Major visual effects feedback thread

[ATAG_Flare]

I'd like to offer some feedback on what I think is one of CloD 4.5's worst areas, visual effects.

In the development of patch 4.5, many of the effects were re-done. However, a majority of these effects were re-done it seems just for the sake of re-doing them. In my opinion, really only the contrails received an improvement. The rest was either not changed even though it needed improvement, or changed even though it was already quite good.

EFFECTS THAT WERE BETTER IN 4.3

Fuel tank fires. The smoke was thick and lasted a long time. The fire was the correct size and looked good from up close or afar. The current effect has smoke that looks like a little cloud of smoke is appearing every frame. It's thin, and it doesn't last for a long time. If a plane is venting at the same time you can hardly tell that it's on fire because the smoke just blends in with the radiator leak. The flames in the current one look like a tiny flame from a candle, match, or campfire but scaled up to the size of a fuselage. Also, it has no sense of being on a plane going at 200-300mph and being blown back by the wind, it just has these rounded flickering campfire flames. It looks quite odd. However at least the colours are still good and the total size of the flame is pretty good.

Recommended: make the smoke thicker and last longer like in 4.3. Make the flame look more appropriate for the size that it is, similar to the (really good) 4.3 effect.

4.3 Effect:

20160528175006_1.jpg 2014-07-24_00026.jpg

Radiator leaks aka "venting". In 4.3 it looked like a nice trail of vapour, smooth and realistic. If anything it was too thin and hard to see sometimes. In 4.5 it looks like a stream of tiny puff balls coming out of the radiators every frame. On the plus side, it looks thicker, but the puff balls look very silly and unrealistic. Also it looks really weird once you've landed with a broken radiator and have these 1 metre wide cumulus clouds floating up through the wing and spinning. Also, it seems that it doesn't leave a very long trail, this was an issue in 4.3 as well.

Recommended: make the effect smoother like it was in 4.3, while keeping the thickness and opaqueness of the new effect. Make the effect leave a longer trail.

4.3 Effect:

Sequence 02.00_17_38_05.Still007.jpg

Bomb Explosions: The 4.3 effects were some of the best I've seen in a flight sim. They left big columns of dirt that were lit up by the initial explosion. The shape was great, the colours were great. The outwards flying streaks of dirt that showed up were super cool. The 4.5 ones are just lame compared to these ones. Not enough of a dirt column, too firery, too smokey. The new effects that were shown off were really weird, they had the same radiator puff balls, but grey, and just floating on the ground spinning.

4.3 effect:

2015-06-14_00010.jpg

Recommended: just revert to the 4.3 ones. They did not need improvement at all and were perfect as is.

Engine fires. These look alright, they did in 4.3 as well, all I can say is make the smoke trail more visible and last longer, similar to the fuel tank fire smoke trail.

EFFECTS THAT HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED IMPROVEMENT

Oil radiator leaks. I have just always thought that the oil leaks are way too thin and hard to see. Shouldn't it spray into a thicker trail like the water radiator leaks (but not as much since it's probably not boiling.) Also, sometimes when you get oil radiator perforated, your windshield covers in oil. That doesn't make sense on the Spit, 109, or Hurricane, as the oil radiator isn't in front of the windscreen!

Recommended: Make them a little bit thicker and last longer.

Fuel leaks. Same issue as oil radiator leaks. They are awfully thin. The fuel should spread out into more a vapour trail rather than what it is.

Recommendation: Make them thicker and last longer.

MISSING EFFECTS

Some effects that should be in the sim just aren't there.

Water tank perforated. The glycol tank was a very vulnerable target and it often gets hit say when attacking bombers, but there is no effect to show that it's leaking. Pilots often described their cockpit being filled with glycol fumes and the plane would have a trail. This effect could be the same as the radiator venting effect just emitting from the engine area where the glycol tank is.

Oil tank perforated. Same as above but with oil.

Various types of engine damage, like oil gasket failure, cylinder head failure, etc. Basically anything that makes the engine shake. These could make the engine trail black oil fumes out of the exhaust. A large majority of combat reports from the BoB that I've read include the target emitting dark smoke, in CloD you only get smoke if you get a fire. Damaged engines should have some sort of visual cue and a dark oily trail would be great for this.

Like the 110 in this piece of art:
piotr-forkasiewicz-11-august-e-00.jpg

Or this scene from Battle of Britain:
engine damage.png engine damage2.png

I think TF has the potential to really make some great effects but they need to move away from the "puff balls" that are currently used on fire smoke, radiator venting, and even bomb explosions now! I hope that some improvement can be seen in future updates for the effects. Some just don't look that great compared to how they used to look, and some of the poor effects that have stayed the same since initial launch could use some improvements.

I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism here so please don't take offence, you might not agree but I hope that the effects are looked at.



Flare

[ATAG_kiwiflieger]

+1 Flare. Recommendations you made hit the nail right on the head I think

But what I really want to know is where you found that highly classified image of me realising that, yet again, I got waay too deep in a fight with no E...

[ATAG_Flare]

+1 Flare. Recommendations you made hit the nail right on the head I think

But what I really want to know is where you found that highly classified image of me realising that, yet again, I got waay too deep in a fight with no E...

It's from my track file where your rear gunner nailed my oil - again!

Glad to hear that you agree with my thoughts on the effects.

[ATAG_Ribbs]

Flare..I agree with all you said spot on!
The one thing that we do need to remember, is at some point in time we need realize that getting something exactly right could take ages..alot of time that could be spent elsewhere. Hard to please everyone at the same time. Fortunately switching back to 4.3 bomb explosions shouldn't be too time consuming. ( The most important of the effects that needs reworked) I'm hoping of course..haha. The effects on aircraft hitting the water look amazing in the last update! Things are definitely going in the right direction. Thanks guys! S!

[♣_Spiritus_♣]

Regarding missing effects:

This is something that must be tested regarding FPS. When I made the changes to the XX hitboxes by adding missing components in the water/oil systems, I added multiple effect hooks for what you are talking about on one aircraft so we could test it (this aircraft is not in 4.5). Right now, if you get hit anywhere in the oil system, the oil spray effect comes out of the rad. With the new hooks, it would depend on what part of the system you got hit, and the spray would come from either the rad, engine, or somewhere along the hose line.

We will test this when we have time because we won't take the time to add the hooks and re import every plane into the game if the FPS hit is to large. The issue could be that if you get peppered, and all your hitboxes get popped, then you could have 4 oil streams, 4 water streams, a fire and smoke, so on. Potential FPS killer.

We'll test it when we have time.

[Kling]

The smokes and fire were all changed after the community loudly requested it when TF4.5 came out. So it was changed in TF4.53.

Maybe the smoke for fuel fires should be a bit thicker and rad smoke should be a bit less dense. My understanding is that it will be looked at.
I have nothing against using org TF4.3 bomb explosion effects.

[ATAG_Ribbs]

Regarding missing effects:

This is something that must be tested regarding FPS. When I made the changes to the XX hitboxes by adding missing components in the water/oil systems, I added multiple effect hooks for what you are talking about on one aircraft so we could test it (this aircraft is not in 4.5). Right now, if you get hit anywhere in the oil system, the oil spray effect comes out of the rad. With the new hooks, it would depend on what part of the system you got hit, and the spray would come from either the rad, engine, or somewhere along the hose line.

We will test this when we have time because we won't take the time to add the hooks and re import every plane into the game if the FPS hit is to large. The issue could be that if you get peppered, and all your hitboxes get popped, then you could have 4 oil streams, 4 water streams, a fire and smoke, so on. Potential FPS killer.

We'll test it when we have time.

I would look like a North Dakota oil well going off.

[1lokos]

..and rad smoke should be a bit less dense.

This. The rads now look like putting off 'puffs of smoke' and not leaking water (what they did until 4.312, with an nice spray effect).

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I'd like to offer some feedback on what I think is one of CloD 4.5's worst areas, visual effects.

In the development of patch 4.5, many of the effects were re-done. However, a majority of these effects were re-done it seems just for the sake of re-doing them.

Appreciate your feedback. However, there are many reasons why certain effects were changed... and the reason you listed was not one of them.

As you may remember, there were definite fps issues when TF 4.5 was released. As part of that, we looked for solutions which might reduce the load on player's computers. The density of particles and the performance drag of certain effects were one of the areas we made changes to improve performance. There were also inaccuracy issues with the TF 4.312 bombs... the blast effects were considerably overdone when compared to the weapon's actual explosive power.

Effects have been worked on since the release, and continue to be. We hope players will be happy with the results when we release them.

Thanks

[ATAG_Flare]

Appreciate your feedback. However, there are many reasons why certain effects were changed... and the reason you listed was not one of them.

As you may remember, there were definite fps issues when TF 4.5 was released. As part of that, we looked for solutions which might reduce the load on player's computers. The density of particles and the performance drag of certain effects were one of the areas we made changes to improve performance. There were also inaccuracy issues with the TF 4.312 bombs... the blast effects were considerably overdone when compared to the weapon's actual explosive power.

Effects have been worked on since the release, and continue to be. We hope players will be happy with the results when we release them.

Thanks

Hi Buzzsaw, thanks for the response. I was referring to the changes between 4.3 and 4.5 not between 4.5 and 4.53 however. (Unless you are too? I know it's hard to get the right idea across on forums sometimes. Then disregard.) Were the 4.3 effects really hard on FPS? I would think not, considering that they were used happily for years.

Regarding missing effects:

This is something that must be tested regarding FPS. When I made the changes to the XX hitboxes by adding missing components in the water/oil systems, I added multiple effect hooks for what you are talking about on one aircraft so we could test it (this aircraft is not in 4.5). Right now, if you get hit anywhere in the oil system, the oil spray effect comes out of the rad. With the new hooks, it would depend on what part of the system you got hit, and the spray would come from either the rad, engine, or somewhere along the hose line.

We will test this when we have time because we won't take the time to add the hooks and re import every plane into the game if the FPS hit is to large. The issue could be that if you get peppered, and all your hitboxes get popped, then you could have 4 oil streams, 4 water streams, a fire and smoke, so on. Potential FPS killer.

We'll test it when we have time.

Roger. Didn't really think about the FPS hit. Hopefully it can be done! I just flew a flight in a Hurricane and my engine got all messed up by some Stuka rear gunners but from the outside you could hardly tell unless you looked closely for the bullet holes! Oil streams from damaged engines (and thicker ones than the current oil stream effect) would be awesome.

The smokes and fire were all changed after the community loudly requested it when TF4.5 came out. So it was changed in TF4.53.

Maybe the smoke for fuel fires should be a bit thicker and rad smoke should be a bit less dense. My understanding is that it will be looked at.
I have nothing against using org TF4.3 bomb explosion effects.

I know that the fire has been changed (it is improved after base 4.5 fire but still in my opinion way less realistic than the 4.3 fire) but the smoke really needs to be looked at, it's really thin and sparse, you used to be able to see long black streaks across the sky from burning planes, now in 4.5 the smoke trail is much less impressive.

Buzzsaw talked about the explosions being too big in 4.3, if that's the case, maybe the 4.3 ones could be scaled to the correct size and then used?

Obviously you guys are doing the best you can, and keep it up. Just want to give my feedback.

[rel4y]

I have to say that I never had problems with fps in CLoD, neither 4.3 nor 4.5. I get a constant 60 fps with almost highest settings - except above London and Le Havre - all the time and I am running a 2012/13 rig. There is imo no point in even putting the baseline as low as my rig, as I cant seriously expect to run a game at highest settings with a 5 year old rig. My take on this is that TF should future proof this sim and not focus on making the sim run perfectly on older PCs. This will slow progress and in the future may leave CloD behind the competition.

That said, since I never experienced fps problems in 4.3 and in 4.5 get about the same fps, the old bomb detonation, fuel fire and radiator leak effects couldnt have been a major concern performance wise. There is really no shame in reverting back to these, as they were simply the best in the current sim market. Please TF listen to the community here, they appreciate all the hard work you put into these I am sure, but new is not always better.

PS: Btw the same applies to the font.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Were the 4.3 effects really hard on FPS? I would think not, considering that they were used happily for years.

4.312 runs DX10 and 32 bits.

4.5xx runs DX11 and 64 bits.

There was a significant increase in the demand on player's systems when the game was upgraded.

[No.401_Wolverine]

4.312 runs DX10 and 32 bits.

4.5xx runs DX11 and 64 bits.

There was a significant increase in the demand on player's systems when the game was upgraded.

Not sure I understand this. I was under the impression the move to DX11 and 64bit was intended to improve performance. Is 4.5+ using tessellation or other major DX11 elements to increase polycount/improve the look of the game now? If the game was simply moved to DX11/64bit executable then shouldn't employing the same visual effect procedures used in DX10 yield more efficient use of player's systems, not significant increase? (unless of course, tessellation has been added, which seems to be the main issue with moving to dx11 for most titles as it is a hog). Maybe it's a combination of the other stuff added in (more distant clouds, tree collisions, etc.) and efficiencies had to be found elsewhere to compromise for them.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Not sure I understand this. I was under the impression the move to DX11 and 64bit was intended to improve performance. Is 4.5+ using tessellation or other major DX11 elements to increase polycount/improve the look of the game now? If the game was simply moved to DX11/64bit executable then shouldn't employing the same visual effect procedures used in DX10 yield more efficient use of player's systems, not significant increase? (unless of course, tessellation has been added, which seems to be the main issue with moving to dx11 for most titles as it is a hog). Maybe it's a combination of the other stuff added in (more distant clouds, tree collisions, etc.) and efficiencies had to be found elsewhere to compromise for them.

I will not go into details, I was not the coder, its up to him to answer if he chooses.

But it was not a simple migration to a DX11/64 bit executable.

Bottom line... TF 4.5xx makes more demands on player's systems than 4.312.

[SharkBait]

I'm pretty sure many of us players and likely all of the members of TFS are aware of this, but I'd like to reiterate the request to fix the strange effect in which a plane that is about to stall gets covered in white vapor-like texture. At least, it seems that this only happens when a plane is about to stall. The "buggy" plane itself becomes impossible to see, and it makes it very difficult to dog-fight with someone who is "bugged" at near-stall speeds when you can't see their lift vector, bank, attitude, etc. to determine your own moves.

An example of this happening is in 3:18 of this video:
https://youtu.be/muuceDoOITg?t=3m18s

[Kling]

I'm pretty sure many of us players and likely all of the members of TFS are aware of this, but I'd like to reiterate the request to fix the strange effect in which a plane that is about to stall gets covered in white vapor-like texture. At least, it seems that this only happens when a plane is about to stall. The "buggy" plane itself becomes impossible to see, and it makes it very difficult to dog-fight with someone who is "bugged" at near-stall speeds when you can't see their lift vector, bank, attitude, etc. to determine your own moves.

An example of this happening is in 3:18 of this video:
https://youtu.be/muuceDoOITg?t=3m18s

Yes we are aware of this effect!!
It has been there since vanilla clod.
The problem is, we simply do not know what triggers it!!
I agree, that is only happens to a plane at low speed. But is it a angle of attack that triggers it? Or just low speed?
In either case. There is NO effect in the game that is supposed to produce white smoke at low speed or high AoA so its a very difficult bug to track down. :/

[SharkBait]

Yes we are aware of this effect!!
It has been there since vanilla clod.
The problem is, we simply do not know what triggers it!!
I agree, that is only happens to a plane at low speed. But is it a angle of attack that triggers it? Or just low speed?
In either case. There is NO effect in the game that is supposed to produce white smoke at low speed or high AoA so its a very difficult bug to track down. :/

Ah, I see! Thank you for enlightening me.

[TheVino3]

Ok so to reply to the suggestion of rolling back to the 4.312 explosions, I will use this direct comparison between the old explosions and the new:

bombsold.jpg
bombsnew.jpg

As you can see the old ones are quite a lot larger than the new ones, which is unrealistic. If we were to roll back to the old ones I would have to spend time resizing them to make them a realistic size.

Not only that but there are several other problems with them. The texture they used isn't very good quality, they are too bright and they are "stretched" artificially by the game to make them look taller. This leads to another problem with them:

bombsold2.jpg

They stretch through the ground and create these quite unsightly straight cuts.
There are also problems with them leaving particles floating strangely mid-air and other things like that. They are not "perfect as is".

So, I would not be comfortable simply just "rolling-back" to the 4.312 explosions, for both historical accuracy reasons, as well as visual reasons. If we were to roll back, I would have to spend a fair amount of time fixing up the old ones anyway.

However, the concerns with the new effects by many members of the community are definitely being listened to, and the bomb effects are by no means "finished". They will be having a lot of work done on them to make them historically accurate and visually pleasing

[ATAG_Ribbs]

I'm not sure if it's just my graphics settings or if it's the game.. but I find it hard to turn around and see the ground explosions as they are now. They blend in with the ground textures so much. Anyone else have this problem? I was bombing with the hurricane fb on Marquis West the other day. I was getting the damaged Marquis West displayed at the top..but damned if I could pick up where my bombs landed. ( Obviously I didn't hit anything that explored..but with the ground textures I could see craters or smoke ..nothing) Un historical or not..I think that's why we loved 4.3 explosions so much. They looked the most realistic and we easier to spot) I understand they have problems that you have described which is unfortunate. Hopefully the new reworked ones will look good as well S!

[ATAG_Highseas]

I'm not sure if it's just my graphics settings or if it's the game.. but I find it hard to turn around and see the ground explosions as they are now. They blend in with the ground textures so much. Anyone else have this problem? I was bombing with the hurricane fb on Marquis West the other day. I was getting the damaged Marquis West displayed at the top..but damned if I could pick up where my bombs landed. ( Obviously I didn't hit anything that explored..but with the ground textures I could see craters or smoke ..nothing) Un historical or not..I think that's why we loved 4.3 explosions so much. They looked the most realistic and we easier to spot) I understand they have problems that you have described which is unfortunate. Hopefully the new reworked ones will look good as well S!

Can't say I've noticed overly. They are less visible... but i dont have trouble spotting if im bombing at low alt. Ive never tried using the aiming gismos from way up high though...

maybe its your crummy chip .

hehe !

[Cassius]

Ok so to reply to the suggestion of rolling back to the 4.312 explosions, I will use this direct comparison between the old explosions and the new:

bombsold.jpg
bombsnew.jpg

As you can see the old ones are quite a lot larger than the new ones, which is unrealistic. If we were to roll back to the old ones I would have to spend time resizing them to make them a realistic size.

Not only that but there are several other problems with them. The texture they used isn't very good quality, they are too bright and they are "stretched" artificially by the game to make them look taller. This leads to another problem with them:

bombsold2.jpg

They stretch through the ground and create these quite unsightly straight cuts.
There are also problems with them leaving particles floating strangely mid-air and other things like that. They are not "perfect as is".

So, I would not be comfortable simply just "rolling-back" to the 4.312 explosions, for both historical accuracy reasons, as well as visual reasons. If we were to roll back, I would have to spend a fair amount of time fixing up the old ones anyway.

However, the concerns with the new effects by many members of the community are definitely being listened to, and the bomb effects are by no means "finished". They will be having a lot of work done on them to make them historically accurate and visually pleasing

Explosion 50kg aviabomb.

Just check the height of the cloud ->
This is 3-4 tree heights, not like in new 4.5 version.
And of course in 4.312 they are more perfect as is.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Explosion 50kg aviabomb.

Just check the height of the cloud ->
This is 3-4 tree heights, not like in new 4.5 version.
And of course in 4.312 they are more perfect as is.

Is this a modern bomb being demonstrated?

If it is, it is important to understand modern explosives are much more powerful than WWII types.

[ATAG_Ribbs]

Can't say I've noticed overly. They are less visible... but i dont have trouble spotting if im bombing at low alt. Ive never tried using the aiming gismos from way up high though...

maybe its your crummy chip .

hehe !

Haha my chip is awesome, and I thank the HS's god Everytime I fire up my computer.. must be a setting I need to look into.

[Baffin]

Is this a modern bomb being demonstrated?

If it is, it is important to understand modern explosives are much more powerful than WWII types.

This picture looks like EOD is destroying a bomb that's laying in a shallow crater, not a dropped bomb. This is what we did with unused 750 pound bombs (340 Kg) equipped with anti-withdrawal fuzes. (You can't store those things.)

Creating a "Realistic" explosion depends on so many factors that I don't see the point in a sim like ours. What we have looks pretty real to me!

However, I didn't spend much time looking at them when they detonated...

Visual height of the bomb's "Plume" is also highly dependent on the fuze delay. A long cratering delay permits deep penetration, resulting in less vertical "Blow up" but leaves a huge crater in the target (Usually a Runway). Shorter delays will do a number on surface vehicles, bridges and buildings. For blast effects on exposed troops, or for soft, wet ground, armorers will employ fuze extenders in cumulative sections of 3' with an instantaneous delay for an "Air Burst" effect.
We can be amazingly creative when it comes to blowing stuff up!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

A visual height of the bomb's "Plume" is also highly dependent on the fuze delay. A long cratering delay permits deep penetration, resulting in less vertical "Blow up" but leaves a huge crater in the target (Usually a Runway). Shorter delays will do a number on surface vehicles and buildings. For blast effects on exposed troops, or for soft, wet ground, armorers will employ fuze extenders in cumulative sections of 3' with an instantaneous delay for an "Air Burst" effect. We are amazingly creative when it comes to blowing stuff up!

And all of these systems have been refined and made far more efficient since WWII.

Modern bombs have electronics and detonators which are much more effective.

The amount of explosive in a 50 kg bomb today compared to a 50 kg bomb in WWII is much higher... far less of the weight of the bomb is in the metal casing.

And the explosive material in modern bombs can be two or three times as powerful as WWII explosive.

[vranac]

The SC50. Keep in mind that this one is exploded over the concrete in the air, not focused up with a crater.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The SC50. Keep in mind that this one is exploded over the concrete in the air, not focused up with a crater.

Please note: This video shows a test to two bomb types... the SC 50 and the SC 500... do not assume all the explosions you are seeing are from an SC 50.

Here is the section of the documentary where they analyze the different bomb types effect on a bomb shelter, go to approx. 8:00 of the video:

[Baffin]

I've not heard of a modern 50 KG (110 lb) general purpose bomb. But there might be a special purpose variant. Ordnance this light is most likely artillery... Gromit, chime in here?

From what I could remember and read in the last hour or so, TNT was the "Bang" in the US bomb during WWII. Shortly after the war, Tritonal (TNT with Aluminum Powder) was the preferred filler for the new "Low Drag" bombs of the MK-80 series (Still used today). Tritonal is only 18% more powerful than TNT. Interestingly, the British used Amatex, Amatol, Minol, RDX and others, while Germany had its own recipe for demolition bombs.

With exceptions for special purpose explosives, the standard GP bomb filler is still Tritonal (TNT with Aluminum Powder). I remember when USAF introduced Minol M117's at Korat in 1967, and then, in March, 1968, the bomb dump blew up... back to Tritonal, thank you very much. (Turned some Rough Terrain forklifts into pretzels!)

Now, the Navy has some special recipes for bombs that don't explode easily during shipboard fires and other conditions, but generally, regardless of the service, explosive weight is 40-60% of the aerial bomb, depending on fragmentation desired.

While I concede that some modern explosive compounds could be be twice as powerful as TNT, I can't find any source to suggest they are being used to fill hard bombs.

Outstanding Videos, gentlemen! Thank you! I mentally compared these to common nuclear blast films. Ouch!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I've not heard of a modern 50 KG (110 lb) general purpose bomb. But there might be a special purpose variant. Ordnance this light is most likely artillery... Gromit, chime in here?

From what I could remember and read in the last hour or so, TNT was the "Bang" in the US bomb during WWII. Shortly after the war, Tritonal (TNT with Aluminum Powder) was the preferred filler for the new "Low Drag" bombs of the MK-80 series. Tritonal is only 18% more explosive than TNT.
Interestingly, the British used Amatex, Amatol, Minol, RDX and others, while Germany had its own recipe for demolition bombs.

With exceptions for special purpose explosives, the standard GP bomb filler is still Tritonal (TNT with Aluminum Powder). I remember Minol M117's at Korat in 1967 when the bomb dump blew up... back to Tritonal, thank you very much. (Turned some Rough Terrain forklifts into pretzels!)

Now, the Navy has some special recipes for bombs that don't explode easily during shipboard fires and other conditions, but generally, regardless of the service, explosive weight is 40-60% of the aerial bomb, depending on fragmentation desired.

While I concede that some modern explosive compounds could be be twice as powerful as TNT, I can't find any source to suggest they are being used to fill hard bombs.

You are correct... the filler for most hard bombs is not the most powerful type of explosives.

But some of the modern types used in weapons are quite a bit more powerful than the standard filler in WWII weapons, which was usually only approx. 50% TNT or PETN.

And as I said, the percentage of a bomb which is explosive versus the metal structure is higher now.

[vranac]

Please note: This video shows a test to two bomb types... the SC 50 and the SC 500... do not assume all the explosions you are seeing are from an SC 50.

Here is the section of the documentary where they analyze the different bomb types effect on a bomb shelter, go to approx. 8:00 of the video:

https://youtu.be/L0v2Uq8z7aI?t=15m20s