Ground units different types of damage

[Tom P]

How hard would it be to implement damage based on hit location? I understand there is a health bar but I don't think it would be to hard to detect where the hits are impacting. But I can be completely wrong, If its not hard and possible can we get the following:
1) Mobility kill: vehicle is damaged and can no longer move. (shot out wheels/tracks, damaged drivetrain) but can still defend itself. 
2) Degraded weapon system: example main gun gets damaged now the unit is down to their next weapon, normally a coax(machine gun)
3) Degraded aiming: Main optic is damaged and is now using the backup "iron" sight. 

[draconus]

DM based on location and internal parts is fully operational for WW2 aircraft afaik. The lesser DM is applied to other aircraft but still based on aircraft parts. Ships and ground units do have general HP but there are still some some calculations and hit locations considered. Ex. front armor is tougher than sides, top and back on the MBT or a ship will burn and have damage applied more or less at the hit locations. At some % damage it will start to smoke, slow down, then stop moving and stop shooting, until it's totally killed/burned/exploded/sunk.

There are some long term ED plans to implement better DM for both aircraft and ground units.

[cfrag]

11 hours ago, Tom P said:

How hard would it be to implement damage based on hit location?

I would hazard a guess that there is very little engineering in DCS for modelling this kind of damage for ground units. To me it seems ground units are merely there to serve as targets and provide some form of hazard (hence the infantry soldier that can one-shot a pilot with their rifle), nothing more - and damage modelling is simplistic at best. A realistic damage model is a complex can of worms, though. It's not merely the way how a munition hits, it is how it interacts with the target and target's surroundings, how the munition works. A blast wave, a kinetic impulse, a kinetic transfer that transforms into a blast wave, heat (as in napalm) etc. -- all have different properties, and interact differently with a vehicle, it's armor (none, reactive, ablative, ... ); especially larger vehicles (and I think naval damage modelling is minimal if present at all) and more.

From what I see it *seems* to me that there is very little damage modelling beside deducting a number of points from a unit's 'hit points' based on the centricity of the hit, plus some "resistance" to some ammo types (like in role-playing games: tanks are resistant to small-arms fire). So how hard would it be to model damage? If you want it to be accurate, immensely. But maybe that is not what ED are aiming for (ooh, pun!), and they are merely looking for something that makes a game playable. And there I think is some room for improvement. For example, I'd like some better damage modelling for naval units: take out their radar or receivers, and you take out their missile capability etc. 

 

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

DM based on location and internal parts is fully operational for WW2 aircraft afaik.

No it's not. Fuel and ammo detonation isnt in the ww2 birds. That's why you can fire a bazillion rounds into the warbirds wings and all that happens is the wings gets holy. 

Making the guns themselves actually inoperable is simulated. But not having the ammo in the wing detonate.

[Tom P]

8 hours ago, cfrag said:

I would hazard a guess that there is very little engineering in DCS for modelling this kind of damage for ground units. To me it seems ground units are merely there to serve as targets and provide some form of hazard (hence the infantry soldier that can one-shot a pilot with their rifle), nothing more - and damage modelling is simplistic at best. A realistic damage model is a complex can of worms, though. It's not merely the way how a munition hits, it is how it interacts with the target and target's surroundings, how the munition works. A blast wave, a kinetic impulse, a kinetic transfer that transforms into a blast wave, heat (as in napalm) etc. -- all have different properties, and interact differently with a vehicle, it's armor (none, reactive, ablative, ... ); especially larger vehicles (and I think naval damage modelling is minimal if present at all) and more.

From what I see it *seems* to me that there is very little damage modelling beside deducting a number of points from a unit's 'hit points' based on the centricity of the hit, plus some "resistance" to some ammo types (like in role-playing games: tanks are resistant to small-arms fire). So how hard would it be to model damage? If you want it to be accurate, immensely. But maybe that is not what ED are aiming for (ooh, pun!), and they are merely looking for something that makes a game playable. And there I think is some room for improvement. For example, I'd like some better damage modelling for naval units: take out their radar or receivers, and you take out their missile capability etc. 

 

Oh I know the damage model isn't accurate at all. The SA6 can survive 20mm cannons with their paper thin "armor" haha. I just wish the premier aviation combat simulator was extended past the cockpit for realism. 

[Racoon-1-1]

Am 1.4.2025 um 04:46 schrieb Tom P:

How hard would it be to implement damage based on hit location? I understand there is a health bar but I don't think it would be to hard to detect where the hits are impacting. But I can be completely wrong, If its not hard and possible can we get the following:
1) Mobility kill: vehicle is damaged and can no longer move. (shot out wheels/tracks, damaged drivetrain) but can still defend itself. 
2) Degraded weapon system: example main gun gets damaged now the unit is down to their next weapon, normally a coax(machine gun)
3) Degraded aiming: Main optic is damaged and is now using the backup "iron" sight. 

DCS is already very performance hungry, but it manages large ground battles surprisingly well without your FPS going into the single digits. I am sure that with a more complex damage model for ground units this would be very different. And therefore it would also contradict the dynamic campaign engine they're currently working on in my opinion because this would significantly reduce the possible unit count. Especially for VR users.

Edited April 9 by Racoon-1-1

[Tank50us]

31 minutes ago, Racoon-1-1 said:

And therefore it would also contradict the dynamic campaign engine they're currently working on in my opinion because this would significantly reduce the possible unit count.

I mean, if a unit doesn't reach their objective, it doesn't really matter if it's because the unit was destroyed, or if two of the five tanks in the platoon had their tracks blown off. Since in the real world campaigns would last only a few days, it's entirely possible for a tank that suddenly needs a new engine to miss the entire thing (at least before the implementation of quick-replacement equipment). So if an objective isn't reached within a specific time-frame, then the objective is still technically a failure.

Now, the core part of this is actually fairly easy to implement, and doesn't require as much work as one might think. As you only need certain 'zones' within the unit that have different effects. Namely:

• Tanks and Tracked AFVs:
  • Tracks: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but the weapons still function normally.
  • Engine: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but certain electronics are hindered. Reducing radar capability, turret traverse (since the crew would be manually turning it), rate of fire or the ability to fire (as many weapons require electronic firing devices).
  • Weapons: When destroyed the vehicle can't shoot with that weapon.
  • Ammo: When destroyed the vehicles turret goes to the moon.
  • Fuel: When hit, the tank brews up, and burns until dead.
• Wheeled vehicles share most of the above, but if they use a 'corner' set of wheels, they become immobilized.
• Warships:
  • Radar: When destroyed, the ship cannot use many of its long-range weapons, or in some cases, their CIWS.
  • Flight Deck: For carriers this means no launching or recovering of aircraft.
  • Sections: Warships would have to be broken into various sections to better simulate damage to the hull, both above and below the water line. Damage below the WL could result in serious flooding, while damage above could result in fires starting. Either one would likely have 'ticks' where every few seconds some RNG is rolled to see if the crew gets the issue under control or not. If they're unable, eventually, the crew will abandon ship (which itself could be indicated by having some life rafts appear around the ship)
  • Bridge/CIC: If these get taken out, much of the ships abilities become diminished, or the ship stops responding to commands from the 'commander'

Personally, this is how I see it could be done. But we'll see.

[Racoon-1-1]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Tank50us:

I mean, if a unit doesn't reach their objective, it doesn't really matter if it's because the unit was destroyed, or if two of the five tanks in the platoon had their tracks blown off. Since in the real world campaigns would last only a few days, it's entirely possible for a tank that suddenly needs a new engine to miss the entire thing (at least before the implementation of quick-replacement equipment). So if an objective isn't reached within a specific time-frame, then the objective is still technically a failure.

Now, the core part of this is actually fairly easy to implement, and doesn't require as much work as one might think. As you only need certain 'zones' within the unit that have different effects. Namely:

• Tanks and Tracked AFVs:
  • Tracks: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but the weapons still function normally.
  • Engine: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but certain electronics are hindered. Reducing radar capability, turret traverse (since the crew would be manually turning it), rate of fire or the ability to fire (as many weapons require electronic firing devices).
  • Weapons: When destroyed the vehicle can't shoot with that weapon.
  • Ammo: When destroyed the vehicles turret goes to the moon.
  • Fuel: When hit, the tank brews up, and burns until dead.
• Wheeled vehicles share most of the above, but if they use a 'corner' set of wheels, they become immobilized.
• Warships:
  • Radar: When destroyed, the ship cannot use many of its long-range weapons, or in some cases, their CIWS.
  • Flight Deck: For carriers this means no launching or recovering of aircraft.
  • Sections: Warships would have to be broken into various sections to better simulate damage to the hull, both above and below the water line. Damage below the WL could result in serious flooding, while damage above could result in fires starting. Either one would likely have 'ticks' where every few seconds some RNG is rolled to see if the crew gets the issue under control or not. If they're unable, eventually, the crew will abandon ship (which itself could be indicated by having some life rafts appear around the ship)
  • Bridge/CIC: If these get taken out, much of the ships abilities become diminished, or the ship stops responding to commands from the 'commander'

Personally, this is how I see it could be done. But we'll see.

But then you don't need just different zones, but also different and logical behaviour for every single unit in DCS that must be integrated into the codebase without breaking anything. Also If you're in a multithreaded application then everything gets a lot more complicated because you have to wrap your head around weird synchronization problems that simply don't exist in a single core environment where nothing is processed concurrently. You don't want the unit to move 5m after(!) the tracks were destroyed for example. But I am pretty sure the sheer amount of different units in DCS is what really takes the most effort here. As a programmer (with no knowledge in the DCS codebase tho) I would estimate were talking about several months here. And for a flightsim that never had a huge focus on being a tanksimulator at the same time this is quite a lot of work that could be better invested in other things. Personally I think your idea is cool, but at the same time I am pretty sure 95% of DCS players wouldn't care about it.

Edited April 9 by Racoon-1-1

[draconus]

35 minutes ago, Racoon-1-1 said:

You don't want the unit to move 5m after(!) the tracks were destroyed for example

Yes, I do - it's called momentum.

[Racoon-1-1]

vor 23 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Yes, I do - it's called momentum.

ok. Then maybe you don't want a tank to be still able to fire 1 second after the turret was destroyed.

[Tank50us]

6 hours ago, Racoon-1-1 said:

ok. Then maybe you don't want a tank to be still able to fire 1 second after the turret was destroyed.

 

You mean fire when it can't turn the turret? If that's the case, I would like to introduce you to someone:

Otherwise, the only way a tank wouldn't be able to fire it's main gun if the 'turret is destroyed' would be if the turret either didn't exist any more, or the crew required a mop bucket to remove. In either case, the tank is considered 'destroyed'.

Also, since you brought up a tank being able to move with damaged tracks....

This guy was able to do exactly that. So there were a few designs actually capable of stuff like that. There aren't any around today that I'm aware of, but the idea was still there.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Tank50us said:

This guy was able to do exactly that.

Do what? There is a track on.

[Tank50us]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

Do what? There is a track on.

if the tracks of a BT were blown off, they could run on the road wheels just fine. They could even, with some work, drive on nothing but the road wheels.

TheChieftain did a couple vids on the BT7