correct as is SSK 636 Improved Kilo steams along like a surface ship, with actual steam

[Ian Boys UK]

[Ian Boys UK]

I realise it has a diesel motor but I can find no photos of the sub actually emitting steam.

[f-18hornet]

Hi @Ian Boys UK, yes, not a bug. It should be an exhaust smoke from a diesel-electric engine when on surface.

[Ian Boys UK]

OK, thank you. First photo I've seen like that.

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, f-18hornet said:

Hi @Ian Boys UK, yes, not a bug. It should be an exhaust smoke from a diesel-electric engine when on surface.

This is one of the only images depicting smoke on a surfaced Kilo under diesel propulsion, the overwhelming majority of images show negligible to 0 smoke. And generally diesel engines producing smoke are rare exceptions (seen when starting/when temperatures are cold etc), not the rule:

 

 

Even this one that does show smoke shows nothing as dense as what's seen in DCS:

 

The same is true for a wide variety of ships in DCS, including the Ropucha I, Invincible, the Leanders, Condells and Atlantic Conveyor, the Forrestal etc.

Edited January 21 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

but it does emit smoke so is correct. 

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

but it does emit smoke so is correct. 

Unless my eyeballs are deceiving me with the above images I posted - no it is not. Because even when it does, it's nothing like as thick as it is in DCS, which makes it look like a steam train.

The previous implementation of having 0 smoke is far closer to reality in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases. The only time a diesel engine produces smoke as seen in DCS is when it's on a tank with an engine smoke system. Again, maritime diesel engines (though this also goes for gas turbines, but you can even find oil-fired ships where this is the case) producing clearly visible exhaust smoke is the exception (for instance when starting or otherwise in cold conditions), not the rule.

Edited January 21 by Northstar98
grammar, reiteration

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Unless my eyeballs are deceiving me with the above images I posted - no it is not. Because even when it does, it's nothing like a thick as it is in DCS, which makes it look like a steam train.

The picture posted by hornet clearly shows it does. I appreciate it does not all the time, but I have to consider what tasks are given to the team, if it is a minor thing like this the dev time could be used on more important tasks. 

thank you 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

The picture posted by hornet clearly shows it does.

This:

Clearly doesn't look like this:

And it especially doesn't look this:

Let alone the countless other images where smoke is either not visible or barely visible.

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

but I have to consider what tasks are given to the team, if it is a minor thing like this the dev time could be used on more important tasks.

I appreciate it's minor, but if it's a waste of developer time, why was it created and changed in the first place, when it was significantly more accurate previously? And that goes not just for this, but nearly every single vessel that's been given this smoke - including the Ropucha I, La Combattante IIa, Tarawa, Kuznetsov etc?

Edited January 21 by Northstar98

[Flappie]

 @Northstar98 I've had this same conversation with devs. This picture convinced me this sub can smoke quite a lot:

Edited January 21 by Flappie

[Northstar98]

On 1/21/2025 at 10:26 PM, Flappie said:

 @Northstar98 I've had this same conversation with devs. This picture convinced me this sub can smoke quite a lot:

The simple fact remains though is these are the exceptions - not the rule. And even so, the smoke in DCS is almost at least double the thickness of this.

Again, it looks more like what you'd expect out of a smoke generator - something like this:

 

Yes, diesels (and even GTs) can produce a significant amount of smoke, it's more commonly seen when they've just been started, or in cold conditions/at low power settings. The norm though (and what you see in a good >90% of images when searched) is smoke that's either barely visible, or no smoke at all.

The same is true for the La Combattante IIa (though we've already been through that one), the Ropucha I, Tarawa, Leander/Condell (where I've yet to find a single image of either depicting anything like the same smoke as seen in DCS).

Edited January 25 by Northstar98
It's not almost double, it's at least double, if not more

[Flappie]

La Combattante smoke is already reported internally.

[Nealius]

"Can" does not mean "should every single hour of every single day of every single season." 

DCS strives to simulate what is true the majority of the time, not what's shown in one or two pictures. This is inconsistent with the approach taken with everything else in the sim. 

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Nealius said:

"Can" does not mean "should every single hour of every single day of every single season." 

DCS strives to simulate what is true the majority of the time, not what's shown in one or two pictures. This is inconsistent with the approach taken with everything else in the sim. 

Exactly.

And as for what's shown in one or two pictures, even there that's not true - because in the picture provided by f-18hornet the smoke isn't as dense and in the picture provided by Flappie the smoke is far less thick.

So far the only examples I've found where the DCS smoke is accurate, is when it's being emitted from a smoke screening system - something a Kilo/Improved Kilo II obviously doesn't have.

Then there's being told that this is too minor to be worth reporting, which seems somewhat ironic given that it was apparently worth the effort creating a new effect (that's if it wasn't just copied from the effect seen on smoke stacks on the Caucasus map), when it was significantly more accurate before, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

It also seems somewhat hypocritical as accurate things have been omitted in the past for allegedly not being common enough, only for this effect to be given to ships where it's accurate basically nowhere and never, because even in real-life examples where thick white smoke is present, it still isn't as dense or as thick as what's seen in DCS.

This is true not just of the Kilo and Improved Kilo, but of every unit that's been given this effect.

[Flappie]

A dev says the Combattante II smoke thickness cannot be tuned because of a bug in the code which enforces max smoke thickness. Hopefully, the reason for the Kilo smoke thickness is the same, which means it would smoke less once the Combattante II bug is fixed. I've just bumped the Combattante II internal report. We'll see.

About the smoking/non-smoking matter, I have a proposition: maybe we can ask devs to make the Kilo stop emitting smoke whenever its depth is less than 0 feet. This way, mission designers and Combined Arms users will be able to choose whether the sub emits smoke or not. Would it work for you, gents?

[Northstar98]

On 1/25/2025 at 1:38 PM, Flappie said:

Hopefully, the reason for the Kilo smoke thickness is the same, which means it would smoke less once the Combattante II bug is fixed.

If it is and the smoke thickness can be decreased and its transparency greatly increased, then that would be good start.

On 1/25/2025 at 1:38 PM, Flappie said:

About the smoking/non-smoking matter, I have a proposition: maybe we can ask devs to make the Kilo stop emitting smoke whenever its depth is less than 0 feet. This way, mission designers and Combined Arms users will be able to choose whether the sub emits smoke or not. Would it work for you, gents?

I'll maintain that the most accurate depiction of smoke is either 0 or negligible for DCS, certainly not thick dense white stuff. This also won't work for anything that isn't a submarine, which includes every ship this effect applies to.

While making it a choice sounds nice superficially, it doesn't make much sense - it's like getting to choose whether or not some missile produces smoke, or whether some aircraft engine produces smoke - DCS should be about depicting these accurately. Of course, ship smoke is more minor and I'm by no means expecting 1:1 recreations, but the current system is by and large a regression in accuracy to how it was previously. Vessels that nominally produce no or negligible smoke IRL now produce a significant amount of it and even for vessels that should be producing smoke, the current smoke is almost always not accurate at all.

The edge cases where significant smoke (well water vapor) is visible are either things the smoke system doesn't account for (like dew point) or cold engines (i.e. just being started, though smoke can be seen at low throttle settings) which isn't applicable to DCS in the vast majority of cases (the AI doesn't support starting engines and coming off of piers to begin with, most missions likely have ships that are underway).

I'll post some comparison photos below, I'm going to mostly try and have half of them depicting smoke - in most cases though (and I'll write in the description of each where there are exceptions), the vast majority of the time it's either 0/negligible smoke or if there is smoke, it won't look like DCS. Suffice to say that in just about every case, DCS was more accurate before this new smoke was implemented.

One thing to keep in mind though is that in these comparisons, the smoke is often against the sky - the white smoke seen in DCS will blend somewhat with it, making it less visible. However, from the air (i.e. how they'll typically be seen in likely use cases in DCS), the smoke will be against the water where it's incredibly noticeable. Also to keep in mind is that many of these images are close up shots - if smoke is only just visible in these, imagine how less visible they'll be from further away.

 

• ARA Veinticinco de Mayo:

This is a fairly old, oil-fired ship. Most photos I find of it show an even split between 0 smoke and thick-ish dark/black smoke. DCS is accurate to neither (though with a colour change and maybe a reduction in density it could get pretty close):

Spoiler

 

 

• BDK Pr. 775/I /II [Ropucha I LST]

Diesel powered - you can find images where no smoke/only heat haze is visible, or with a small amount of dark smoke. Either way, DCS is accurate to neither, however, if the smoke was made thinner, darker and a lot less dense, it would be more accurate:

Spoiler

 

 

• Castle:

This is another diesel-powered vessel. The majority of images online depict 0 to negligible amounts of smoke out of the ones that do, I've only found 1 where it's anything close to DCS and even then the real thing is far less dense. I only found a single image showing significant smoke, but it's dark smoke (and given how nearly every other image shows 0 to negligible smoke, I'll assume engines have recently started). This one was separately reported here (though unacknowledged).

Spoiler

 

 

The overwhelming majority of images though show something more like this, where there is no visible smoke:

 

• CV 59 Forrestal:

Again, most images show 0 smoke and the ones that do show more transparent smoke (and it should also be more spread out - at the moment it's a very condensed, thick stream of smoke). Personally, I'd either leave the smoke off - it's what the majority of images depict or if smoke is insisted upon, make it far more transparent but increase its size.

Spoiler

However, most of the time this is what's depicted in real-life photos:

 

• Handy Wind

For this one, I couldn't find any images of it underway - but it's a diesel powered ship and maintained, modern, marine diesel engines are either going to be smokeless or will be producing very thin, dark-coloured smoke - the exceptions will only be low power settings or a short while after starting. Googling "cargo ship" or "bulk carrier" etc will return hundreds of images, almost all of them depict 0 smoke, especially when underway.

• Harbour Tug

Not sure which exact tug has been modelled, but the overwhelming majority of harbour tugs are diesel powered. Googling "harbour tug" gives you hundreds of results and at least 99% of them show no visible smoke. Even in the images that do show visible smoke, the amount of smoke is tiny - I have my doubts it would even be perceptible if the camera was much further away. Contrast that to DCS which has it producing almost comical amounts of smoke.

Spoiler

Here the smoke is against clear (apart from high-altitude clouds) sky causing it to blend. Though it should be obvious that this is far thicker compared to reality.

 

You can see how much more noticeable the current smoke is when against water - which is how it'll likely be seen most often in DCS.

The vast, vast majority of images however, show something like this, where there is no visible smoke - this is just one example, there are countless more just like it:

• Invincible:

This is a gas-turbine ship (COGAG) and most images online show 0 smoke. Even those that do show white smoke, don't show anything as thick as DCS:

Spoiler

 

As you can see, DCS is far more dense.

Most images though depict 0/negligible smoke:

 

• LHA 1 (Tarawa):

Here I'm really struggling to find a single image with any clearly visible smoke. I've looked through hundreds now and have yet to find a single one where any smoke is clearly visible.

Spoiler

There might be the tiniest amount of visible smoke here, but it is barely visible.

• TAVKR Pr. 1143.5 Admiral Kuznetsov (FC2/LOMAC)

This one is probably going to be the main exception - you can find images depicting 0 smoke (though visible smoke is a lot more common), a significant amount of smoke, to a ridiculous amount of smoke. Though here, unlike pretty much the rest, 0 smoke is probably the exception.

Unfortunately, due to the colour DCS, it's accurate to neither. However, if the current smoke was made the right colour and made larger, it would be absolutely fine.

Weirdly though, the 2017 version (the supercarrier version), produces 0 smoke - so with this vessel in particular it's the other way around where a vessel that nominally appears to produce a significant amount of smoke IRL, produces no smoke in DCS.

Spoiler

I'll omit the comparison screenshot of the SC Kuznetsov as it's redundant - both show 0 smoke.

 

 

 

In all these examples though - if the smoke was simply made the right colour and maybe a little larger, that would be perfectly good enough.

• Type 12I (Leander)/Condell-class:

Despite being oil-fired, these ships while underway also don't produce smoke. The closest I've found is one of Andromeda, but it's far less dense as it is in DCS.

Spoiler

This is the smokiest I've found so far:

Even then, DCS is far smokier:

The majority of images show 0 visible smoke:

 

 

• SS Atlantic Conveyor:

This is a diesel-powered ship, underway 0 smoke can be seen. The closest image I find to DCS is the ship being moved by tugs (so engine is likely cold, low power settings or only recently started, ambient conditions may also be playing a role). Unfortunately, there aren't many photos clearly showing the vessel underway (though one that does shows 0 smoke):

Spoiler

 

 

• Supply Ship MV Tilde:

This appears to be based on the real-life MV Asterix, which is a diesel-powered ship, with modern engines. The vast, overwhelming majority of images (particularly those showing the ship underway) show 0 visible smoke. The images that do show smoke show thin-ish dark smoke, which is more characteristic of diesels at low power settings. However, no image whatsoever depicts thick white smoke as seen in DCS:

Spoiler

 

 

 

• TT Seawise Giant:

As with the Handy Wind, this is a diesel-powered ship. I only found 1 image where the smoke is close to DCS (though DCS isn't long enough), most show much more translucent smoke or no visible smoke (the latter being more commong in photos showing the ship underway):

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

This is on top of the already reported La Combattante IIa, I won't duplicate this thread.

Edited Wednesday at 05:08 PM by Northstar98
incomplete sentence, duplicated Invincible image for easier comparison.

[Flappie]

Wow, that is some quality post!

Once the Combattante II smoke is fixed (a.k.a once ship smoke thickness variability works in DCS), please ping me here so I can review all ships and make the appropriate reports to devs (black/white smoke and transparency).

Thank you.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Flappie said:

Wow, that is some quality post!

Thank you - I appreciate it

Just to reiterate though, I've gone out of my way to find examples of clear visible smoke - nevertheless in most of them (which can be an overwhelming majority) such as the Castle, Forrestal, Leander/Condell, Invincible etc no/negligible smoke is seen - for those (especially Tarawa, the Leanders (Achilles, Andromeda and Ariadne), the Condells (Almirante Condell and Lynch) turning the smoke off entirely would be, by far, the most accurate depiction.

The other thing is here, most examples I've found are photos taken from low level, with the smoke against the sky - as the DCS smoke is white, it tends to blend in. However, for most of our use case, we'll be higher up and the smoke will be against the water, where it's far more visible.

Cheers!

[Northstar98]

On 1/26/2025 at 10:41 AM, Flappie said:

Wow, that is some quality post!

Once the Combattante II smoke is fixed (a.k.a once ship smoke thickness variability works in DCS), please ping me here so I can review all ships and make the appropriate reports to devs (black/white smoke and transparency).

Thank you.

Sorry for the ping but now that the SC Kuznetsov has had its smoke effect enabled, I just had a thought - for the ships that should be producing thick black smoke (namely the Kuznetsov, but also the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo), could we not reuse effects from "EFFECT - SMOKE" found in the actions menu of the triggers?

The smoke supports being displaced by wind (but probably doesn't factor ship motion into that, it doesn't support being moved). It's still a bit too wide, but it's a lot closer to reality than what's there right now for these 2.

Just a thought.