Make 'smoke by damage' optional in ME

[Minhal]

I am not really happy with the newly introduced "smoke when damaged" thing. No idea who asked for that or thought of it as a good idea. It is a gamey feature to display a units health bar directly on the battlefield and by that reinforcing this simplyfied mechanic. Being someone looking for realism, this really makes me cringe. A lot.

Could we please have this as an option mission designers can deactivate? I do not want any vehicles or statics smoke because they got hit by a bullet. It is horrible.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Minhal
Changed topic title to make more clear

[markom]

Real vehicles can also smoke when hit by bullets. 

[Minhal]

Of course they can. But not because their health bar went below X%, but most likely because their motor got hit - resulting in becoming immobile. Vehicles do not miracly start to smoke when shot at.

The current implementation is a cosmetic, displaying the terrible hitpoint mechanism. Not an actual state of the vehicles systems.

And if people want feedback if they damaged a vehicle, there is the optional BDA overlay window.

[Minhal]

Just to elaborate a bit more, real vehicles also can also explode. But the current state of literally every vehicle exploding and burning when destroyed is unrealistic too already. Vehicle smoke on damage is five steps back into the direction of gaming, not simulation and realism.

In reality, some vehicles that count as kill indeed explode (cookoff), others just start smoking and burning (fuel, ammunition burning/incendiary ammo or tracers), others are mobility kills (motor, wheels, tracks, steering components), knocked out (damage to other combat-vital systems like weaponry or electricity) or simple crew kills, where all or parts of the crew are wounded or killed and the vehicle becomes combat-ineffective for the time being.

On a M113 or BTR-70 for example, a burst of .50cal or bigger should go well right through the vehicle - at least from the sides. Likely wrecking havoc inside from bullets and shrapnel. But unless motor or fuel/ammunition components are hit, there will be no smoke, no explosions. The vehicle (the passengers) will be out of action and the only indication probably will be the vehicle stopping or going off tracks.

Incendiary ammunition or tracers of course can start a fire inside a vehicle, but not in 100% of hits. Especially when the ammunition goes right through like with lightly armored APCs or even trucks with fabric cover.

Everything burning and/or exploding is a Hollywood movie thinking and the exact opposite to what DCS strives to be. If there were changes to damage being displayed, i would have loved to see ED to make vehicle kills more realistic as described above. Not make vehicle damage more action movie like as it was just done. Really disappointed.

[draconus]

@Minhal You're basically asking for high fidelity damage model like it was done first for WW2 aircraft in DCS. Jets, helis, ships and ground vehicles will have it done too (as was planned) but it will not be near future. Atm the change is not really more or less realistic imho, unless we talk about infantry, lol

[Minhal]

20 minutes ago, draconus said:

@Minhal You're basically asking for high fidelity damage model like it was done first for WW2 aircraft in DCS. Jets, helis, ships and ground vehicles will have it done too (as was planned) but it will not be near future. Atm the change is not really more or less realistic imho, unless we talk about infantry, lol

Not literally asking for it, was just looking to put the new "feature" into perspective Find it weird to develop in a more realistic way (aware ED is working on a better damage model) and then implement such a backward feature that reinforces the simplified hitpoint model. Never seen a wishlist item for this and i do not get why something like this is, like other things in the past, forced on everybody. It is an additional unrealistic feature put on top of an unrealistic feature.

[MadKreator]

Idk, I’m kind of on the opposite side of this. I think it’s kind of a neat feature. Sure its not realistic in every scenario. If you blast rounds from your a-10 through the back of a truck full of infantry or AAA in the bed, and somehow don’t hit the fuel tank, but take out the rear end, the truck is immobilized, combat ineffective, but how are you supposed to know that from the cockpit on your next pass?At least the light smoke gives you an indication that you actually hit your target if there was nothing at all then how many passes are you going to take over the same thing until you hope you destroyed it?  Sure it may not be like actual real life, but DCS is still a “game/SIM/ for entertainment”. There has to be some give and take imo.  It beats the hell out of having a health bar over ever enemy ( that is 100% NOT okay ). Maybe the practicality isn’t really there, it may not really be that useful, but what’s wrong with them trying something new.  Its no more ridiculous that having a slider to adjust the density of chimney smoke coming from buildings. I can’t say its a feature I’ve ever thought up personally, or something I’ve ever had an issue with( state of damage). I’ve spent much more time  trying to differentiate destroyed targets and full hot targets through a TGP( that imo needs some severe attention). Not trying to argue against anyone’s point if view just sharing my own initial thoughts on it. 

[Northstar98]

53 minutes ago, MadKreator said:

but how are you supposed to know that from the cockpit on your next pass?At least the light smoke gives you an indication that you actually hit your target if there was nothing at all then how many passes are you going to take over the same thing until you hope you destroyed it?  Sure it may not be like actual real life, but DCS is still a “game/SIM/ for entertainment”.

Well, isn't this what the BDA overlay is for?

Personally I'd rather effects be realistic, as can be seen in some other titles. And yes, DCS is a game, but it's one trying to be realistic.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Northstar98

[draconus]

53 minutes ago, MadKreator said:

...but how are you supposed to know that from the cockpit on your next pass?

That's how it is IRL sometimes, you don't know, so it's part of simulation. If you want game features use BDA or F10.

[Exorcet]

54 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, isn't this what the BDA overlay is for?

Personally I'd rather effects be realistic, as can be seen in some other titles. And yes, DCS is a game, but it's one trying to be realistic.

 

This basically

Although from what little testing I've done, the smoke only seems to come on when a unit has red health, which is basically a mission kill (at least for things like SAM radar). So not much has really changed with this addition.

[Minhal]

1 hour ago, MadKreator said:

Idk, I’m kind of on the opposite side of this. I think it’s kind of a neat feature. Sure its not realistic in every scenario. If you blast rounds from your a-10 through the back of a truck full of infantry or AAA in the bed, and somehow don’t hit the fuel tank, but take out the rear end, the truck is immobilized, combat ineffective, but how are you supposed to know that from the cockpit on your next pass?At least the light smoke gives you an indication that you actually hit your target if there was nothing at all then how many passes are you going to take over the same thing until you hope you destroyed it?  Sure it may not be like actual real life, but DCS is still a “game/SIM/ for entertainment”. There has to be some give and take imo.  It beats the hell out of having a health bar over ever enemy ( that is 100% NOT okay ). Maybe the practicality isn’t really there, it may not really be that useful, but what’s wrong with them trying something new.  Its no more ridiculous that having a slider to adjust the density of chimney smoke coming from buildings. I can’t say its a feature I’ve ever thought up personally, or something I’ve ever had an issue with( state of damage). I’ve spent much more time  trying to differentiate destroyed targets and full hot targets through a TGP( that imo needs some severe attention). Not trying to argue against anyone’s point if view just sharing my own initial thoughts on it. 

Hey i am generally with you as long as it is optional and the mission designer (server owner) can decide if it is wanted or not. This really is my main point. Do i think the dev time could have been spent better? Yes. Was it a lot of dev time. Probably not. So i do not really care. It is just that every now and then "helpers" or "crutches" are implemented and everyone gets them forced on themselves. This is what really annoys me. I would not even mind that pesky air refuel cheat people ask for all the time - as long as i as a server owner/mission designer can uncheck a box in mission editor and disable this for my server/mission.

This is all i am asking for in this thread: to make it an option for mission designers to allow or disallow. Like labels, unlimited fuel or all the other helpers.

With combat ineffective: You and @draconus already said it: you do not know. You sometimes do not know in real life either and this is absolutely okay. In real life you have to judge yourself if it is worth to do another run or save that ordnance/avoid that risk. If it goes off the road and does not move anymore for 10 minutes, it is probably dead. Maybe not. You never 100% know. And this can imho make some good quality content too. Instead of outright beat everything until it burns like in a silly action movie, just kick it a bit, loiter, assess the situation, maybe talk to your (human) wingmen how to proceed. One could build an entire mission around that mechanic with calling in a helicopter to drop ground troops to investigate. I am super okay with trying new stuff, things need to evolve. But please in the right direction. Like you say, this hitpoint mechanic is from the 1990s and imho there is nothing good in adding to this mechanic.

For the chimney slider This was always for performance afaik.

@Northstar98 think so too, yes. Maybe the dev time could have been used to improve the BDA widget instead. Maybe add how many rounds hit, how many did not and what distance in meters you missed. Maybe even a % hit ratio per burst or attack run. This imho would have been a positive improvement of the game for people who want to know if they hit or missed.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Minhal

[MadKreator]

All 100% fair assessments! I am not sold on it by any means, just thought it wasn’t a terrible idea at first glance. @Minhal I completely see it from your perspective as well. ED did completely remove “Game Mode” from DCS to make it less gamey so if they’re going to add unrealistic features, make them optional… It seemed like a decent midpoint between having no effects/ indications at all and the gamey BDA overlay, which I’ll admit I do use, but in servers and missions without it I have no problem using the tgp or circling an area looking around to see what damage I did or didn’t do. What I do 1000% agree with is that there are many more outstanding issues or QOL improvements( better multi monitor support, better ultrawide support, multiplayer IC issues, finishing the texturing for  last two vehicles for the flir system, flickering ground shadows, i could go on for days lol) that time could be better spent on. I don’t know sh*t about software development so my opinions on what should be done first are moot at best

Edited May 19, 2023 by MadKreator

[twistking]

i'm not on open beta, so haven't tested for myself, but i am also sceptical about that change.

i do have another idea to make damage states a bit more interesting and the battlefield a bit more visually diverse without redoing the damage model:
If a unit gets hit with overkill, meaning it gets significantly more damage than it has hitpoint left, it will always explode and burn as we are used to.
If a unit gets killed without overkill, there is a chance (dice roll) that it won't explode and burn, but just smoke. still counting as a kill, but without the explosion, fire and turning into a wreck.
If a unit gets a siginificant hit (above certain damage output level) and thereby has it's own hitpoint reduced to below a certain threshold (30% oder 50% ?) there is an additional diceroll for a functional kill, meanign the unit gets killed, but no explosion occurs and no smoke occurs.

Maybe this would be good soulution to spice up the very barebone hitpoint system?!

[Minhal]

14 hours ago, twistking said:

i'm not on open beta, so haven't tested for myself, but i am also sceptical about that change.

i do have another idea to make damage states a bit more interesting and the battlefield a bit more visually diverse without redoing the damage model:
If a unit gets hit with overkill, meaning it gets significantly more damage than it has hitpoint left, it will always explode and burn as we are used to.
If a unit gets killed without overkill, there is a chance (dice roll) that it won't explode and burn, but just smoke. still counting as a kill, but without the explosion, fire and turning into a wreck.
If a unit gets a siginificant hit (above certain damage output level) and thereby has it's own hitpoint reduced to below a certain threshold (30% oder 50% ?) there is an additional diceroll for a functional kill, meanign the unit gets killed, but no explosion occurs and no smoke occurs.

Maybe this would be good soulution to spice up the very barebone hitpoint system?!

Really like that idea. Maybe post it again in a separate wishlist thread? Since it probably drowns here. Relatively easy to implement and gives some nice variety in effect without damage model overhaul.

[MadKreator]

Last night playing on a server I noticed a stray t-72 rolling into a friendly base, it was damaged slightly already on its way in , id say 20% or less judging by the health bar in f10, no smoke, it was just cruising around blowing up friendly assets, so I thought it was a prime opportunity to play around. Hopped in an a-10, guns only. Made a couple passes and got its health down to 37% according to the BDA overlay, and it stopped in its tracks with very light new smoke plume… it was winter on caucuses and that tank was very well camouflaged from a visual perspective from the cockpit. It was sitting next to some already destroyed debris with a fully destroyed burning asset not far away. Made a few more passes until I ran out of ammo when I got it to 99% damaged, smoke level didn’t seem to change based on amount of damage from when it started, down to 1% health. Landed and just observed.. it never blew up on its own in the few minutes I sat there, until another player had the same idea as me and he made a few runs at it, killing off that last 1% and it exploded like it should with a large black smoke plume..  I will say the small smoke effect really wasn’t that pronounced, or detracting from any realism in my eyes. It honestly really helped in that situation as that t-72 next to the debris on snowy ground was really really hard to see until I was right on top of it. If it weren’t for that faint smoke plume I would have done a lot of guessing on my flyby’s and probably wasted a lot of ammo. No real point here, just how I observed and felt about it in that situation. It didn’t seem to change density or anything the more it got damaged, just seemed to be an indicator from the point when it was immobilized but not fully destroyed. My personal opinion… it really wasn’t all that bad to each his own of course Now for realism, I can see only having something like that implemented if a certain component was damaged, like fuel tank or engines, but I don’t know if dcs damage models are that in-depth or not, but that would be a cool evolution of this effect.

[peachmonkey]

Speaking from the WWII point of view, it's an interesting new feature, but its implementation is extremely basic, which I think is why I don't particularly find it immersive. The tall thin black smoke emanating from the target just looks a bit .. well.. ridiculous, like some sort of a 10 meter black spire raising up at 90 degrees. In VR it looks like some sort of a graphical artifact (on 2800x2800 per eye Varjo headset mind you). I realize that if there's wind/turbulence at the ground level they won't be showing straight up, but even with the wind there's no visible difference in this smoke between targets, just looks like a cookie-cutter arcade scene from the 90's.

If ED can add some variation to the smoke, make it shorter and vary between 2 targets next to each other so it looks believable, then I'd say it's a cool effect. Otherwise it actually takes away from the immersion completely.