What is your "Go-to" rocket type?

[shagrat]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb dedlike.:

the damage state in dcs is Alive/Not Alive,  no inbetween

No, it isn't. You notice when paying attention to the damage notification (critical damage messages) and also the actual behavior of damaged vehicles.

Since at least the Nevada Map, you get mobility effects, where a unit in a group suffering enough damage has its maximum speed reduced. This can be as bad as to a crawl. The group is slowed by its damaged unit. I have seen effects where vehicles that were suspiciously similar to "weapons" disabled, though it is difficult to tell, as I could not find a log entry or similar for this, yet.

If someone knows if and where DCS logs the critical damage sustained, I would love to get a hint.

[RodBorza]

On 10/15/2022 at 5:52 PM, NeedzWD40 said:

I see this sentiment a lot and I always get the impression that it comes down to misunderstanding how to use rockets, particularly from helicopters. The AH-64 has incredible flexibility when it comes to rockets and they are one of the best weapons you can employ when used correctly. Don't get me wrong: there are a number of issues with the current mechanics as implemented, especially in regards to fragmentation damage and ballistic calculations, but that doesn't make them useless.

I agree completely with this. Also I agree that most people do not understand how to use rockets, either in real life or in DCS. I also had the same questions, "why would I ever waste a pylon to carry these useless rockets?". But then I started to test them out, both in the Huey and on the Apache. On the Apache, in Cooperative mode with the CP/G it is very easy. On other modes, not so much. In the Huey, it is an art and a science, but when you get the hang of it, it becomes a good stand-off weapon for that platform. 

The point you made of rockets being a middle range weapon for the Apache is a good one. This I learned from my Huey tests.

I'm looking forward for you article on rocket employment, also I'm really curious how you can launch them form 10 km or so.  

[shagrat]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb FalcoGer:

In DCS it takes like 5% "damage". Since 5% or even 30% damage doesn't do anything, it might as well be nothing.

Yep, so artificial 5% damage to mirrors, webbing, metal sheets etc. doesn't "kill" a vehicle either. But the cumulative effect of 8 rocket impacts near a vehicle each dealing 5-10% damage, will likely give you a more severe effect, up to killing the vehicle.

The critical damage does not require 100% damage, from what I've seen. 

Anyway, the point is, though there is definitely room for improvement on the damage model of certain warheads and more detailed options to model internal damage, the rockets, if used against the right targets do perform not that bad, as people like to paint them.

[FalcoGer]

The points made were

• You can shoot rockets at 10km as your own personal MLRS strike
• You can actually hit stuff at 500m range
• Rockets are great between gun and missile range

You can't just compare the huey with the apache. In the UH1 you get nothing but the rockets to take out anything that's more armored than a cardboard box, so you have to make due.

As for the points above

• You won't hit anything against targets decently spread out, and if you do it's a fluke, and even if you hit you would've hit more things with hellfires.
• What's the point of using rockets if you're at 500m

As for the mid range thing, you can just stay at long range. Or you could just close to gun range. There is no need for a mid range weapon that is ineffective. I consider gun range to be < 2500m, and around 1500m if you want to save ammo, missiles are fine at up to 1500m or so or even closer. There is plenty of overlap. There is no gap to bridge.

15 minutes ago, shagrat said:

if used against the right targets do perform not that bad, as people like to paint them.

As I said, against infantry, they work.

Also I make the point that missiles are better of a choice to take rather than rockets. Not that rockets can't do anything. They DO kill things, if you hit them. If you are going to waste 8 rockets on a truck, you are wasting your potential. that's 1/3rd of the rockets in your pylon. A hellfire would've been 1/4th of that same pylon. That's exactly the point I'm making here. You get less effect for the same space. And you only get 4 spaces. On an A10 it doesn't matter, they're bomb trucks. Apaches are not. If you want to be competetive with your rockets vs hellfires, you need 8 kills, not 3 kills and 3 slowed down or any other nonsense. 8 complete kills, vehicles exploding and burning. And that's just not a thing that happens from 3000-7000m, where you claim rockets bridge the gap, unless you make a ridiculous scenario where there is a perking lot filled with technicals, bumper to bumper and mirrors touching.

Rockets are just inferior in every way. They are less lethal, less accurate, shorter range and as a result, even if you have 19 instead of 4, less effective overall. And even the fact that you have a bigger number doesn't mean you can get more kills, even if you hit every single one of them, because you have the gun as well. In aircraft where the guns don't exist or don't do anything like the uh1 or the mi8 and where rockets are literally your only option, then of course you take the rockets.

I'm done.

Edited October 17, 2022 by FalcoGer

[placsea]

10 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

"Peanut Gallery.": Someone who has squirrel brains. Anything they say should and will be ignored.....

Really now? It's nice to let go of a condescending insult just because there are many other opinions here, so YOU...
There's really no place for that here...

Agreed. We're enthusiasts discussing virtual munitions in an ever expanding simulator. Wholly unproductive and plain unnecessary to be mean and ugly towards one another.

[NeedzWD40]

A lot to unroll here. I'll address this first:

8 hours ago, placsea said:

Agreed. We're enthusiasts discussing virtual munitions in an ever expanding simulator. Wholly unproductive and plain unnecessary to be mean and ugly towards one another.

19 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

"Peanut Gallery.": Someone who has squirrel brains. Anything they say should and will be ignored.....

Really now? It's nice to let go of a condescending insult just because there are many other opinions here, so YOU...
There's really no place for that here...

I had not intended as such with my remark, but clearly offense was taken. I apologize for my choice of words and will endeavor to adjust my decorum going forward. Evidently, the discussion of rockets lights some fiery tempers all around.

That out of the way, I had not intended to start a massive argument over the nature regarding the quality of DCS rockets, positively or negatively. Are rockets modeled inaccurately? Yes, this is true. Are there problems that prevent them from reaching their potential? Unquestionably yes. Will they never be corrected or fixed? No. Like the rest of DCS, they are in a state of flux, and I expect that eventually their performance will match real-world parameters in due time. This is the reason for my current dialogue: the AH-64 module is presently in an early access state, with the associated roughness and issues to match. Along with that is an opportunity to learn how to leverage the aircraft and its systems as they steadily come online. Rockets make up part of the limited weapons triad available to the aircraft and to neglect them is, dare I say, leaving money on the table.

Should you use rockets? That is entirely contextual. Part of learning the module is knowing when and where to apply its capabilities. If you're always up against heavy armor, then no, rockets are of limited utility. But what about for other situations? Defilade fire, for example. Rockets can fill certain roles where necessary and yes, those roles can be commonplace if the scenario calls for it. I cannot speak for everyone, but I try to be as diverse as possible in the scenarios I play. That gives me the opportunity to do things that I wouldn't otherwise be doing if I was always working the anti-tank mission, a mission that I consider better served by platforms like the A-10. A scenario that limits me, puzzles me, and forces me to think is ideal. How many different ways can I solve this puzzle? is the question I always ask myself.

Within DCS, I've strapped a 230 gallon bag, max internal fuel, and spent 80 minutes flying over the Caucasus to destroy a SAM site, then provide terminal laser designation to destroy a bunker obscured by clouds. I've taken full internal fuel, smoke rockets, and flew 60 miles over Syria to search for targets and mark for friendly aircraft. I've taken illumination rockets and utilized them to provide positive ID of troops in contact at night. I've taken 16 HELLFIREs, 30% gas, and helped kill tanks Fulda Gap-style. There should be no limit to what you can try and do.

That's not for everyone. Some people like to dogfight. Some people want to simulate being in a real squadron, patterned after real operations. Some people want to destroy as much as possible, racking up a massive kill tally as they mow down hordes of tanks. These are all possible with DCS. Because of that, sometimes it's easy to get lost and forget why something is simulated. Why have ground radar when targeting pods exist? Why use AIM-7 when AIM-120 exists? Why use iron bombs when JDAM is available? And of course, why use rockets when HELLFIRE is so much better? The answers (that's plural for a reason) can be as varied as you want them to be.

No, the AH-64's rockets aren't where they should be. But they do have utility and it's not simply against infantry. If I should complete my planned article, I hope at a minimum to show the ways they can work. The question as to whether or not they should be used is entirely up to you.

15 hours ago, RodBorza said:

I'm looking forward for you article on rocket employment, also I'm really curious how you can launch them form 10 km or so. 

The basics are pretty simple: set a target point, run up to ~90 knots to the target, then at ~10.5km pull nose up to 30 degrees with full upward pylon elevation. As you pass through 30 degrees, fire your rockets. Use the cruise mode symbology for accurate pitch cuing.

15 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I'm done.

I should hope at a minimum you will at least stick around to play the requested scenario when I get it done. It's nothing too fancy and it would be interesting to see someone with a different approach to problem solving than I do.

[FalcoGer]

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Will they never be corrected or fixed?

It's not like only the apache rockets are broken. All rockets in DCS have had the same issue for decades now, from the very first installment of the KA50, A10, Su-25, and every other aircraft between up to now, Hornet, Viper, Jeff, every single one of them. The issue lies with core DCS. And some of those aircraft are not in early access, so that line of thinking of "It's EA, it'll be fixed" doesn't apply. It's a core game problem that requires a major rework of explosion simulation and the introduction of damage models to vehicles. That requires research into every single vehicle to know where stuff is on them and how it affects operations, what backup systems are available, how crews can field repair some damage perhaps and many other things like that. I don't expect to see any of that before 2030. It's not even on the roadmap. Before that we probably see a DM rework of ships, but at least that'll lay some foundational work.

I did an experiment once, loading an Su-25T up with all rockets, S-8, every single pylon that could carry them. I placed like 20 trucks on the kobuletti airstrip cross and just salvo fired every single one of them from around 3 miles or so. The whole area was one giant explosion and there should've been nothing left but scrap metal. How many did I kill? 5. Sure, it was a quick engagement, but had I taken my time, I could probably have killed more with the gun alone. And the Gsh-23 is not exactly the best thing in the world. Could I kill more with rockets? Yes, I could by getting closer, carefully lining up my shots and shooting short bursts at every target. But rockets are area weapons, so I tried using them as such. IRL that engagement would've been complete overkill, in DCS it was very lacking.

The ineffective rocket simulation is also the reason why people called for APKWS so much, because that instantly turns rockets from near useless to OP killing machines, as evidenced by their introduction to the A10-II, completely replacing mavericks against everything except the most heaviest of tank targets and buildings and replacing the need for accurate gun lineup with get a point track with the TGP and fire the rocket in the general direction of the target.

I like to choose the best tool for the job, not take a knife to chop down a bush. It's possible, but dumb, even if the knife in real life is a machete, I'd rather take the chainsaw than the knife. If there is some role play reason for it or if the situation calls for it, then sure.

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

I should hope at a minimum you will at least stick around to play the requested scenario

Sure. If you know some magic that turns rockets into useful assets against soft and medium targets, I'm all too happy to learn that.

[Dagobert666]

On 10/17/2022 at 12:48 AM, Swift. said:

Its not all about vehicles. Flechettes aren't a point explosion like all the other warheads. Itll be a cone of death darts flying through anything in their way. Ripping into soft targets whether they be under a canopy or in a soft building etc.

I'm sorry to say that but

-in DCS, vehicles don't have drivers that can be hit,
-Houses are empty cubes of polygons that are either "alive" 1 or "destroyed" 0.

Even in the infamous ZU-23-2 emplacement, the two exposed soldiers operating the turret are purely visual and do not exist in DCS CODE. That's exactly the problem why rockets are so garbage.

In reality, if a Hydra 70 FRAG explode 10m from a truck, you would damage the tires, gas tank and engine parts. Also kill or injure the driver, passenger and the 12 soldiers on the truck bed, so they probably have to go home again.. to the hospital or to the cemetery...

In DCS the truck gets 5-10% damage... that's it XD

Edited October 18, 2022 by Dagobert666

[shagrat]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dagobert666:

I'm sorry to say that but

-in DCS, vehicles don't have drivers that can be hit,
-Houses are empty cubes of polygons that are either "alive" 1 or "destroyed" 0.

Even in the infamous ZU-23-2 emplacement, the two exposed soldiers operating the turret are purely visual and do not exist in DCS CODE. That's exactly the problem why rockets are so garbage.

In reality, if a Hydra 70 FRAG explode 10m from a truck, you would damage the tires, gas tank and engine parts. Also kill or injure the driver, passenger and the 12 soldiers on the truck bed, so they probably have to go home again.. to the hospital or to the cemetery...

In DCS the truck gets 5-10% damage... that's it XD

 

Depends on distance... and this damage is cumulative. Immobilisation effects are modeled above a certain damage threshold, as are likely other critical damage effects. The more damage the higher the chance to get critical components "damaged". Not every rocket at a distance of 10m will kill/incapacitate all soldiers on the truck, hit the tank, damage the engine, kill the driver, or incinerate the covers.

The problem with games is, they can't accurately calculate damage from a fragmentation weapon, because there are at least 3 different lethal effects at work, that all interact with the environment. Blast, heat/fire and fragmentation.

Blast waves are shaped, reflected and compressed by the surrounding environment. A blast in a narrow street is way more lethal than on an open field. Heat/fire is partially shielded by objects, walls, but also reflected. Fragmentation is a multitude of objects flying a ballistic trajectory, hitting, sometimes penetrating the surrounding environment and potential targets.

The computing power required to accurately calculate all this with ray tracing, may have an adverse effect on frame rates and overall performance... Let's say there are good reasons to use a more simplified way to model damage in most games.

From my experience in the Apache lately, a Zsu-23 on a truck or unfortified emplacement, as well as technicals, trucks and infantry, now can be eliminated with a 4-8 rocket attack, if flown correct. 80-120 kts, range 3.500  - 2.500m or closer. Stable approach and co-op to ensure proper ranging information. I even killed BRDM and M113 with M229 rockets, though as they're armored it takes direct hits, so it is more effective to use AGM-114 Hellfire, against anything armored. 

In the end it's up for everyone to decide on their own what weapon to use in a specific situation. For me the rockets, especially the M229 work pretty well in the appropriate scenarios.

Are they perfectly simulated? Nope, far from it. Still lot of room for improvement.

Are rockets useless? Depends on the scenario. In most typical DCS REDFOR vs BLUEFOR scenarios, where you need to stop a flood of armored vehicles and tanks, definitely not the first choice. COIN or CAS against pop-up threats in wood lines, villages? Often easier to put a rocket strike on the position, than breaking of get in position for a Hellfire shot, while friendlies take the heat.

Is the damage model of the ground vehicles perfect? Nope, though ED did add the critical damages and some effects, we miss visual indication (popped tires, broken track, burn marks, etc.). Also model damage so not "every" killed vehicle is exploding and burning, to add more realism and require pilots to assess the damage by behavior instead. A more detailed and flexible damage model wouldn't hurt, either, though I personally would prefer to better model damage effects of fragmentation and heat first.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by shagrat

[NeedzWD40]

On 10/18/2022 at 1:11 AM, FalcoGer said:

Sure.

So this scenario took longer to get into a working state because the B-1 had a tendency to blow itself up with JDAM somehow (maybe it tries to put the pin back in?) but I believe it's in a working state now. It should be possible to complete with either HELLFIRE missile massacre or the standard 8xHELLFIRE, 38xM151 configuration. I do believe it should be easier with HELLFIRE, but careful planning will be a must in that configuration. I'd also recommend running the front seat because George doesn't exactly have the best logic when engaging certain types of targets nor proper use of TADS with the gun. It shouldn't take much longer than 2 hours to complete the mission and it's coop capable if you or anyone else would like to multiship/multicrew. I also added slots for SA342L/M, Ka-50, and Mi-24P, but the starting hour may need to be modified to get the best results with those modules.

The scenario is built under the auspices of my more common use cases with the AH-64 in supporting fixed wing operations vice interdiction or attack in support of ground forces. It's a bit unrealistic of course, but we all knew that going in, hey?

Naturally, the first trial run I forgot to turn on Tacview, so I'll have to do another run with it switched on later. Not a big loss because the B-1 still blew himself up in that run anyways. Too bad the B-1 doesn't have an available callsign of "Bonehead"...

Party in Ten.miz

[FalcoGer]

2 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

It's a bit unrealistic of course, but we all knew that going in, hey?

You don't say. Every sam site has like 5 radars, what's up with that?

The maximum number of launchers for an SA-2 site is 6.

I have altered the composition of the sam sites to be more in line what's actually possible. I also gave them short range defenses so you can't just rush into min range.

Party in Ten.miz

Edited October 20, 2022 by FalcoGer

[NeedzWD40]

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

You don't say. Every sam site has like 5 radars, what's up with that?

The maximum number of launchers for an SA-2 site is 6.

I have altered the composition of the sam sites to be more in line what's actually possible. I also gave them short range defenses so you can't just rush into min range.

Normally I add additional search radars and track radars as HARM redundancy, though often I try to work in HARM reaction scripting instead. I'll also add additional track radars to add multi-target capability for certain systems like SA-5.

Have you tried the mission as originally designed?

[FalcoGer]

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Normally I add additional search radars and track radars as HARM redundancy, though often I try to work in HARM reaction scripting instead. I'll also add additional track radars to add multi-target capability for certain systems like SA-5.

Have you tried the mission as originally designed?

I have yet to find anyone to fly with. They say 2 hours is too long. Also do you have a source that says that this is what operators do with these systems, like putting 4 search radars up instead of 1, because that sounds a bit ridiculous to me?

[Dagobert666]

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I have yet to find anyone to fly with. They say 2 hours is too long. Also do you have a source that says that this is what operators do with these systems, like putting 4 search radars up instead of 1, because that sounds a bit ridiculous to me?

 

4 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Normally I add additional search radars and track radars as HARM redundancy, though often I try to work in HARM reaction scripting instead. I'll also add additional track radars to add multi-target capability for certain systems like SA-5.

Have you tried the mission as originally designed?

 

Yes, normally one SR and one TR. Often even just one SR in a whole network that is spread over several kilometers.
In addition, each position usually has infantry, a two vehicles with HMG or autocannons, and 1-2 manpads.

But of course these are all things that make using Hydra70 rockets extremely dangerous.
You would have to get so close that you would get caught in a bullet storm.

By the way, there comes the next problem that breaks the rockets in DCS. HMG and autocannons are ABSOLUTELY ridiculously accurate against flying targets.
During my time in the German Bundeswehr I had anti-aircraft shooting. With our 2x MG3 Lafette. And it's incredibly difficult even in a training scenario with no real pressure, no adrenaline rush and a drone slowly flying straight ahead.

In DCS all Gunners are just Divine Archers with awesome Aimbots, even on Easy/Average.

[FalcoGer]

If you want to harm proof, add an SA15 or SA10 like the russians would do, not quadruple up your radars (like nobody does). additionally you may add a script such as this one. They won't turn on their own radar until the EWR has found a target and said target is in range. They would also turn the radar off if they detect incoming missiles, unless they have an anti missile system, like the SA15 nearby to intercept.

But of course adding short range defenses to a long range sam site, like anybody who is decently sane, would make using rockets against that site pretty much impractical. It also prevents you from just flying low into min range of that SA2 site and just shooting stuff up with guns (or rockets) with impunity.

Edited October 20, 2022 by FalcoGer

[shagrat]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Dagobert666:

 HMG and autocannons are ABSOLUTELY ridiculously accurate against flying targets.

During my time in the German Bundeswehr I had anti-aircraft shooting. With our 2x MG3 Lafette. And it's incredibly difficult even in a training scenario with no real pressure, no adrenaline rush and a drone slowly flying straight ahead.

In DCS all Gunners are just Divine Archers with awesome Aimbots, even on Easy/Average.

Yep, that's indeed something that needs some love, since DCS: A-10C Warthog...

But as I said before, you don't use rockets in a frontal assault against a company of BMPs, either. In realistic scenarios they work pretty, well.

For example, the real life run on the Iraqi search radars that initiated Desert Storm were executed by Apaches with mixed loadout, against a search radar installation with light(!) air defenses (AAA, Manpads) and not active SAM Sites, with multiple SR and TR. Both groups had more than 2 AH-64. They used the rockets to mop up and not to destroy the primary targets. They sent enough aircraft to ensure enough firepower, flexibility etc.

To expect a single or two AH-64D with only laser Hellfire to go against an IADS or two to three companies worth of mechanized Infantry with integrated air defense is more like begging for cold war attrition rates...

If we look at real life engagements with AH-64 Apaches, both the A, D and british "D" variant, they took great care and still were regularly shot down or damaged by some afghan insurgents with machine guns and RPGs. So there is a very real risk to get your a.. handed to you, if you try engaging Zsu-23, or more sophisticated anti-air in real life, not because the rockets in DCS "suck", but because attacking well defended targets with larger caliber autocannons and laser ranging sights sucks in real life as well and is usually more a last option, if you can use stand off tactics to minimize exposure to the threat or call backup, better equipped to deal with it.

Edited October 20, 2022 by shagrat

[NeedzWD40]

22 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I have yet to find anyone to fly with. They say 2 hours is too long. Also do you have a source that says that this is what operators do with these systems, like putting 4 search radars up instead of 1, because that sounds a bit ridiculous to me?

The intent of the scenario wasn't to create the most realistic operation ever, but to have a complex problem with a multitude of potential solutions (that I can think of). Multiple radars, both track and search, to make up for the fact we don't have things like microwave ovens rigged to give errant signals, ground based jammers, etc. I also standardize 4-5 SHORAD pieces typically split between AAA and SAM for the appropriate era, so SA-10 gets SA-15 and SA-19, while older generation gets ZU-23, ZSU-23-4, SA-13, and SA-9. MANPADS and standard infantry round out the defense, though the red side is missing an appropriate LMG soldier.

20 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

If you want to harm proof, add an SA15 or SA10 like the russians would do, not quadruple up your radars (like nobody does). additionally you may add a script such as this one. They won't turn on their own radar until the EWR has found a target and said target is in range. They would also turn the radar off if they detect incoming missiles, unless they have an anti missile system, like the SA15 nearby to intercept.

But of course adding short range defenses to a long range sam site, like anybody who is decently sane, would make using rockets against that site pretty much impractical. It also prevents you from just flying low into min range of that SA2 site and just shooting stuff up with guns (or rockets) with impunity.

Sometimes the rules have to be bent to make a compelling scenario. I often pair up dissimilar search radars like P-19 to add some confusion and clutter to the otherwise ultra-reliable RWR systems. I've also had players simply fly close enough to SA-15s and launch a HARM to retain speed, so redundancy goes a ways toward encouraging hard kill vs suppression weaponry.

I had thought that with multiple SA-19, SA-15, ZSU-23-4, ZU-23, MANPADS, and infantry present around the sites would be enough to discourage easily flying close, as it's typically quite effective in my experience.

Unfortunately, while I had made the scenario in good faith, it apparently has not been received as such. My reason for sharing it was simply that I had already put the work into it and I felt that at a minimum it would be interesting to see a real professional put it through its paces. As it apparently is not up to your standards, then I'll set it aside for review/rebuilding.

I think at this point it's time to put this one to bed. If I had any idea the vociferous response I got out of my remark, I'd have kept silent. My apologies to the OP and those present, as my original intent of sharing knowledge has been critically derailed, of which I shoulder a fair chunk of the blame. I will persevere to be more guarded with my remarks and knowledge from here on out.

20 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

By the way, there comes the next problem that breaks the rockets in DCS. HMG and autocannons are ABSOLUTELY ridiculously accurate against flying targets.

On this point, I heartily agree. Systems like the ZSU-23-4 should be far better than an average ZU-23, BRDM, HMG, or BMP-2, yet within the game they all employ identical aiming and detection capabilities. Even the mechanical accuracy of many weapons is well beyond real world performance, a trend I've noticed in many pieces of entertainment software.

[Hobel]

Am 18.10.2022 um 14:29 schrieb shagrat:

Depends on distance... and this damage is cumulative. Immobilisation effects are modeled above a certain damage threshold, as are likely other critical damage effects. The more damage the higher the chance to get critical components "damaged". Not every rocket at a distance of 10m will kill/incapacitate all soldiers on the truck, hit the tank, damage the engine, kill the driver, or incinerate the covers.

The problem with games is, they can't accurately calculate damage from a fragmentation weapon, because there are at least 3 different lethal effects at work, that all interact with the environment. Blast, heat/fire and fragmentation.

Blast waves are shaped, reflected and compressed by the surrounding environment. A blast in a narrow street is way more lethal than on an open field. Heat/fire is partially shielded by objects, walls, but also reflected. Fragmentation is a multitude of objects flying a ballistic trajectory, hitting, sometimes penetrating the surrounding environment and potential targets.

The computing power required to accurately calculate all this with ray tracing, may have an adverse effect on frame rates and overall performance... Let's say there are good reasons to use a more simplified way to model damage in most games.

From my experience in the Apache lately, a Zsu-23 on a truck or unfortified emplacement, as well as technicals, trucks and infantry, now can be eliminated with a 4-8 rocket attack, if flown correct. 80-120 kts, range 3.500  - 2.500m or closer. Stable approach and co-op to ensure proper ranging information. I even killed BRDM and M113 with M229 rockets, though as they're armored it takes direct hits, so it is more effective to use AGM-114 Hellfire, against anything armored. 

In the end it's up for everyone to decide on their own what weapon to use in a specific situation. For me the rockets, especially the M229 work pretty well in the appropriate scenarios.

Are they perfectly simulated? Nope, far from it. Still lot of room for improvement.

Are rockets useless? Depends on the scenario. In most typical DCS REDFOR vs BLUEFOR scenarios, where you need to stop a flood of armored vehicles and tanks, definitely not the first choice. COIN or CAS against pop-up threats in wood lines, villages? Often easier to put a rocket strike on the position, than breaking of get in position for a Hellfire shot, while friendlies take the heat.

Is the damage model of the ground vehicles perfect? Nope, though ED did add the critical damages and some effects, we miss visual indication (popped tires, broken track, burn marks, etc.). Also model damage so not "every" killed vehicle is exploding and burning, to add more realism and require pilots to assess the damage by behavior instead. A more detailed and flexible damage model wouldn't hurt, either, though I personally would prefer to better model damage effects of fragmentation and heat first.

 

 

 

I agree with you to a large extent, but you mention the problem yourself, a BRDM (7-10mm armor) needs a direct hit.
Wouldn't it be a much better approach if it gets at least 25-30% damage when the missile hits 5-10m next to it? and so with other similar vehicles.

because that's what I think most people here want, at least as a transition until you tackle a more detailed DM

[Dagobert666]

On 10/21/2022 at 1:08 AM, shagrat said:

Yep, that's indeed something that needs some love, since DCS: A-10C Warthog...

But as I said before, you don't use rockets in a frontal assault against a company of BMPs, either. In realistic scenarios they work pretty, well.

For example, the real life run on the Iraqi search radars that initiated Desert Storm were executed by Apaches with mixed loadout, against a search radar installation with light(!) air defenses (AAA, Manpads) and not active SAM Sites, with multiple SR and TR. Both groups had more than 2 AH-64. They used the rockets to mop up and not to destroy the primary targets. They sent enough aircraft to ensure enough firepower, flexibility etc.

To expect a single or two AH-64D with only laser Hellfire to go against an IADS or two to three companies worth of mechanized Infantry with integrated air defense is more like begging for cold war attrition rates...

If we look at real life engagements with AH-64 Apaches, both the A, D and british "D" variant, they took great care and still were regularly shot down or damaged by some afghan insurgents with machine guns and RPGs. So there is a very real risk to get your a.. handed to you, if you try engaging Zsu-23, or more sophisticated anti-air in real life, not because the rockets in DCS "suck", but because attacking well defended targets with larger caliber autocannons and laser ranging sights sucks in real life as well and is usually more a last option, if you can use stand off tactics to minimize exposure to the threat or call backup, better equipped to deal with it.

 

I think you throw too much together and twist what I say. That's why I'm trying to preziesen again.

1) Zsu-23, or more sophisticated anti-air: YES absolutely right, the aiming accuracy of a "Shilka" in DCS is absolutely fine in DCS. So Shilka, 2K22 Tunguska, etc. Radar-assisted anti-aircraft guns are basically the Kryptonite for helicopters. Absolute madness to want to fight with the Gun or Hydra70. I Agree 

2) It's about the ridiculous accuracy of:
A) eg BRT80... Do they have a laser range finder? Yes. you're right!
BUT have you seen how it's used? Me yes... The Russian Tech is absolutely not suitable for targeting and shooting at something in flight. It's not like the main gun on the M1A1 Abrams or the Leopard 2 where you just aim, then laser and the cannon will auto-align with lead.... No, the Rusian-Laser just gives you the range..... And hitting something that flies and therefore moves in three dimensions only becomes marginally easier.

B) Even more ridiculous is the accuracy of the HMG 12.7mm that is mounted on the T55, T72 etc. on top of it. That's the original thing I had with the Bundeswehr with the 2XMG3 training... Just a manual Iron-Air-Defense-Vesier.

So that to hit a helicopter that:
1. NOT moving straight ahead
2. Climps and falls
3. at distances over 300m
is pure luck.

But in DCS it's almost inevitable. If you don't believe me, I'll show you videos where I was hit by an "AI-EASY" T55 at a distance of more than a kilometer from this fire, although I dodged like a berserker...

The problem here is again: the AI is set to "EASY/Recrut, Newbie" not "Very Hard, Veteran, ACE"

I expect someone who has just left basic training as a tank crew to have been theoretically briefed on the anti-aircraft capabilities of the HMG 12.7mm once. But not dealing with it as if he hasn't done anything else every day for 20 years. Add to that the adrenaline rush. You tremble so much that you can no longer speak of exact Aiming at distances of more than 100m...

[shagrat]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Hobel:

I agree with you to a large extent, but you mention the problem yourself, a BRDM (7-10mm armor) needs a direct hit.
Wouldn't it be a much better approach if it gets at least 25-30% damage when the missile hits 5-10m next to it? and so with other similar vehicles.

because that's what I think most people here want, at least as a transition until you tackle a more detailed DM

Well, it is armored(!) exactly to protect from that kind of splash damage and small arms fire. So what do we expect?

The armor mostly can't defeat an armor piercing shell, neither from an RPG or a Tanks. It can't withstand any large caliber rounds, either. Yet the armor, by design, will block shrapnel and splash damage from small fragmentation warheads, most of the time. 

That's actually the reason, that HYDRA rockets with Armor piercing warheads are a thing... To kill armored stuff, with a direct hit, not hope on the effects of splash damage.

I personally would prefer to adjust all weapons in a way they better mimic fragmentation damage to the targets. The current way of (somewhat implified) modeling of internal damage is fine for me. Honestly, it would be cool if every bullet or fragment slicing through the target would be ray tracing and collision with internal systems, but I am perfectly fine with the current model. So if damage is dealt to the internal compartment there is an increasing likely hood we see effects, like speed decrease, immobilisation, weapon defects, etc.

The critical component in DCS damage modeling is the way the damage types are calculated. We need a blast, heat and fragmentation. Not necessarily "simulated", but integrated into the calculation of the overall damage dealt to any target.

Edited October 22, 2022 by shagrat

[shagrat]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Dagobert666:

I think you throw too much together and twist what I say. That's why I'm trying to preziesen again.

1) Zsu-23, or more sophisticated anti-air: YES absolutely right, the aiming accuracy of a "Shilka" in DCS is absolutely fine in DCS. So Shilka, 2K22 Tunguska, etc. Radar-assisted anti-aircraft guns are basically the Kryptonite for helicopters. Absolute madness to want to fight with the Gun or Hydra70. I Agree 

2) It's about the ridiculous accuracy of:
A) eg BRT80... Do they have a laser range finder? Yes. you're right!
BUT have you seen how it's used? Me yes... The Russian Tech is absolutely not suitable for targeting and shooting at something in flight. It's not like the main gun on the M1A1 Abrams or the Leopard 2 where you just aim, then laser and the cannon will auto-align with lead.... No, the Rusian-Laser just gives you the range..... And hitting something that flies and therefore moves in three dimensions only becomes marginally easier.

B) Even more ridiculous is the accuracy of the HMG 12.7mm that is mounted on the T55, T72 etc. on top of it. That's the original thing I had with the Bundeswehr with the 2XMG3 training... Just a manual Iron-Air-Defense-Vesier.

So that to hit a helicopter that:
1. NOT moving straight ahead
2. Climps and falls
3. at distances over 300m
is pure luck.

But in DCS it's almost inevitable. If you don't believe me, I'll show you videos where I was hit by an "AI-EASY" T55 at a distance of more than a kilometer from this fire, although I dodged like a berserker...

The problem here is again: the AI is set to "EASY/Recrut, Newbie" not "Very Hard, Veteran, ACE"

I expect someone who has just left basic training as a tank crew to have been theoretically briefed on the anti-aircraft capabilities of the HMG 12.7mm once. But not dealing with it as if he hasn't done anything else every day for 20 years. Add to that the adrenaline rush. You tremble so much that you can no longer speak of exact Aiming at distances of more than 100m...

Yes, totally agree, I am actually complaining about the non-AAA ground vehicles accuracy since the A-10C.

That has been an issue since forever.

I have no idea, why we still see BMPs that kill low flying aircraft with a precision burst from their autocannons.

T-55/T-72 self defense anti-air MGs that are more accurate than the Zsu-23-2, are crazy.

As well as 4-5km ATGM shots against helicopters that differ from MANPADs only by speed. This is a well known issue and I really would love this to be fixed.

Scenarios where AH-64D are tasked to take out protected SAM positions in broad daylight, without any additional air support or SEAD, in my opinion are a typical game approach to create a difficult challenge. Yet, that is a scenario that should never happen IRL, other than as a last resort.

The Apache is designed to take out armor/low level air defenses with its standoff capabilities (Hellfires) and mop up lightly armored vehicles, trucks and infantry.

It proved to be quite good at CAS in COINscenarios, as well. Where the troops often benefited from the rockets when they could tell the Apaches to hit a woodline, small forest, a ridgeline etc. opposed to a precise impact point. The option of rockets, HEDP from the gun and the occasional Hellfire for a precise strike against a cave entrance, vehicle, building, or similar is a good showcase for the weapons mix and versatility. 

 

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb shagrat:

The armor mostly can't defeat an armor piercing shell, neither from an RPG or a Tanks. It can't withstand any large caliber rounds, either. Yet the armor, by design, will block shrapnel and splash damage from small fragmentation warheads, most of the time. 

Yes, but how do you know that the M229 Hydra is not capable of adding damage to 7mm of armour at 5m? With a 7 kg warhead, it seems quite possible to me.
Assuming the armour holds, what about the wheels? In reality, the vehicle would no longer be able to move.

In DCS, nothing or too little happens.
Some damage would be appropriate here to compensate for the lack of detail, and that would also be fine.

 

Update:

I have just tested the whole thing again and against BRDM and BTR the M229 Hydra do a decent AOE damage, I am surprised I want to think that some time ago direct hits were necessary especially with BTR.
 

 

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Hobel:

Yes, but how do you know that the M229 Hydra is not capable of adding damage to 7mm of armour at 5m? With a 7 kg warhead, it seems quite possible to me.
Assuming the armour holds, what about the wheels? In reality, the vehicle would no longer be able to move.

In DCS, nothing or too little happens.
Some damage would be appropriate here to compensate for the lack of detail, and that would also be fine.

 

Update:

I have just tested the whole thing again and against BRDM and BTR the M229 Hydra do a decent AOE damage, I am surprised I want to think that some time ago direct hits were necessary especially with BTR.
 

 

That's what I meant, there were already a lot of smaller updates and improvements over the last years.

The rockets are far from useless, especially since with the introduction of the Apache there (finally) was a fix to the incredible resilience of infantry and ED fixed the "armor"/health. Now, rockets work as area weapons, against infantry, they deal noticeable damage to unarmored and lightly armored vehicles, resulting often in kills for unarmored stuff and damage to armored stuff, cumulative and up to the point where a 4-8 rocket barrage has a more realistic impact. This combined with the random critical damage effects, like immobilisation etc. gives us pretty believable effects, without a direct hit. Though to have an instant kill, you still need one or two rockets actually hitting a BTR, M113 or the like, or cumulate enough damage, through multiple rockets landing close.

The problem with the hyper accurate BMP gunners is still valid, though.

The positive thing is, though it is a painfully slow process, there is work done on these things in the background. Unfortunately these are often introduced silently, without even a notice in the Changelogs.

When I tested the infantry path finding a while ago, to check on some issues, not only was the path finding way(!) better, than years ago, but my jaw dropped, like in a Tex Avery cartoon, when I noticed the Infantry in line abreast formation using basic fire and maneuver tactics with bounding overwatch. 8 rifleman group, 4 hold and fire, while 4 advance, then switch. I had tears of joy in my eyes... and it wasn't even one line in the changelog or newsletter.

Again, I am aware, there is still lot of room for improvement in the damage modeling and weapon effects, but we have progress and the current results improved considerably, to the point where rockets and aircraft guns(!) now do their job.

Edited October 22, 2022 by shagrat

[shagrat]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Dagobert666:

I expect someone who has just left basic training as a tank crew to have been theoretically briefed on the anti-aircraft capabilities of the HMG 12.7mm once. But not dealing with it as if he hasn't done anything else every day for 20 years. Add to that the adrenaline rush. You tremble so much that you can no longer speak of exact Aiming at distances of more than 100m...

Agreed. There's even more. They mostly hit you after you passed the target, which at least I learned during Anti-air training with typical MG on vehicles, you do NOT, as you need a computer calculating lead in realtime to put bullets into a flight path of an aircraft flying away(!) from you.

The AI has no issue estimating speed, distance, vector and bullet trajectory to match, a feat a human even with years of training would have learned is wasteful with the ammunition.

My guess is, everything that has a "laser" for ranging and "optics" listed as sensor in the vehicle definition, has these in-human sniper abilities. Also for this aspect, there seems to be no impact from the skill setting. That still mostly seems to influence detection times until you are "spotted".