The only smoke in any of the videos I can find comes from the thermal blur created by the missile, not from the ground/dust/etc. Even that gets cleared up very fast. Don't know if that type of effect is possible in PR. Mostly this should debunk the massive blinding smoke cloud being realistic myth.
Lets not forget ATGMs are not guided munitions in PR anymore if there is such a massive cloud of smoke. Only way to guide that missile in the game is by seeing what you're shooting at. And in real life, they seem to be able to see through it aswell.
Thanks for the videos, but i was more interested in Zacky claim that they use smoke less fuel and there should be none at all
The biggest issue with ATGMs right now is the massive smoke cloud created at launch. That blocks your sight completely for 2 or more seconds. As you can see in that and the other videos, this will be removed.
The smoke trail does not represent such a big problem and your videos also show we should probably keep it, but make it more transparent and last way shorter.
Here is one of Malyutka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaT5O84raw
Mineral: TIL that Wire-guided missiles actually use wire
It depends on the ATGM: as seen, Konkurs makes huge *** dust & smoke cloud meanwhile TOW-2 has little dust and no smoke. It's obvious that Konkurs has more dust flying since it's closer to the ground. TOW-2 though has a slight blind spot right after launch, the heat from the missile blocks the gunner's view for brief moment.
'[R-DEV wrote:Mats391;2121631']Thanks for the videos, but i was more interested in Zacky claim that they use smoke less fuel and there should be none at all
The biggest issue with ATGMs right now is the massive smoke cloud created at launch. That blocks your sight completely for 2 or more seconds. As you can see in that and the other videos, this will be removed.
The smoke trail does not represent such a big problem and your videos also show we should probably keep it, but make it more transparent and last way shorter.
Here is one of Malyutka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaT5O84raw
Its quite funny that when we point something out you ask us for sources but yet your self you do not provide any sources.
The powder use in modern ATGM and RPG are called Minimum-signature/smokeless propellants
.
I'm not going to bother make a details post just gonna copy/paste some links since viirus videos speak for themselves.
Propulsion is via a Thiokol (now ATK) M120-series rocket motor, employing solid fuel and a single stage. Starting with the AGM-114B, all Hellfires were equipped with smokeless M120 variants. Starting with the AGM-114B, all Hellfires were built with either the M120E1 (developed for the US Army), or the M120A2 (developed for the US Navy; and by extension, the US Marine Corps). The shelf life for the M120 series is approximately 20 years, by which time the missile must have its motor replaced, or be deactivated.
Once the shooter has sighted the target, he pressed the trigger, and thus ignites the booster engine, which ejects the missile from the tube. In a distance of 10 to 12 m ignites the smokeless cruise engine and accelerates the missile to 278-320 m / s After burning from 1.6 to 2.0 Sekunden this is burned and the missile flies listless on.
Need for stealth and smokeless capabilities, insensitive munitions characteristics, lightweight, compact, low cost.
Experience
Examples of programmes on which Roxel has been involved (gas generators, boost and sustain motors):
Short range:
ACL89, Apilas, Law 80, M72 (rocket launchers)
Eryx
Medium range:
Bill / RBS 56
Milan
Milan ER
MSS 1.2
Long range:
Brimstone (air-launched) and IM Brimstone
Hot
PARS 3
Manufactured by Orbital ATK, the TOW-2 rocket motor is designed with a
dual canted nozzle to vent exhaust gases from the minimum-smoke motor at
an oblique angle to the missile?s line-of-flight.
Product Features and Benefits : Proven minimum smoke propellant
M120 reduced smoke, used with the AGM-114A. (Army version)
M120E1 minimum smoke, which limits the exhaust signature and is used with the AGM-114C. (Army version)
M120E2 minimum smoke, which adds a Safe Arm Device (SAD) to meet Navy shipboard safety requirements, used with the AGM-114B and AGM-114K, and will be used with AGM-114M.
The smokeless propellants used in shoulder-launched ordnance are typically double base formulations of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. SMAW and M72 LAW use a well-known MIL-SPEC formulation called M7,
A similar motor is used in some two-stage missiles such as TOW. The TOW launch motor also uses M7 propellant and has the disadvantage of emitting extremely high acoustic emissions in the free-field launch environment.
What you see in most of those videos is not smoke but a mix thermal blur/Heat haze and "Vapor trail" which change the refractive index of the air by heating the air behind the missile or by turbulences changing the density of the air.
Here is a video showing the phenomenon in slo-mo
Should we add smoke to bullets too ?
Last edited by [F|H]Zackyx on 2016-03-12 16:47, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:forgot the ;-) face
I don't see anything rude in Zackyx's tone. Well, maybe a bit, but well within the lines of not being an *******... but maybe it's because I'm biased as share the same point he does and also he is the one with all the sources and therefore all the arguments.
And I believe PatrickLA_CA was right by noting that the comparison of smoke made by the launch of the TOW-like rockets are dependent on the position the weapon platform is being used from - as seen in the vid Navo provided, the rocketeer and his system was in a prone position. And we all know how dusty it is in Middle East (if you don't - believe me, the dust is a curse for people who aren't used to it, and it can be kicked up so high and wide that the dusty particles can even be used as an effective smoke screen).
Anyway, wrapping it up: it's nice to see that DEVs are listening and acknowledging real problems. Thank you for your determination DEV team and everyone who's contributing in any other way.
Mats, thanks for the update, but now it feels like it's too clear (as if it missed a bit of smoke effect). But seeing as it's mostly the same IRL and this being a game that tends to recreate the details of reality, it should stay smokeless. But as a vet gamer (well, most of you prolly are vet gamers) I feel the need for a bit of an eye candy effect when firing TOW. Why can't we just revert it to way TOW's handled before the update which added the enormous smoke effect? Here's an example from 0.91 (action starts at 01:20):
Last edited by Mouthpiece on 2016-03-12 17:09, edited 2 times in total.
I did not create any of these effects, i am only tweaking them to make it more useable. As you can see in the videos the smoke that blocks your vision after launch is almost gone and you have clear sight on the target.
In my latest test i also reduced the trail and it is shorter than in the 0.9 effects that you mentioned.
As for sources for the tail, i have none except videos showing them. You might notice that there are quite a lot of videos on the topic every time with something else changed. This is cause we discuss it in the team and if someone asks for a smoke tail, i ll do it to show how it could look.
'[F|H wrote:Zackyx;2121669']What you see in most of those videos is not smoke but a mix thermal blur/Heat haze and "Vapor trail" which change the refractive index of the air by heating the air behind the missile or by turbulences changing the density of the air.
Here is a video showing the phenomenon in slo-mo
Should we add smoke to bullets too ?
We actually do. It is on 50cal bullets.
Mineral: TIL that Wire-guided missiles actually use wire
Smoke trail will be same for all ATGMs. This makes it easier to maintain and also will help preventing to hit the effects cap. BF2 only supports limited amount of unique effects.
Mineral: TIL that Wire-guided missiles actually use wire
[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:Right now they have different trails on different missiles, so changing the trail on all or removing it on all is same effort
What's the impact on performance? Well, at least what's your approximation. Because if it does impact performance (even if those are just 4-6 more FPS) then I'd say screw the different smoke. I mean, noone even notices it while aiming at an AFV - people are looking the other way, hehe! No, but seriously - there are some gimmicks in PR that people just don't notice or don't care about. All in all I'm pro-better performance then different effects (as it would draw more 2nd/3rd world country players who don't have good PC's and really won't have them "soon enough").
