Shkval realistic?

[nexion]

Is it a game issue or is it realistic that i can lock on "right" targets only? I mean i can't lock on vehicle wrecks, trees or something. I don't think its realistic, because how would shkval know if the target is already destroyed? I some missions this issue makes gameplay easier. If i can't lock on a vehicle 6-7km away, it must be destroyed and is no threat for me anymore, so i can save my missiles. nexion

[Glowing_Amraam]

Hmm, you can lock onto buildings and such. About wrecks...not sure.

[Boberro]

IIRC real Shkval can locks wrecks, or things where are contrasted.

But in DCS it is not implemented... maybe due of probably too high CPU consumption with these features. But I am not sure in this CPU aspect.

[192nd_Erdem]

Yes you can't lock on destroyed vehicle wrecks which I find pretty weird. It's not realistic and probably a design limitation?

[Boberro]

Possible.

[ZaltysZ]

Yes, it is design limitation. After vehicle is destroyed, it disappears from game, although the wreck can still be seen (something like craters - just eye candy).

[Glowing_Amraam]

Well, that explains it then.

[Distiler]

Well, that's not exactly cool :(

[nexion]

so they disappear... :noexpression:

 

hmmm... reminds me a little bit of arcade games..... press TAB and only "right" tagets will be locked on.

 

 

nexion

[PoleCat]

Absolutely couldn't care less about this one. I do not intend to re-lock any destroyed target once I have destroyed them anyway.

 

Seems rather insignificant in the larger picture.

 

Out

[Distiler]

Absolutely couldn't care less about this one. I do not intend to re-lock any destroyed target once I have destroyed them anyway.

 

Seems rather insignificant in the larger picture.

 

Out

 

 

No no, it's not about that. It's about being so far from targets (far like not being able to see in the shkval if the unit is destroyed or not) and only able to distinguish wich one is already destroyed by trying to lock it: if it doesen't lock it's already destroyed so no need to spend a missile on it. You know, cheating.

[CAT_101st]

I agree with PoleCat.

 

Distiler at the range of 7K the limit of the Vicker. you can visualy tell if the target is dead or alive. So locking on to a target at the range you are talking about does not realy matter as you can't fire at it any way. Even if you use the KM25 you still can tell if a target is live or dead. and another note the shval wont lock a target if it cant see it. So if you can't tell the shkval probly won't lock it even if it is alive.

[GGTharos]

A burning vehicle would burn for a while, so you should in theory be able to tell.

 

Due to limitations of computing power, you can't have too many things burning for a very long time, AFAIK.

 

Also potentially due to limitations of computing power, you don't want to leave 'wrecks' as lockable targets any longer, though perhaps that particular issue is passed and is now only a design limitation.

The problem is, if you now have a lot of spawn triggers, how do you clean up the mess of old destroyed vehicles?

 

The best solution perhaps is having some sort of actual image processing going on to determine a target and lock onto it, and -stay- locked on, but ... yup. You guessed it. Computational issue. And of course, AI would still cheat. Always.

 

Funny how people like to call such things 'arcade' without understanding the complexity of programming these things.

[ARM505]

Actually, I find this quite a significant limitation. IRL, a destroyed AFV can often look very much like an intact one (AT weapons being what they are, sometimes the only obvious outward sign is a tiny little hole, and some blast marks), and I've read of a number of occurences where tankers (for example) put multiple rounds through a target already destroyed by preceding forces, which is a tactically significant waste of time and ammo.

 

Plus, in the game, you always know when a vehicle is destroyed, ie the Shkval loses lock - if they ever update the armour model, and multiple (but not a constant number like we have now) hits are required to destroy a target, this is going to become a lot more significant. Even now, when close range missile shots can sometimes impact close to, but not on target, it's too easy to know when your shots actually killed the target.

 

I agree, this isn't some kind of obvious deal breaker - but it could certainly make quite some difference in how the game is played in many cases, since it impacts on the simulated platform's primary weapon. I'm sure the technical reasons for it being simulated this way are overriding though.

Edited March 15, 2009 by ARM505

[Distiler]

Cat 101, I usually can discrimine when it's a wreck or not, but I've been in lots of situations, in range, that I couldn't (shadowed wreck for example, etc.). I, then, did the trick of trying to lock. I really didn't know Iwas tricking until I read this thread XD

 

GGTharos, I think it's legit to point at "deficiencies", no need to understand programming to do that. Anyway, I hope this issue (and the non-collidable trees!) will be resolved in the future of DCS.

[WRFirefox]

rofl - i know it - we are all cheaters and BS was made for Playstation but landed on PC - tse, tse, tse

....sorry im only amused about it - dachte schon es gäbe hier keine Schraubenzähler - doch sie leben immer noch.....

 

I prefer to make solid Missions and have fun with the most realistic Simulation for now.......

[GGTharos]

And calling it arcade? I think there's a bit of distinction there ;)

 

GGTharos, I think it's legit to point at "deficiencies", no need to understand programming to do that. Anyway, I hope this issue (and the non-collidable trees!) will be resolved in the future of DCS.

[2GvSAP_Dart]

LOL, you guys don't simply figure it's your Shkval not cooperating (as it is want to do) and put missiles into shelled hulks using manual targeting?

 

I guess I'm waaayyy too immersed in this sim.

 

Plus one never knows when they might try to come back as zombie tanks, so it never hurts.

 

:)

[Distiler]

And calling it arcade? I think there's a bit of distinction there ;)

 

I wasn't who called it "arcade" (and btw I strongly disagree, saying it's like "tabing" targets is bullshit XD).

Edited March 15, 2009 by Distiler

[nexion]

I played the instant action mission a few times. In many cases i get shoot down by AA vehicles. The last time i was flying low and hiding behind a mountain where other units already being fighting. When i pop up to kill these AA (range was about 6 km) i could't tell if it was destroyed or not. I tried to lock but nothing happend, where other vehicles driving on roads could be locked on. This is how i discoverd that. I don't think its a big issue. I wrote this thread because i wanted to know if i made a mistake or if its how the game works.

I'm not a "Schraubenzähler" because of mention this. The realism offerd by this game is so huge, i'm still not abel to handle all the systems right. Im very happy with it and thanks to ED for making such a great product aviable for this small sim market.

 

btw, i'm NOT saying it is arcade!!! Don't get me wrong. I said it reminds me a little bit, because at first i thought BS is using some sort of image processing with the shkval. But is seems that the principle of target designation is the same as in arcade sims, even in a far more complex manner.

 

nexion

[GGTharos]

Ah, I understand - I apologize for the slightly harsh response.

 

I'm not sure image processing is viable yet.

[Made.In.China.00]

I think processing power shouldn't be the problem here, even cameras have face recognisiong now, so maybe ED can fix that in a not so distant future?

After all, Shkval isn't the only system that needs inage processing right?

[EvilBivol-1]

When you consider that merely turning the TV monitor on already hits your FPS, I am pretty confident that a real-time image analysis model is not a practical solution - at least not for ED's near future.

 

I'm sure technology and solutions will advance, but I don't think it's as easy as, "hey, let's make it do image analysis." :) ED had already considered that.

Edited March 16, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Frederf]

Image analysis is still probably a generation or two off but there's no reason that wreck class objects can't be lockable just like vehicle class objects are.

[Shaman]

Image analysis is still probably a generation or two off but there's no reason that wreck class objects can't be lockable just like vehicle class objects are.

 

*cough* CUDA *cough*