mk82, 83 bombs explosion radius too large after update?

[Nealius]

On 7/1/2025 at 4:58 AM, shagrat said:

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

Yes, if only all the -34 tables with such parameters weren't classified. And if ED doesn't provide us with in-game parameters, then how are we expetected to do such planning?

[Py]

15 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

You break left or right after release?

Release altitude at 300 feet or more?

Using Delayed fuze?

Yes hard break instantly after release, 500-600ft release altitude. I've also tried going full burner and pulling up hard but still get damaged.

Delayed fuze is a good idea, unrealistic and a problem with moving targets but it might be the only way.

[Nealius]

Real world safe escape/bombing tables for Mk84AIR released high drag show MRA of 150-170ft AGL at 450KTAS at sea level to 5,000ft MSL(depending on ripple setting) with a straight or level turn safe escape maneuver. If you're getting fragged with a 500-600ft AGL release then something is defintely wrong with the blast modeling. Assuming your bombs are indeed deploying their ballutes.

Edited Wednesday at 06:40 AM by Nealius

[Esac_mirmidon]

Yep, 500-600 AGL at 450 speed should be safe enough for Air Ballute Mk-84

Edited Wednesday at 07:36 AM by Esac_mirmidon

[SalakauHeadman]

On 7/1/2025 at 3:58 AM, shagrat said:

You mean finally manage to destroy an unarmored truck that's as close as 500ft (~150m) to a 1,000 lbs bomb?

That's actually good news. Thank you ED.

For some context, according to statistics compiled by the GICHD (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining) the typical lethal area of an Mk82 (500 lbs) is 80m by 30m (260ft by 100ft) with RED (Risk Estimate Distance) of 250m(!) for 10% (one in ten) people incapacitated! ...and that's just the "small" 500 lbs Mk82.

Here is a link to the GICHD website for research: https://www.gichd.org/our-response/policy/explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/

Direct PDF download link for the MK82 study (Annex-E): https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Publications/Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

 

wow i had no idea that bombs were THAT damaging IRL

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

17 minutes ago, SalakauHeadman said:

wow i had no idea that bombs were THAT damaging IRL

There was probably a reason for the increasing focus on limiting collateral damage and development of systems such as Small Diameter Bomb.

[shagrat]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

There was probably a reason for the increasing focus on limiting collateral damage and development of systems such as Small Diameter Bomb.

☝

Edited Thursday at 06:52 PM by shagrat

[shagrat]

Am 2.7.2025 um 03:50 schrieb Nealius:

Yes, if only all the -34 tables with such parameters weren't classified. And if ED doesn't provide us with in-game parameters, then how are we expetected to do such planning?

Yes and no. There's some information in the GICHD documents. The RED describes 10% and 0,1% ranges for damage to human bodies, so we can assume there's fragmentation, at least up to that distance.

The problem I see, with the current increased blast model, is fragments will slow down faster than the blast wave and that's why we end up in the outer edge of the damage zone from the blast.

So your observation is definitely valid.

Guess, there's still some tweaking needed. But it's better than before. 

[graveyard4DCS]

On 6/30/2025 at 10:26 PM, shagrat said:

Assuming the real life fragmentation heights, and planning for a safe escape maneuver above 3500 ft, should keep us out of harms way... though I still need to test/verify this assumption.

In real life, a hard deck at 3000' AGL is generally the norm.

There are several fragment envelope diagrams in various flight manuals, and 3000' seems to be a safe value for all bombs at sea level.

Keep in mind that the fragmentation envelope is shaped by the drag of the fragments, and therefore the higher the target, the larger the danger zone. 

[graveyard4DCS]

19 hours ago, shagrat said:

some information in the GICHD documents. The RED describes 10% and 0,1% ranges for damage to human bodies, so we can assume there's fragmentation, at least up to that distance

If you are interested by fragmentation envelope, RED and collateral damages, I tried to introduce these concepts here and here.

But I agree with you, we need to do some tests to see how DCS replicates all these models, and how far we are from real life data.

Until now, I considered DCS parameters "safer" than real life parameters, so sticking to real life procedures ensured safe margins. With the new damage models, we need to reassess whether it's still the case or not.