Developer asking feedback on damage model on russian forum

[Panthera]

19 hours ago, JtD said:

There are significant structural differences between a La-5 and a Spitfire wing, and size doesn't really matter a lot.

 

Also you could do me a favour and in some way refer to hits as 'effective'. Frankly, shooting a high angle deflection shot at a thin part of the wing will have little effect as the projectile will mostly explode outside of the wing after exiting it, as will low angle deflection shots if the projectile explodes prior to entering the structures. Same thing if it hits fabric covered parts of an otherwise wood/metal (covered) wing, like ailerons. Academically, it's amazingly easy to construct examples of detonating MK108 hits that will only deal non-lethal amounts of damage. As long as you have no means to exactly determine hit location in game, you need to go with a general assumption, and there 1 hit per kill simply is too high (or low, depending how you look at it).

 

I don't know if the La-5 picture shows MK108 damage, but it may easily be so, looks fairly MK108ish to me. It not only illustrates the important structural differences between a Spitfire and a La-5 wing, it also shows another extremely important factor in the lethality of hits - the guy standing to the right. One must not forget how important pilot skill is when it comes to determining whether or not a plane is a loss. Something I think is missing from every test we've discussed so far and also from our discussions on these forums. If that La-5 flew in that condition, I don't think that safely landing it was an easy thing to do.

 

There were examples of the 3cm shells  hitting at an extreme angle and detonating above the skin on the Spitfire wings, but the damage was considered lethal in every one of these.

 

But ofcourse there is always the very slight chance of a shell striking at a very peculiar angle & location that could result in less than lethal damage, like for example if it hit the very tip of the wing. But those havent been the type of hits Ive been paying notice to ingame, only the clear hits at angles where the damage is known to be lethal. 

 

What Im trying to say being that we're not going to get very far with focusing only on the least likely of outcomes. 

 

Regarding the La-5 in the photo, do we even know wether it was hit whilst flying or when standing on the ground? Reason Im asking is the dangling flap. 

 

5 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Ok so yesterday I recorded few flights on Berloga. What seems to be the problem is the fact that german cannons(dunno about russian, didnt test them) do fragmentation damage to critical components, instead of structural damage to enclosed compartments of the aircraft. Most of the airplanes, except that yak at the end, went down rather quickly, but not from structural damage, but from engine damage or pilot snipe. One would expect an airplane to blow to pieces after few hits of 30mm or 4x 20mm cannons.

 

Here is the video, if you have any remarks towards this, feel free to tell me, I will be glad for feedback:

 

 

Yes, this is the exact same conclusion Rattlesnake and I arrived at; The local damage (blast dmg) dealt being far too low whilst at the same time the damage dealt due to shrapnel being far to severe, atleast in terms of powerplant systems being damaged even from hits far away from any of these. Oddly enough though the pilot hardly ever gets hurt by shrapnel (we didnt achieve it even once) , so maybe this is a case of the engines being too vulnerable? 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Panthera

[Sunde]

Cool video, its strange how different my impression has been with this FM so far, and i'v done quite abit of shooting...
I wonder how dsync/packetloss/tickrate and other such factors impact hit registration? How much of the calculation is done client side vs server side?  

Lol'd at the spitfire at 1:35
tis but a scratch! 

6 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by EAF_Sunde

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

Oddly enough though the pilot hardly ever gets hurt by shrapnel (we didnt achieve it even once) , so maybe this is a case of the engines being too vulnerable? 

 

I think now pilots would be more vulnerable with 3.009? In the very limited testing I did I killed a P-47 pilot by landing a 30mm HE on the wing root.

[D3adCZE]

3 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

I think now pilots would be more vulnerable with 3.009? In the very limited testing I did I killed a P-47 pilot by landing a 30mm HE on the wing root.

Same here, when I was testing with @przybysz86 I managed to kill his pilot in various aircraft with 30mm into the wing root and belly.

[ShamrockOneFive]

10 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Ok so yesterday I recorded few flights on Berloga. What seems to be the problem is the fact that german cannons(dunno about russian, didnt test them) do fragmentation damage to critical components, instead of structural damage to enclosed compartments of the aircraft. Most of the airplanes, except that yak at the end, went down rather quickly, but not from structural damage, but from engine damage or pilot snipe. One would expect an airplane to blow to pieces after few hits of 30mm or 4x 20mm cannons.

 

Here is the video, if you have any remarks towards this, feel free to tell me, I will be glad for feedback:

 

 

First, thank you for recording this and showing it to us from your perspective. Far too much hyperbole from folks about the damage model without really seeing their experiences.

 

I would generally agree with you on your impression on the MG151/20. Pre-damage model change I did some testing to see if the ShVAK or MG151/20 was the more powerful weapon. I don't have the results anymore (they are on the forum somewhere) but what I found was that both brought down the same types of aircraft (I tested against a Pe-2 and a He111 doing multiple tests) at about the same rate. The MG151/20 did more damage across the aircraft while the ShVAK tended to cause less damage overall but more damage in a specific spot. With the ShVAK I'd damage just the engine and maybe the nearby fuel tank. With the MG151/20 I also sometimes killed the gunner another half a meter away - an example. From what I see in 3.008 and 3.009, that's still the case.

 

I think from there our expectations may differ. That Yak-1 at the end was only hit by a single 20mm. I'm not surprised that it was still flying. The first Spitfire really did take quite a few hits (I counted 7-8) and at least one of those shots landed what appeared to be a direct hit on the engine. Did his engine die? The second Spitfire, despite appearing to have taken quite a few shots, only got hit by 4 (maybe 5) by my count. I still expect he crash landed or bailed out later too.

 

IMHO, my opinion generally is that people claim they hit a target "so many times" but it turns out to be only 3-4 hits and that their perception is of an aircraft that flew through unscathed. But that's not the reality. In reality the engine is probably dead now or in a few minutes, they may have damaged or jammed guns, they may have damaged control rods, that's already a mission kill and probably an actual kill in a couple of minutes. That's hardly what is being described by the hype from some quarters.

 

Now, 1CGS did tweak the structural damage system a bit and the Spitfire was specifically mentioned. You got some wing hits on a couple of them and they stayed attached. That is perhaps as currently intended although we could argue on how strong that wing should be.

 

Does it just come down to needing a more severe damage representation on the wing? That'd be more of a visual change.

[D3adCZE]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I think from there our expectations may differ. That Yak-1 at the end was only hit by a single 20mm. I'm not surprised that it was still flying. The first Spitfire really did take quite a few hits (I counted 7-8) and at least one of those shots landed what appeared to be a direct hit on the engine. Did his engine die? The second Spitfire, despite appearing to have taken quite a few shots, only got hit by 4 (maybe 5) by my count. I still expect he crash landed or bailed out later too.

K4 doesnt have mk151/20, that Yak was hit by 30mm twice, in the tail, and still managed to fly like it was nothing.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

K4 doesnt have mk151/20, that Yak was hit by 30mm twice, in the tail, and still managed to fly like it was nothing.

 

A far more dispassionate approach to this subject matter helps us drill down to the actual issues.

 

The was only a single hit as evidenced by your video (5:10 and 5:37). "Like it was nothing" isn't what was shown. He did display some difficulty flying and was having difficulty controlling the aircraft in more difficult maneuvers (6:12). He didn't crash it but it did get away from him when undamaged it likely wouldn't have.

 

I'll admit, it did look more like a MG151/20 hit than a MK108 hit and there is plenty of talk suggesting maybe the MK108 doesn't hit as hard as it should or maybe its not the actual damage values itself but how it gets counted as I think both of us were talking about previously.

[Guest deleted@134347]

are hispanos more powerful than the german's mg151/15 or 20?  It seems if you get hit with them the effect is pretty dramatic... in the cockpit it feels like a 30mm round..   If anything it's hispanos that stand out as the most powerful rounds right now..

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The was only a single hit as evidenced by your video (5:10 and 5:37). "Like it was nothing" isn't what was shown. He did display some difficulty flying and was having difficulty controlling the aircraft in more difficult maneuvers (6:12). He didn't crash it but it did get away from him when undamaged it likely wouldn't have.

 

The 1st hit landed on the rear fuselage just at the forward point of where the horizontal stab is attached, the 2nd hit was once again to the rear fuselage, this time a little further forward. Now unless you believe the Yak features a noticably stronger rear fuselage than the Spitfire, then the 1st hit was most likely to have resulted in something like this in reality:

 

Instead the ingame Yak flew on after 2 hits closely within that area.

 

The above damage however does not happen to the Spitfire if hit the same place ingame either, so it's probably not because the Yak is modelled to be tougher than the Spitfire ingame, but  like the other tests have indicated it's more likely something is terribly off with the type of damage dealt by HE rounds ingame, esp. in the case of the MK108. 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD]

The Yak's rear fuselage is to a large degree a fabric covered high tensile steel tube frame which is considerably less sensitive to the gas pressure damage of a mine shell. In theory it is possible that the fabric gets blown off by the less damaging gas shock, and the highly damaging gas pressure just vents into the newly created open space, leaving structural integrity intact.

I suppose it would do quite a bit more damage than that, but the important thing is that Yak and Spitfire and apples and oranges in terms of construction and also show different vulnerabilities to different types of projectiles.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 Yak and Spitfire and apples and oranges in terms of construction and also show different vulnerabilities to different types of projectiles.

 

 

That is besides the point. Spit or Yak, apples or oranges- you can not break a tail off and cause that kind of tremendous damage to an airframe with a 30mm mine shell in this sim, let alone the kind of damage that Blenheim suffered with it's tail completely severed. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Bilbo_Baggins

[JtD]

34 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

That is besides the point.

 

Panthera stated the Yak would likely look like the Spitfire after a shot into the fuselage. It should not. That's my point.

 

If your point is the 100th iteration of a generalized 'something's off with the damage model', feel free. I kind of got it the first time, so that stuff is kind of boring for me now and I'm commenting on the finer points of aircraft structure damage resistance.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

23 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

the problem is the fact that german cannons(dunno about russian, didnt test them) do fragmentation damage to critical components, instead of structural damage to enclosed compartments of the aircraft.

 

Of course that is the problem. Han even said it himself in a recent comment : What they do to model MInengeschoss is increase the fragment blast radius. Which is a fundamentally wrong approach.

That is why you get engine damage by hitting the wing tip with a 30mm instead of ripping the thing off.

If you have ever seen footage of MG hitting you can see that it is almost taking bites out of a wing. This isn’t modeled in game at all. HE modeling is fine. He caused splinter damage. It’s the MG that’s wrong. It should be causing structural damage and not fragmentation damage. Anyone who knows anything about the idea behind MG and the implementation in game (this is not speculation but has been confirmed to work as HE by devs many times) should realize that this has been the problem all along.

Wirh the introduction of the new DM where structures are more resilient the inherit flawed modeling of the MG becomes more evident, as its actual structure damaging characteristics are further diminished.

But like I said, it’s a MInengeschoss model issue and that affects all the MG in game.

[Panthera]

4 hours ago, JtD said:

The Yak's rear fuselage is to a large degree a fabric covered high tensile steel tube frame which is considerably less sensitive to the gas pressure damage of a mine shell. In theory it is possible that the fabric gets blown off by the less damaging gas shock, and the highly damaging gas pressure just vents into the newly created open space, leaving structural integrity intact.

I suppose it would do quite a bit more damage than that, but the important thing is that Yak and Spitfire and apples and oranges in terms of construction and also show different vulnerabilities to different types of projectiles.

 

You're right, I did infact overlook that, and thus I was wrong in comparing it directly. Considering the fabric covered frame construction of the fuselage I agree that the damage wouldn't be the same between those two. Wether the severity of the damage dealt would in the end be similar though, well personally I'd  be worried about frame's integrity being compromised after a handgrenade sized explosion like that, esp. since it was right to the spine of the rear fuselage right where the horizontal & vertical stabs attach. But lacking any detailed examples we can only guess. But I do still doubt a Yak would be able to fight after a hit there, let alone a 2nd, even if it atleast wouldn't come apart as spectacularly as a semi-monocoque construction.

 

The big problem though is it's the exact same story with the Spitfire (or any other fighter of semi monocoque construction) ingame, they will take a direct hit to said area, suffer similar damage as the Yak, keep on flying and even maneuvering as well - and we know that wasn't likely to happen in real life, here the rear was more likely to simply blow apart.

 

That said, I wouldn't expect the Yak or La''s wings to fare any better than the Spitfire's, and yet the latter definitely does.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Panthera

[Solmyr]

Guys, of course don't take it as a demand but maybe we should now just wait for the devs to get back to work, improve the visuals of the DM, and probably tweak some weapons effects (HE) before  continuing some endless talks about all that story ? ?

[ShamrockOneFive]

14 hours ago, moosya said:

are hispanos more powerful than the german's mg151/15 or 20?  It seems if you get hit with them the effect is pretty dramatic... in the cockpit it feels like a 30mm round..   If anything it's hispanos that stand out as the most powerful rounds right now..

 

In explosive power no but in AP hitting power yes. The Hispano has a bigger cartridge (20x100 vs 20x82), higher weight (130 gram vs 105) and a higher muzzle velocity (880m/s vs 725m/s). It has downsides too but yeah generally the Hispano is going to hit pretty hard and harder than most 20mm. The MG151/20 makes up for it with its very high explosive rounds. The ShVAK kind of sits somewhere in the middle.

[216th_Jordan]

It really doesn't make much sense to do these kinds of tests in MP, there are issues with netcode and we do not know how much impact these have in the damage that is dealt. If you want consistent results you would have to do these evaluations in SP.

[JtD]

It's what I've been doing for a bit today.

 

It doesn't look much better, though. Some aircraft (Pe-2, *cough*) are really soaking up damage under some circumstances that is incredible. On the other hand I've also de-winged a Spitfire with a single MK108 into the wing root. I really hope we see some fine-tuning of the new mechanics in the near future.

[Panthera]

I'm wondering why the netcode would matter as long as you're only assessing the damage from the targets end? I mean a hit is a hit, and I don't suppose netcode can suddenly transform a MK108 hit into a MG151/20 for example? 

 

I understand that netcode can mess with the percieved location of a hit from the shooters end ofcourse, but since that's not how Rattlesnake and I assessed each hit, then in our case I believe it can pretty much be ruled out. It should also be noted that the damage and hit location visible on Rattlesnake's screen was identical to what I saw in every case, so all in all I think the theory that netcode is to blame is unlikely, even if it's a fair point.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Panthera

[216th_Jordan]

18 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I'm wondering why the netcode would matter as long as you're only assessing the damage from the targets end? I mean a hit is a hit, and I don't suppose netcode can suddenly transform a MK108 hit into a MG151/20 for example? 

 

I understand that netcode can mess with the percieved location of a hit from the shooters end ofcourse, but since that's not how Rattlesnake and I assessed each hit, then in our case I believe it can pretty much be ruled out. It should also be noted that the damage and hit location visible on Rattlesnake's screen was identical to what I saw in every case, so all in all I think the theory that netcode is to blame is unlikely, even if it's a fair point.

 

 

 

 

Sometimes hits show and are not registered for example, it happend in the past, not sure how far this got fixed in recent patches.

 

Anyhow, no matter what, you'd always want to have a Testcase which would not be subjected to influences you would not like to have in it.

[Sunde]

26 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I'm wondering why the netcode would matter as long as you're only assessing the damage from the targets end? I mean a hit is a hit, and I don't suppose netcode can suddenly transform a MK108 hit into a MG151/20 for example? 

 

I understand that netcode can mess with the percieved location of a hit from the shooters end ofcourse, but since that's not how Rattlesnake and I assessed each hit, then in our case I believe it can pretty much be ruled out. It should also be noted that the damage and hit location visible on Rattlesnake's screen was identical to what I saw in every case, so all in all I think the theory that netcode is to blame is unlikely, even if it's a fair point.

 

 

 

Packet loss can very well explain why somone would see a "hit" but not see any real effect of said hit...
I have excellent internet, but not everyone does, sometimes i see someone in online play rubberbanding around, often when i hit them it has 0 impact. 
So depending on how the netcode handles damage between clients, it might "drop" some of the packages containing hits. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by EAF_Sunde

[Panthera]

1 minute ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Packet loss can very well explain why somone would see a "hit" but not see any real effect of said hit...
I have excellent internet, but not everyone does, sometimes i see someone in online play rubberbanding around, often when i hit them it has 0 impact. 
So depending on how the netcode handles damage between clients, it might "drop" some of the packages containing hits. 

 

Yes but as I said we're looking at hits one by one here and from both ends, the target & the shooters end. So any inconsistency would show up immediately, but that never happened, not even in terms of where the hits were located.

 

So I'm certain it isn't a factor in our tests at least. Logically it simply can't be.

[216th_Jordan]

28 minutes ago, Panthera said:

So I'm certain it isn't a factor in our tests at least. Logically it simply can't be.

 

You have not ever developed software have you? things often surpass what one would expect to be logical.

Edited December 22, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

You have not ever developed software have you? things often surpass what one would expect to be logical.

 

I have, but not that kind. With the limited knowledge I have though I am pretty sure a MK108 hit can't turn into something else in just MP, if that happens it's a general bug that will appear in both MP & SP. Furthermore either the hit registers on the target, or it does not. And we're ruling out the hit only registering one place by reviewing the episode from both ends. So if there's a hit and damage occurs, then any bug/error from that point on is going to show up in both SP & MP.

 

In short I'm not saying that netcode can't lead to "false" hits seen on the shooters end with nothing actually happening at the targets end, but it just didn't happen in our case as every hit showed up both places, and I was only using one weapon. So unless you're suggesting that the netcode somehow swaps ID for the weapon firing then I don't see how netcode plays a role here, but you're welcome to explain how.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Panthera

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

So I'm certain it isn't a factor in our tests at least. Logically it simply can't be.

 

Dude, Petrovich himself wrote this week that one has to test the DM in single-player mode if you want reliable test results. 

[Panthera]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Dude, Petrovich himself wrote this week that one has to test the DM in single-player mode if you want reliable test results. 

 

Yes, I believe he was replying to people basing their opinion only on hits seen from their end in MP and not from the targets end which should rule out any netcode issue.  Best way to do that is going into SP, where btw I've had exactly the same results as in our online tests. There was zero difference, wings still stayed attached and the aircraft went down due to damage causing engine failure.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD]

Testing in SP is just about avoiding Murphys law - if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. So have as few errors sources as possible.

 

It doesn't mean MP testing cannot produce good, reliable results at all, but you'll always have to assess another uncertainty. Many years ago I did a load of tests with Il-2:1946, ended up doing them SP and MP. MP was the only way to properly assess any controlled damage in the aircraft that was hit. Quite valuable as well.

[Panthera]

Just did some SP testing myself, MK108 vs the Spitfire. Managed to hit the Spitfire 3 times directly to the tail from the 20 deg above at 6'o'clock, it kept flying, didn't even lose any parts. 4th hit hit directly into the cockpit as he turned, taking out the pilot.  Next round, hit the Spitfire in the wing root, aircraft still flying, but gushing a lot of smoke from the engine. Hit him again in the rear fuselage, top down at maybe 40 deg, nothing came off. He leveled off and the engine quit and the pilot bailed.  This is just not how it should happen.

 

Only managed to cut the wing off with 1 hit once, oddly enough it was a hit to the outer part. The rear fuselage I just can't get to break off yet.

[Mauf]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

Just did some SP testing myself, MK108 vs the Spitfire. Managed to hit the Spitfire 3 times directly to the tail from the 20 deg above at 6'o'clock, it kept flying, didn't even lose any parts. 4th hit hit directly into the cockpit as he turned, taking out the pilot.  Next round, hit the Spitfire in the wing root, aircraft still flying, but gushing a lot of smoke from the engine. Hit him again in the rear fuselage, top down at maybe 40 deg, nothing came off. He leveled off and the engine quit and the pilot bailed.  This is just not how it should happen.

 

Only managed to cut the wing off with 1 hit once, oddly enough it was a hit to the outer part. The rear fuselage I just can't get to break off yet.

Until He ammo types get a remodelling away from the current "fragmentation approach", this will likely stay. I would guess (going by what I've pieced together about the DM) that AP and HE ammo types ride on the same damage system. I guess that weapon damage is not simply somesort of table somewhere where 30mm Mineshell has 80-100, .50 cal has 20-30 but rather it all gets calculated by bullet speed, weight, etc (CloD already had a similar system in place). The HE fragments simply ride piggy back on that and HE destructive filler size is represented by number of fragments spawned. Hence, it's not as simple as cranking up some numbers somewhere and be happy with it. Increasing fragment numbers might quickly run into CPU problems. Simply introducing a set of multipliers for each ammo type opens the flood gates to arbitrariness (right now, they're supposedly sticking to physical principles for modelling which gives objectivity).

 

All the current alternatives aren't options I would guess:

• Do it right and add whole new damage model for blast types damage (very time consuming while they pretty much stand still as they have to redo alot of old stuff instead of cranking out new content)
• Add some arbitrary multiplicators into the mix (opens pandoras box in terms of objectivity, modelling by 'feeling' is not good)
• Just replace the fragment model with a sphere shaped damage area as CloD does (will overmodel the lethality of HE ammo types)

No matter how you cut it: the best approach is also the most resource heavy and probably the understandable reason they're hesitant to touch the topic at all.

[unreasonable]

When you increase the % of mass in HE vs case, you get more fragments in total, with many more small and fewer large ones. They also have a higher initial velocity. But being smaller and lighter they should slow down much more quickly. Since their KE = 1/2 mv^2 the total KE of the fragments will be much higher for the high HE content close to the detonation, even though their total mass is lower, and but further away the larger splinters will have more.

 

I do not know if the DM currently models this.

 

See this page: it is on artillery effects, the general principles of fragmentation patterns are the same as for aircraft HE shells.

  http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

 

The pattern of fragments from the explosion is interesting: those from an aircraft HE shell will also follow a path combining their initial velocity from the detonation with their forwards vector, typically forming a hollow, flat cone, (not a sphere!), I expect a little narrower  for our cannon shells than the diagram. 

 

The problem with modeling blast effects is that you will not get these from every hit: the detonation has to take place in a confined space to get significant effects, so shells that detonate after a ricochet or passing right through a thin area of wing or tail will have minimal blast effects. But it might be possible to scale the "hit points" inflicted in some way to represent this by adding a spherical damage area, although the hit boxes on which this works would have to be carefully considered. 

[Mauf]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The pattern of fragments from the explosion is interesting: those from an aircraft HE shell will also follow a path combining their initial velocity from the detonation with their forwards vector, typically forming a hollow, flat cone, (not a sphere!), I expect a little narrower  for our cannon shells than the diagram.

 

Precisely. And this is the reason why the direction of the hit on the wings matters so much.

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The problem with modeling blast effects is that you will not get these from every hit: the detonation has to take place in a confined space to get significant effects, so shells that detonate after a ricochet or passing right through a thin area of wing or tail will have minimal blast effects. But it might be possible to scale the "hit points" inflicted in some way to represent this by adding a spherical damage area, although the hit boxes on which this works would have to be carefully considered. 

 

Without a representation of the cells of the aircraft structure, we won't get a "proper" modelling of this.  Here's an idea for an approximation:

Maybe if they added a blast cone dummy in the form of an invisible sphere object that gets spawned on HE shell explosion and travels for a certain distance in the direction the HE bullet travelled at explosion time. The moment it touches a hitbox, it inflicts damage but as it travels or hits things, it loses power and diameter until it's used up (to represent the fall off over distance and the shielding that elements provide against the blast). If some boffin could come up with a nice number formular on how much force a certain explosive has at a certain distance from point of detonation, it could approximate the areal effect of the HE. Fragmentation could then be dialed back to a realistic representation and size as it no longer has to stand-in for the blast damage effect.

 

Just a wild idea.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Mauf

[unreasonable]

13 minutes ago, Mauf said:

If some boffin could come up with a nice number fomular on how much force a certain explosive has at a certain distance from point of detonation, it could approximate the areal effect of the HE.

 

 

 From wikipedia:

 

Overpressure in an enclosed space is determined using "Weibull's formula":[4][5]

where:

• 2410 is a constant based on 1 bar (100 kPa; 15 psi)
•  = net explosive mass calculated using all explosive materials and their relative effectiveness
•  = volume of given area (primarily used to determine volume within an enclosed space)

Knowing the mass of HE in a given shell and a specified overpressure sufficient to cause damage you could work out the implied volume: distance would be cube root of that.