jubuttib

This. By default the steerpoints don't really sit on the ground neatly.

Yup, the Hornet was the "biggie", and the center-of-stick vs. start-of-stick logic could well be an air force vs. navy thing, the important point though was that the Hornet hits where aimed even at low altitudes. And the 3rd party planes aren't your business, but at least they're there to show that no-one else is modeling their CCIP systems in such a way that at low altitudes the impact point is closer than where the pipper appears to be. I'll test the A-10A and A-10C too just in case. EDIT: OK I now tested the A-10A, A-10C and Su-25T too, none seem to have this issue, it looks like it's just the F-16C. Also as a sidenote w.r.t. the mission I made to test this: I have the BTR-80s in the mission set to the following actions: 1. Hold 2. ROE = WEAPON HOLD 3. Disperse under fire = off 4. Engage air weapons = off 5. Interception rage = 0 6. ALARM STATE = GREEN state 7. Restrict targets = ENGAGE GROUND UNIT ONLY Yet they still shoot at me when I come in, and disperse after the bombs hit. How in the everloving heck do I get them to STOP SHOOTING and dispersing?

Testing some of the other planes now: F/A-18C works differently in that it STARTS the stick where the CCIP pipper is, but the first bomb lands where I'm aiming. Side note: The ballute retarded bombs slow down so fast, that ~500 feet above ground the pipper is below the HUD, so I'd argue these should be dropped lower than that. JF-17 same thing, starts the stick where the pipper is, but hits where aimed. F-15E uses the center-of-stick method like the F-16C, and works perfectly well at 100 feet. Mirage 2000C uses start-of-stick, and hits accurately. EDIT: Also tested flying the F-16C in slow motion at very low altitude, immediately after pressing pickle diving down and to the side to better see where the "designated" point ends up being, and it's clearly an above ground point, very close to the plane, even when providing laser ranging that should put the spot at the correct distance. It puts the aiming spot in the air regardless of what altitude you are at, but obviously at higher altitudes it matches up better with the intended aiming point.

How much is "slightly" here? I tested up to 600-700 feet in radar altitude and was still hitting a bit short, circle was near the 2/3 point of the stick. Being higher up does help, but the point of these weapons is the ability to be low down, surely? EDIT: I also hear you about parallax, but the existence of parallax would to me suggest that the target isn't being placed where the pipper is pointing, even when using the TGP and actively lasing for distance confirms that the center of the circle was the thing being aimed at.

After a failed strike mission I made a quick test mission to see why our bombs (tested both SnakeEyes and ballutes) weren't hitting their targets, and saw that they were landing well short. At low altitudes, where I want to be when making these strikes, the last bomb dropped hit roughly over the targeted spot, when the targeted spot is supposed to be the center of the stick. At higher altitudes it was closer, but even at 500-600 feet the center of the stick was well before the intended aiming point. The reason for why the impact point changes seems to be related to the CCIP pipper not actually being "on the ground", but somewhat above it, aiming at a spot in the air. So when you come in low, the point targeted ends up being much closer to you. As you fly over the target, you can see that the marker that's supposed to stay on where you dropped doesn't stay on the target you were aiming at, instead it's clearly closer. This happens both with and without active lasing using TGP, as well, there's no effect on accuracy. The targeting point was set near the BRT in the center of the circle. Included are some images, videos and tracks from my testing. Tracks.zip

Ah, so it's trivially easy, as long as you have the E2 Mavs. Thanks.

If you have the LMAV selected, and select the TPOD, the LMAV gets unselected, and goes to STBY, so you need to wait for it to get to RDY again after selecting it. If you start lasing with the TPOD, and select the LMAV, the pod stops lasing, laser goes to safe as well. This currently makes it impossible to self-lase Mavericks from what I can tell, because you can't have both "turned on" at the same time.

This is a common issue with DCS modules, you can tell which targets are live or not by trying to lock them up with Mavericks, and IIRC the Shkval on the Su-25T, maybe the Ka-50 as well, do the same, only locking up on live targets.

Have a like for "minute-of-tank", though I guess "tank-of-angle" would be more accurate, hehe.

Ooh, good stuff, thanks! FWIW I would expect that if they're indeed trying to simulate a capability discrepancy and not blufor jamming or something like that, they'd be doing it with the assumption of RED = Russia, so using GLONASS, and wouldn't currently be able to separate the JF-17, which would more likely be capable of using Beidou, into its own bucket. I.e. I think it's a redfor/blufor thing, not a per plane type/nation thing. Heck, when I tested the accuracy between red and blue, the JF-17 on the red side was a USAF Aggressor one, i.e. a US plane...

Good stuff. To add, from what I've read Beidou by comparison seems to provide the highest accuracy in "developing nations and 3rd world countries".

I use direct always, since I can just drop them whenever I want. AUTO wants me to fly way too close, hehe.

From what I can find online, GPS has marginally better accuracy than GLONASS (the Russian equivalent of GPS), and European GALILEO is supposedly even better, and in a war situation they'd probably try to interfere with Russian's ability to use American GPS satellites. I'm guessing that's the reasoning. Though AFAIK BeiDou, the Chinese system, is probably the best and most dense currently.

FWIW, I tested blufor vs. redfor accuracy with otherwise identical Jeffs, and these were the results (posting from another thread): 4xLS-6 250 + 2xLS-6 500 per plane, so six bombs per plane. All 6 from blufor hit inside the blue ring, redfor hits landed around the area. Both were aiming at the same ME assigned PP. Did the test multiple times, all results were similar, some times blufor even just made two overlapping craters. Huge difference in blufor vs. redfor accuracy.

It's also possible that it's trying to be a GPS vs. GLONASS thing.

Did a separate test with a BLUFOR and REDFOR Jeff starting from the same point, managed to get the PPs set in ME to be pixel perfect in the same location too (the co-ordinates will read the same for multiple different positions, but in-game the groupings will hit a different spot unless pixel perfect). Loadout was 4xLS-6 250 and 2xLS-6 500, total 6 bombs per plane. Hopped into blufor and dropped the bombs, waited until they landed, set up an F11 camera there, then changed sides to a redfor and dropped, and hopped to the previously set up F11 view. All blufor bombs hit inside the blue ring. Redfor bombs hit in the red rings. Redfor is at a massive disadvantage accuracy wise, a blue Jeff lobbing LS-6 bombs should only rarely miss (assuming GC alignment, HNS on INS+GPS and proper weapon alignment).

OK, I did some testing on my end, and may have figured it out. Tested the syria mission, both straight up, spawn hot on ground, make my own PPs via F10 map, use TOO instead of PP modes, etc. All of those lead to the same result, not very accurate, usually 1-2 kills. Then I swapped the JF-17 to be BLUEFOR, the IFVs and Outpost to be REDFOR, and tried again: Tiny spread, 4 out of 4 kills. 3 were direct hits, one landed like 1 meter off the side of the target. So yeah, I'd hazard a guess that it's just the ED enforced REDFOR satellite guided weapon inaccuracy at play.

I'm guessing it's because they want 4 different targets, and the "step" button (or weapon station change, S5, only steps between the pylons, not individual bombs. So if you're dual racking, you can use use S5 to program the two pylons to aim for 36/37 in one profile, and 38/39 in the other profile.

Hmm, that's odd, I tried basically the same thing and all hit. =/ I'll have to try again... EDIT: One thing that popped to mind btw, was that setting down the markers on the F10 map without zooming ALL THE WAY IN can lead to the marker being fairly far off of the target. I mean that's not the case for sylkhan's mission, where the PPs are set in the mission editor, but good to keep in mind. EDIT2: Tested sylkhan's syria mission, and indeed I missed all except the left-most one (PP1/DST36).

FWIW I dropped on the second tone, not the first one. AGM-154 is JSOW afaik, did you mean "for GB-6/LS-6"?

These are good calls. FWIW I did my own testing today, making sure to stick to those notes above, and apart from the GB-6 SFW going a bit long all others were hitting pretty much exactly spot on. LS-6 100s designated with the TGP landed a wee bit short, but that could also have been poor designation on my part.

Thanks for that top right box mention, I had no idea! Very helpful!

Good call, though I've never actually sat in a redfor JF-17 in my life.

Yup, in the past I've tried to use it to attack oil drilling platforms. They're high enough from the sea level that if you don't compensate somehow, they'll fly underneath the deck, where they MIGHT hit one of the legs, or might just miss the whole thing. With an 80-90° terminal dive you could count on them to hit the deck properly. Current workaround is to raise the elevation of the target point to deck height. EDIT: Longwinded way of saying "I know that it should work, and why you'd use it, but I haven't seen it working on any plane or weapon".

Yeah, that's why I said "that's not to say anything about current accuracy", as in I didn't wanna comment on whether current behavior is correct, just that perfect accuracy isn't a realistic target. Agree with your assessment, though FWIW I've never seen the angle working on any weapon on any plane in the game, I just figured it was something no-one was doing yet. And the JF-17 has been the only one where even azimuth has worked in the past, though admittedly it's been a while since I've tried other planes.