Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And don't forget that static objects in the game, like buildings or bridges, have hitpoint values that need to be adjusted by the mission designer to achieve realistic bomb damage. If this isn't done even a direct hit might not damage a building. In my missions I usually lower the value to just one third or a quarter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

And don't forget that static objects in the game, like buildings or bridges, have hitpoint values that need to be adjusted by the mission designer to achieve realistic bomb damage. If this isn't done even a direct hit might not damage a building. In my missions I usually lower the value to just one third or a quarter.


How annoying.  I wonder if it ever occurred to the Developers to set the objects to a reasonable hitpoint value by default instead.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:


How annoying.  I wonder if it ever occurred to the Developers to set the objects to a reasonable hitpoint value by default instead.  

 

Yes, that would be great. But the devs did share the values they use for the careers. I have created a tool to override the default settings with these values (or your own tweaked values):

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Yes, that would be great. But the devs did share the values they use for the careers. I have created a tool to override the default settings with these values (or your own tweaked values):

 

 

It can also be done (as changing side of building) with MiMec:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

I did something similar on there and the guy with me dropped second.  I got one building.  He got 27.  Same spot.

Yeah, the static ground object visual DM only shows if something is completely destroyed, otherwise it looks pristine. IRL when you drop a big bomb like that you would see possibly extensive damage but perhaps not total destruction of buildings, but the game still looks like nothing happened and there is no 'kill'. Happens all the time when I do strike missions online - you see a lot of damage percentages on the ground targets in the sortie log but get one or two kills. But follow up on the same target, even in the same area, and you get six or seven bunkers.

The game has probably registered 50% damage or something and the followup finishes off the buildings. 

 

6 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Iirc this is not too unrealistic and has been brought up here before. Lots of little bombs is more effective for widespread destruction. The larger bombs are for single, hard targets like ships


Truly, the inverse square law is a bitch. 

There was also large bombs used in the strategic bombing campaigns to damage buildings' roofs and other structures to make it easier for follow-up incendiaries to do their work. Hence the 'blockbuster' bombs. But doing that kind of damage - blowing off roof tiles, ripping holes in roofs and walls, shattering windows and such - is the kind of detail the sim doesn't and really can't show. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm, anything above 1000kg seems to be absolutely useless, why can this not be reverted to the way it was before the kuban update? Even light targets like truck, AA etc. should be destroyed outside of the crater, the shockwave of a 2500kg would absolutely annihilate anything thats not screwed into the ground well over 100 meters

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys guys guys, lisen, i keep hereng this for last few months in some other topic related to performance of weapons.

 

Could it be your not aiming hard enought with thouse bombs ?

 

Also its maybe net/online problem, you know lag and stuff... ?

 

Also are we sure thouse bombs were not just as effective as they are in game and other data is just propaganda of ww2 making you belive they should do more kboom.

 

Its not easy to see what exactly is problem if there is any problem, you know, i see nothing wrong with how big german bombs behave in game you just have to consider your aim is bad if same happends offline, iv sean youtubeaces destroying 2-3 objects with 1000kg bombs so its posible what you wont 1x1000kg to be like tzarboomb, we dont wont WT here.... aracade... bla bla bla... .50....sc500... ok ok 

:P

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if this is related  to another phenomenon   I have seen online.  Have not tested this offline.   There are times when you destroy a target,  truck,  oil tank,   etc  and then it shows it's destroyed/debris graphic.  I have had it happen that sometimes, many,  if you try to shoot a target that is behind this destroyed target, ( in a tank )  your shell will explode  over the top, or where the previous target was.  So if you destroy a large oil tank,  or something in a revetment, bunker etc  and then try to hit something behind that, even though your shot looks clear, the structure  of the destroyed target is still in place.   IS the same happening with bombs ?   You drop a 50kg bomb on a building or a row of buildings  you dont really expect it to destroy more than the one,  If you drop a 500,  1000, 1800  kg  etc  you  would probably expect damage and destruction to some surrounding structures as well but perhaps the destroyed building is blocking any/all of the blast force or shrapnel from reaching past the first destroyed tgt .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

Everything became as it should be, 

 

What do you mean with this comment?

Are you saying the current bombs are working as they should?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

Everything became as it should be, bombs of 50-100kg are much more effective, in view of their number on board. 

 

Going to copy my reply from another thread - 

I like that 50's reclaimed their usefulness in the latest overhaul, but it came at the expense of making every other bombload if not useless then tactically pointless. Bombs and standard loadouts grew larger over the course of the war, they were clearly useful. In game, not so. A 50 kg bomb and a 1000 kg bomb dropped at the same distance from hard or soft targets will currently do effectively the same amount of damage - and a 50kg bomb generally appear to do MORE damage than a 500kg bomb at the same distance.

Even if we assume the calculations are flawlessly realistic, we must also consider that the nature of our targets is not. We attack indestructible villages and towns with maybe ten destroyable buildings in it, no people or infrastructure, no purpose to anything but a direct hit and destruction - and no points awarded until all those exact buildings or vehicles have been destroyed. There's no such thing as reducing effectiveness, no such thing as causing casualties and hurting morale. you can't destroy a road or carpet a runway to prevent its use. We currently have a situation where you need to score direct hits even with a 1800 kg bomb to destroy a target, even soft ones. This IS an issue with the game right now, especially for those few who still enjoy flying bombers. It is a discussion worth having.

Edited by Luftschiff
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

@Jamisco, at the moment, yes, unless another technical solution or improvement is found.

I dont know what you would constitute as a technical issue, but if a 1500kg bomb has thesame or less effectiveness as a 50kg bomb.

There is most definitely a technical issue

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I searched for pages in german language (my native language)

to calculate the distance of damages related to explosions

but I found some quite interresting...

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprengkraft

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonationswelle

 

Both pages show some information about how much pressure difference will create what kind of damage

and the second one also contained a formula to calculate the distance in case you know the amount of TNT and the pressure difference.

 

In the game script files I also found the amount of TNT used for calculation

and the max distance for damaging anything

 

And using all these available data I really thing the problem of 'not working bombs' is game made...

I also know we are talking about a game, where you'll have to find a mix between 'reality' and 'makes sense'

so up/downgrading weapons is some kind of 'normal'...

 

But I am also aware of the fact, that there is a huge mismatch in bomb size and bomb effect...

 

Example:

From my server logs I extracted a bomb impact point (a tank was hit, so exact position is known)

The bomb was also known from log entries (german SC-500)

The TNT is known from the scripts (240 Kg)

The max distance for damage is known from the scripts (91,6m)

 

And the facts:

Tank (hit by bomb) was destroyed as it should

Truck (distance to tank 62m) got 4% damage

Truck was a static object, durability 500

 

And after filling the formula to calculate the distance for a shock wave according to TNT (known) and pressure difference (used values from the pages above)

there was a really strange mismatch between 'should happen' and 'happened'

 

The truck was 62 m away from the explosion

and got 4% (in words: four percent) damage

 

Formula calculates the following distances

- 62m for destroyed buildings -> 700 mBar
- 66m for destroyed vehicles -> 620 mBar
- 75m for cars turning upside-down -> 480 mBar
- 118m for heavy damage to (or destroying 'simple') buildings -> 200 mBar

 

And the matching 'pressure difference' for the known distance (62m) and the known TNT (240 Kg) was 700 mBar...

 

So I really thinks its up to the devs to have a really close look on these facts.

And I also don't expect miracles or fixed within the next patch(es)

because I am aware that any changes would be very complex

but they are nesessary...

 

Regards

Deciman

 

 

 

Edited by JG4_Deciman
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

well ... using the formula from the wiki you are quoting above I do arrive at these, different, results:

 

 

sprengkraft.thumb.jpg.48c6fea15692369185f1b9b2402a2a40.jpg

Formula from wiki:

{\displaystyle s(P)=M^{\frac {1}{3}}\cdot \exp \left(0{,}9267-0{,}5112\cdot \ln(P)+0{,}0398\cdot (\ln(P))^{2}\right)}

I used this (admittedly quickly hacked..) octave script

 

clf
M=240;
dp=linspace(0.1,1,50)';
s1=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);

M=500;
s2=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);

M=1000;
s3=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);
grid

annotation('textbox',[0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2],'string','240kg');
annotation('textbox',[0.35 0.35 0.1 0.2],'string','500kg');
annotation('textbox',[0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2],'string','1000kg');
plot(s1,dp,s2,dp,s3,dp)
xlabel("distance in m");
ylabel("pressure difference in bar");
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

well ... using the formula from the wiki you are quoting above I do arrive at these, different, results:

 

 

sprengkraft.thumb.jpg.48c6fea15692369185f1b9b2402a2a40.jpg

Formula from wiki:

{\displaystyle s(P)=M^{\frac {1}{3}}\cdot \exp \left(0{,}9267-0{,}5112\cdot \ln(P)+0{,}0398\cdot (\ln(P))^{2}\right)}

I used this (admittedly quickly hacked..) octave script

 

clf
M=240;
dp=linspace(0.1,1,50)';
s1=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);

M=500;
s2=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);

M=1000;
s3=M^(1./3.) .*exp(0.9267-0.5112*log(dp)+0.0398*(log(dp)) .^2);
grid

annotation('textbox',[0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2],'string','240kg');
annotation('textbox',[0.35 0.35 0.1 0.2],'string','500kg');
annotation('textbox',[0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2],'string','1000kg');
plot(s1,dp,s2,dp,s3,dp)
xlabel("distance in m");
ylabel("pressure difference in bar");
 

 

Can you crosscheck your graph...

 

For a TNT of 240Kg

and a 'difference' of 600 mBar (0.6 bar)

my formula shows about 67m

and your graph shows about 21m

 

Deci

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the cross-checking I added the script and the formula in my post.

So far I can't find an error, but of course there might be one. Could you post how you did it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

=POTENZ(D21;1/3) * EXP(0,9267 - 0,5112 * LN(B21) + 0,0398 * (POTENZ(LN(D21);2)))

 

where

D21 == TNT (kg) == 240 (example)

B21 == difference in bar (bar == mBar/1000) == 0,6 (example)

 

all excel

 

Deci

 

PS: German number system, so 0,x is the same as 0.x on english number systems

Edited by JG4_Deciman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have excel, but here is my result in OpenOffice - 21m for 0.6 bar and 240kg.

I also did it on a pocket calculator - same result.

 

Sort of weird.

image.png.fefc2e6a48fab8d468d2497482f634e8.png

I think I found it: In the last term of your expression you use D21, which is your mass, instead of B21, which us the pressure difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2021 at 3:00 AM, -DED-Rapidus said:

Everything became as it should be, bombs of 50-100kg are much more effective, in view of their number on board. 

 So how exactly do you explain this screenshot if EVERYTHING is working as intended? At least acknowledge that theres a problem... Maybe 50-100kg are more efficient with accuracy bombing, but a building not dying inside ANY bomb's blast crater is plain out unrealistic and a BUG. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jakl said:

 So how exactly do you explain this screenshot if EVERYTHING is working as intended? At least acknowledge that theres a problem... Maybe 50-100kg are more efficient with accuracy bombing, but a building not dying inside ANY bomb's blast crater is plain out unrealistic and a BUG. 

Not everything. I believe @[DBS]Browningpointed out in another thread that the craters left by the various bombs are much larger in-game than they were in real life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the craters ingame are bigger than the range you might expect to suffer a burst ear drum and far, far bigger than the real crater would be. 

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Picture number 1: The Bomb CLEARLY detonates just left (or above) of the 4x3 building square, if anything dies it should be the the top ones right next to it because THEY are CLOSEST to impact point right? What happened instead?

20210414144547_1.thumb.jpg.47928275c43463ecad5159436d005c82.jpg

Picture 2: The 2 CENTER buildings died (indicated by fire) which are BEHIND the top ones and should receive LESS damage. Yet people are here telling me the bomb damage is fine as it is. Even if it was then this behaviour makes NO sense AT all. It's really triggering getting told that everything works just fine by people who probably don't even bomb themselves... 

20210414144705_1.thumb.jpg.4cdbd7aaf92bf1c2eaf4b3aaa284dab5.jpg

 

Another PoV to further demonstrate the center of detonation:

20210414151512_1.thumb.jpg.086a032790e960802270243c3cdd4317.jpg

 

 

Edited by 6FG_Jakl
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WheelwrightPL said:

Maybe those buildings are hardened ?

aaah yes of course that must be the reason not some fishy spaghetti code and [edited] durability value for buildings 😄 /s 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CountZero said:

aim harder, they work great when they meat at convergance point. But its probably net code lag warping magic woodooo thingy

at first i chuckled but now i am wondering if youre serious 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 10:20 AM, CountZero said:

aim harder, they work great when they meat at convergance point. But its probably net code lag warping magic woodooo thingy

i like you :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, my group have all switched to smaller bombs and long drops because we've found taking anything over 100kg pointless, where before we were flying the Peshka with 4 250's now we'll instead take the a-20 with 20 100's, the 88, the amazing 4 500's and 2 250 mix we'll just take the 100's, honestly it's made the larger loads pointless, same in the 110.

 

even offline i'm finding smaller bombs a better option now, but I guess as this is "Working as intended" maybe they don't want us using larger bombs anymore?

splash damage has been utterly nerfed to death, you practically have to post the bomb through the window now to make a dent it seems, considering the accuracy of ww2 bomb dropping, do they even want bombers in the game anymore?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 9:14 AM, Melonfish said:

I'll be honest, my group have all switched to smaller bombs and long drops because we've found taking anything over 100kg pointless, where before we were flying the Peshka with 4 250's now we'll instead take the a-20 with 20 100's, the 88, the amazing 4 500's and 2 250 mix we'll just take the 100's, honestly it's made the larger loads pointless, same in the 110.

 

even offline i'm finding smaller bombs a better option now, but I guess as this is "Working as intended" maybe they don't want us using larger bombs anymore?

splash damage has been utterly nerfed to death, you practically have to post the bomb through the window now to make a dent it seems, considering the accuracy of ww2 bomb dropping, do they even want bombers in the game anymore?

 

Considering the fucked up LoD distance for many objects and not being able to level bomb properly above 4000m, THIS indeed, is a very good question to ask. Some Objects really are fine to bigger bombs they will destroy anything in their blast radius, but MOST are not. And what happened in the picture above i posted just happens too frequently... 

There is definitely some issue with how the damage is calculated, however the biggest issue in my opinion is that there is no threshold at X durability where buildings can't be killed by canons. I think that way too many objects were slapped with a generalized value so a huge factory that wouldnt die to 1 50kg bomb has the same durability as a dugout. (they both die to a 50kg bomb lol, but only direct hit!) 

Edited by 6FG_Jakl
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropped a SC1000 on a square of buildings last night on the Finnish multiplayer server.  Destroyed 2 (1 was apparently already destroyed) buildings and barely damaged much else.  The visual crater seems to be bigger than the actual damage area which is weird because you think the shock wave would be devastating.

 

Bomb damage seems weird right now.  I've destroyed targets with a direct hit with a 50kg bomb before the bomb even goes off, and then I have instances of things like this.

 

It honestly feels like a waste to bring anything other than 50kgs on missions since you get so many and seem to do more damage with them as a whole.

 

Kfvzcw1.jpg

 

Sortie in Question:

 

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/log/1228036/?tour=41

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/25/2021 at 5:05 PM, =Elite=BlitzPuppet said:

Dropped a SC1000 on a square of buildings last night on the Finnish multiplayer server.  Destroyed 2 (1 was apparently already destroyed) buildings and barely damaged much else.  The visual crater seems to be bigger than the actual damage area which is weird because you think the shock wave would be devastating.

 

Bomb damage seems weird right now.  I've destroyed targets with a direct hit with a 50kg bomb before the bomb even goes off, and then I have instances of things like this.

 

It honestly feels like a waste to bring anything other than 50kgs on missions since you get so many and seem to do more damage with them as a whole.

 

It's the crater that is far too big, not the blast radius that is too small.

50kg, 250kg and 500lb (225kg) and similar bombs were the most popular sizes in the war because larger bombs are far less efficient against most targets.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting Mannerheim-Cross holder Cpt: Lauri Äijö:

Äijö: On the other hand, the JK could carry two 1000 kg bombs, or four 500 kg's. And the hull could carry ten 100-kg (50-kg -Ed.) bombs. As long as you didn't go over the maximum take-off weight limit. If you had lots of fuel, you had to reduce the bomb load, and vice versa. You always had to count it. Usually we carried one 1000-kg and one 500-kg bomb. Some planes had two 1000-kg's. It was a heavy load. A tonner would make a crater of 30-40 meters.
 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-RautavaAijoEnglish.html
 

That size of crater would mean a lot of stuff, including nearby tanks rolling over and even fly in the air like described in many occasions. Or at least knock out those tank crews inside. IL-2 BoX has very good dynamics with solid objects (hitting an object by force and see that transferring force tilts the receiving object for example) but this is something that is missing in blast damage. And all the collateral stuff that load of this size hurls in the air also. I believe this is why previous modeling was more believable under these circumstances, although it was not perfect by all means.


I would not fixate too much on the possible incorrectness of the crater's visual aspect. Using that as proof that "it is ok now" is... focusing on the irrelevant. Just simple logic will tell that IRL those bigger bombs would not have been constructed if there is less value than increase in the price.

 

 

36 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

50kg, 250kg and 500lb (225kg) and similar bombs were the most popular sizes in the war because larger bombs are far less efficient against most targets.

 

I'm sorry to say, but this sounds like a politicians story because it draws conclusions by ignoring many aspects. Popularity can be also a result of for example logistics, production lines, delivery method (Low-level vs. dive. vs carpet), delivering plane capabilities, type of most probable targets, air doctrine and of course relative efficiency like you said. But it is not the only reason.

 

As a common world example: In FAF those Blenheims we had were peppering with these "best there is" small bombs since the start of the Winter War; why in the earth would we have wanted to get those expensive and complicated Ju-88's and use those bigger bombs? I'm sure it is just not because those bigger balls of steel were shining more scarily. 😉 They were used against concentrations of armored vehicles, bridges, sometimes even against partisan training centre (like described in above link) etc.

 

I apologize already [DBS]Browning if this sounds I'm attacking you; it is not my intention. English is not my native language, so I am perhaps using too harsh-sounding phrases. I'm trying to point out that you may not have thought this trough, or you just may want it to be true so much that you are ignoring several other points here.

 

However I trust that when given time the developers will return to this and tune it for the better. I especially remember AnPetrovich approach and re-evaluatings have been very successful and believable; like the blackouts and G-forces case some time ago.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very fortunately, but not surprisingly, we do not have to rely on anecdotes to work out bomb crater sizes, as good theoretical and experimental data exists that allows us to calculate crater sizes.

This document suggests that a good rule of thumb is D[m]=0.8W[Kg TNT]^1/3 (+/- 30%).

A 1000kg charge of TNT would result in a crater between 6.5m and 12m in diameter, depending on the soil type and conditions with up to an additional 30% if the explosive charge was buried.

 

Large bombs are useful against hardened targets such as bunkers, ships and some types of bridge, but not against buildings and soft targets, unless there is a desire to block roads in the way the British used 'cookie' bombs.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...