot_20220408-215612_Samsung Internet.jpg

18152D4B-451E-4C3B-BCD2-700031293EDA.thumb.jpeg.177fc3e19ec445affd01a4a4af5730a2.jpeg.jpg

Screenshot_20220408-222028_Samsung Internet.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED is using full warhead weight as explosive weight, they often do this to make up for fragmentation, which isn’t simulated in DCS. 
 

According to this website, actual explosive weight of M151 is 2.3 lbs, or 1.04 kg. https://www.aircav.com/hydra70.html
 

I suggest using this website, and as many others as you can find with this 2.3 lbs explosive weight figure, and put in the weapons bug section Of the main forum. Unfortunetly, ED does not have an exact boundary that decides if they use explosive filler or entire warhead weight for expl_mass. Usually if only purpose of weapon is HE, and not HEAT or penetration, more likely it is they use entire warhead weight as explosive mass to make up for no fragmentation in DCS

ED is using full warhead weight as explosive weight, they often do this to make up for fragmentation, which isn’t simulated in DCS. 
 

 

I suggest using this website, and as many others as you can find with this 2.3 lbs explosive weight figure, and out in the weapons bug section Of the main forum. Unfortunetly, ED does not have an exact boundary that decides if they use explosive filler or entire warhead weight for expl_mass. Usually if only purpose of weapon is HE, and not HEAT or penetration, more likely it is they use entire warhead weight as explosive mass to make up for no fragmentation in DCS

Here take this post with other sources of actual explosive weight Of M151 like one I posted above, and post in this forum for best results https://forum.dcs.world/forum/540-weapon-bugs/


Edited by AeriaGloria

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

According to this website, actual explosive weight of M151 is 2.3 lbs, or 1.04 kg. https://www.aircav.com/hydra70.html

Yeah but that is my point the warhead Weight for the S-8s are this

S-8KOM

3.6 kg
(1.1 kg of Hecphol-5/A-IX-10 explosive

S-80FP2

9.2 kg
(2.8 kg of explosive)
 

 

both have more actual explosive then the M151

is the S-80FP2 using full warhead weight then?

That still puts the S-8KOM lower far more then it should to the M151 I feel in game

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

Yeah but that is my point the warhead Weight for the S-8s are this

S-8KOM

3.6 kg
(1.1 kg of Hecphol-5/A-IX-10 explosive

S-80FP2

9.2 kg
(2.8 kg of explosive)
 

 

both have more actual explosive then the M151

is the S-80FP2 using full warhead weight then?

That still puts the S-8KOM lower far more then it should to the M151 I feel in game

  No you have it right, OFP2 is also using explosive filler weight for expl_mass, rather then full warhead weight the way the M151 is. As I said, ED is not exact with when they decide to use explosive weight or warhead weight for expl_mass.
 

   Hopefully if you bring it to the weapons bug section maybe it’s something they haven’t looked at in a while and can fix. But really, it is their decision when they use Explosive filler or warhead weight, it has never been exact or perfectly clear, they just decide when they need to make up for fragmentation by doing this, along with how their obj_factors and other_factor coefficients are set up.
 

  All we can do is make it known, and see if they are willing to look at it and change things or fix issues that have slipped by over time 

  • Like 3

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah fair enough.

OK if the S-8KOM has the armor piercing component the that makes more sense on that end.

It just seems odd I guess. The S-8KOM is basically the weapon of choice used a lot, so I was a bit surprised to see that the M151 hir harder on soft targets and could be further from  the target to do decent damage.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just thought I would post here so that there is photos of M151, S-8KOM, and S-8OFP2, along with S-5KO. Showing that S-5KO has 1.0 coefficient for object_factors and other_fsctors. The first number of these factors decided the coefficient applied to the warhead depending what it hits. For M151, you can see it does 100% damage if it hits the ground, and 25% if it hits object directly. Many rockets are like this. 
 

But for both S-8KOM and OFP2, it is 50% for both. This means that the explosion caused by the warhead is 50% smaller then actual expl_mass value, if it hits ground or object directly. For S-5KO, this is 1.0/100% for both. This means that S-8KOM really only has .4275 kg explosive, and OFP2 only has 1.35 kg. But S-5KO does full .37 kg, and it’s pod has 60% more ammo, and with no recoil, this makes S-5Ko The better rocket in DCS unless you are trying to take out tanks. Would be nice to have these two S-8 rockets conform better with the other rockets 

C8F647FA-D918-4BBB-B85A-6A6573464024.jpeg

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 27.5.2022 um 13:58 schrieb AeriaGloria:

Just thought I would post here so that there is photos of M151, S-8KOM, and S-8OFP2, along with S-5KO. Showing that S-5KO has 1.0 coefficient for object_factors and other_fsctors. The first number of these factors decided the coefficient applied to the warhead depending what it hits. For M151, you can see it does 100% damage if it hits the ground, and 25% if it hits object directly. Many rockets are like this. 
 

But for both S-8KOM and OFP2, it is 50% for both. This means that the explosion caused by the warhead is 50% smaller then actual expl_mass value, if it hits ground or object directly. For S-5KO, this is 1.0/100% for both. This means that S-8KOM really only has .4275 kg explosive, and OFP2 only has 1.35 kg. But S-5KO does full .37 kg, and it’s pod has 60% more ammo, and with no recoil, this makes S-5Ko The better rocket in DCS unless you are trying to take out tanks. Would be nice to have these two S-8 rockets conform better with the other rockets 

C8F647FA-D918-4BBB-B85A-6A6573464024.jpeg

caveat:
code can be deceiving. Just entering "correct" numbers does almot never result in "correct" representation in a game engine, especially in a flight sim, especially especially in a proprietary engine like the one of the DCS franchise (although labeling it "engine" is already a thin ice endeavour).

Even if a product engine, any product, any engine is inteded to have 1:1 maintenance:representation coding, there will always inevitably have to be endless tuning.

So to sourcetrack any issue we would have to know all factors and prerequisites of the causality chain, like (but not limited to):

  • Eagle's code intent, solution approach and systemic cohesion concept (Eagle D <-> cohesive systemics.. lol.. good one 🤪
  • DCS's engine behaviour and representation metrics
  • vertical keylog subsidiarity behavioural
  • function in- and outflow mapping

Neither of which we have access to, for all we can know the correct numbers to enter for the intended representation (assuming that is the intent)  could be "69", "666" and "wolperdingerfurz".

What we DO know are soft factors, like the fact that especially HE fragmentation and explosive dispersion is modeled... hmmm.. what should we type... underwhelming?  insufficient? odd? shorcoming?.
Mostly as a result of the great tradition of zero attention for the longest time for anything unless ex-post of a matter-hits-fan realization (oh look ground asset models recently got a poly pass... but only here and there and mostly over there....gee.. I wonder why.. and why not before?).

This can even reach module level, when anyone with one semester or even the faint idea to study BA or Marketing would understand all modules are to have the same scope and level and certain modules need special attention by necessity for a franchise scope and diversity and adversity balance. But here we are and here we will stay.

Also this and every other discussion, while neat is completely academic. I can assure you that nothing gestated here registers at the end of the hallway of Офис 87 in 141983 Московская область and any information officially disseminated here is rather... freeform.

And all the people with those yellow labels are mostly attention seekers in social media environments, herd animals going moooh for whoever and whatever (I refrain from typing 2 of the 5 actual media and gaming industry classification labels) neither doing any actual testing nor effluviating anything less safely dismissable than "official" anything (notable exception nonwithstanding, but exceptions are exactly that, statistical outliers non-representative of sample medians and centroids in a datapoint cloud).

So would - despite the futilty - should we, as consumers admonish then?

Well.. imho what we already have.. these rockets are not correctly represented. And this is the extent and limit of the admonishemt, supply correct sources, supply a problem outline.. and then rally and insist! to track the actual global source issue, not present a bandaid-fix.

And in the process, it would be nice to also finally (after YEARS) adress (exemplaries from a very long list) things like:

  • editor placeable beacons and NDBs not working
  • role select screen
  • server session table
  • foliage fuse issue
  • wipers and canopy rain shaders
  • rain in general
  • message and notification box cpu imprint
  • multithread
  • vulkan (beyond default)
  • globalization of munitions behaviour
  • globalization of radar systemics and behaviour
  • globalized franchise standards in general

But all of that, or any of that is as likely as world peace. 🤷‍♂️       

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rogorogo said:

caveat:
code can be deceiving. Just entering "correct" numbers does almot never result in "correct" representation in a game engine, especially in a flight sim, especially especially in a proprietary engine like the one of the DCS franchise (although labeling it "engine" is already a thin ice endeavour).

Even if a product engine, any product, any engine is inteded to have 1:1 maintenance:representation coding, there will always inevitably have to be endless tuning.

So to sourcetrack any issue we would have to know all factors and prerequisites of the causality chain, like (but not limited to):

  • Eagle's code intent, solution approach and systemic cohesion concept (Eagle D <-> cohesive systemics.. lol.. good one 🤪
  • DCS's engine behaviour and representation metrics
  • vertical keylog subsidiarity behavioural
  • function in- and outflow mapping

Neither of which we have access to, for all we can know the correct numbers to enter for the intended representation (assuming that is the intent)  could be "69", "666" and "wolperdingerfurz".

What we DO know are soft factors, like the fact that especially HE fragmentation and explosive dispersion is modeled... hmmm.. what should we type... underwhelming?  insufficient? odd? shorcoming?.
Mostly as a result of the great tradition of zero attention for the longest time for anything unless ex-post of a matter-hits-fan realization (oh look ground asset models recently got a poly pass... but only here and there and mostly over there....gee.. I wonder why.. and why not before?).

This can even reach module level, when anyone with one semester or even the faint idea to study BA or Marketing would understand all modules are to have the same scope and level and certain modules need special attention by necessity for a franchise scope and diversity and adversity balance. But here we are and here we will stay.

Also this and every other discussion, while neat is completely academic. I can assure you that nothing gestated here registers at the end of the hallway of Офис 87 in 141983 Московская область and any information officially disseminated here is rather... freeform.

And all the people with those yellow labels are mostly attention seekers in social media environments, herd animals going moooh for whoever and whatever (I refrain from typing 2 of the 5 actual media and gaming industry classification labels) neither doing any actual testing nor effluviating anything less safely dismissable than "official" anything (notable exception nonwithstanding, but exceptions are exactly that, statistical outliers non-representative of sample medians and centroids in a datapoint cloud).

So would - despite the futilty - should we, as consumers admonish then?

Well.. imho what we already have.. these rockets are not correctly represented. And this is the extent and limit of the admonishemt, supply correct sources, supply a problem outline.. and then rally and insist! to track the actual global source issue, not present a bandaid-fix.

And in the process, it would be nice to also finally (after YEARS) adress (exemplaries from a very long list) things like:

  • editor placeable beacons and NDBs not working
  • role select screen
  • server session table
  • foliage fuse issue
  • wipers and canopy rain shaders
  • rain in general
  • message and notification box cpu imprint
  • multithread
  • vulkan (beyond default)
  • globalization of munitions behaviour
  • globalization of radar systemics and behaviour
  • globalized franchise standards in general

But all of that, or any of that is as likely as world peace. 🤷‍♂️       

All I know is a translation of their own LUA notes, that define the factors and what they do. And many enterprising individuals that have modded weapons and can say, the first factor number is a coefficient of expl_mass, and the 2nd and 3rd factor numbers are only for visual effects, and that we can apply this to current LUAs viewable here https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine26B9AF20-6489-433B-BEE9-AC8A10535083.jpeg

F4A48548-740B-4EE9-B7E6-F71A94FAE5F7.png


Edited by AeriaGloria
  • Like 1

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...