LastRifleRound

Real pilots say they didn't use it that much and it's easy to see why. However, in DCS, I find it very useful. Many SP missions aren't written well or give purposely confusing directives to put pressure on you, or assume you're using labels. The radar has helped me many times queue in the TPOD or my eyeballs on to something. The visual acuity in DCS is terrible, so the radar has been a good crutch for me to get eyes-on without having to use labels. As far as bombing a building, sure, if you have coordinates in DCS, why use the radar? Except in DCS some user missions purposely give you low resolution coordinates, or give imprecise offsets or general directions, forcing you to search for buildings or vehicles. I can't just ask someone for a talk-on or further clarification, or any number of humans interacting with other humans approaches one would probably actually use. Usually you know what the target looks like if you're familiar (which it sounds like you are) with what various objects will look like on the radar format. I'll give you an example of a great use I had for the radar. One of the Serpent's Head 2 missions has you support some ground troops mid-mission. It's not a pre-briefed target. The friendly calling for the strike only gives you coordinates for his position. He tells you '2 buildings across the road'. No cardinal directions are given. You do not have a TPOD equipped. I was able to use that information to quickly locate the 2 buildings in question on the radar map. Friendlies position was the current desg, I could see the road, so slew the designation there, and then I could see two buildings on the corner of the town. Knowing that DCS doesn't process the radar sig of non-placed objects, I figured FTT would track one of the vehicles or the AA gun on the top of one of the buildings. I was dropping Mk83s, so figured that's close enough, and decided FTT would be appropriate here. Before roll in, I did a quick visual (HMCS shows where your desg is) and it was right on target. Rolled in and one pass knocked them out. Realistic? I'm going to guess not. The whole mission wasn't realistic (it was fun though! not knocking it), but the AG radar, in the world this mission created, was the best tool for that job for me in that moment. I would have been flying around forever trying to get oriented and trying to locate tracer fire that for some reason rarely shows up on my machine unless I turn on labels. Understanding what those buildings might look like on the radar, knowing what roads look like on the radar, and being well versed in orienting N/S/E/W on the radar format meant the radar was a viable option for me. If this were real life, I'm guessing (I don't know, not theorycrafting) I would ask for better talk on, more visual clues to walk the eyeballs over. Not an option here because it's a computer game, so, radar it was. I've used it to find convoys and the like. Not to actually bomb them, but find them and get my Mavs or my eyeballs clued in. Works great for that. SEA has worked great for several campaign missions now. I think your training is worth the effort. I've gotten quite good at it and can recognize a host of objects pretty quickly. It's not the all-seeing Eye of Sauron, but I think guys like you and me get that and weren't expecting that. It's a good tool in DCS to learn. BTW I did the same thing you did using JDAMS to practice the accuracy of my designations so as to eliminate delivery errors as the reason for misses, both for the TPOD (that's how I realized the thing sees 'through' buildings) and the radar. I also use the TPOD in conjunction at first to see where the designations landed (that's how I figured out the bug I reported) and how FTT was behaving in sim. Happy flying and I'd love to know how you get on with it moving forward.

The answer to the question 'Can you hit a vehicle in DCS using the radar and a JDAM' is yes. I've attached a track of this working in DCS. You were all answering the question 'Is it realistic to use the radar to drop a JDAM on a vehicle'. Now, if you want to know what is going on, read on. There are 2 things going on here: 1. INS designations for the radar are currently bugged. See the acknowledged bug reports here and here. What this means is if you want to use an INS designation to bomb something you would have to active pause the simulation, perform a few designations so the radar picture 'catches up' to where it should be. Once that happens, your designations will be 100% accurate. However, when this bug is fixed, what happens then is determined by whether ED will model map shift. If they are, then you can expect no more than 100ft of accuracy out of an INS designation. This accuracy would be achieved from a designation at about 450kts 45degrees off from the target at about 7nm. The faster, closer, and more off-angle you are, the more accurate your INS designation should be (not now, again this is if ED fixes that bug and models map shift). To learn more about how this works and what the real world procedure is, I encourage you to read the TACMAN. If not the Hornet then you could acquire one regarding the AV8B's APG65. You will find the procedures and modes therein identical to what is currently modeled with the Hornet and as such should be sufficiently accurate for our purposes in DCS. Bottom line, right now, expect several hundred feet of inaccuracy with the current INS designation system due to a bug. To bomb something so small, you would have to active pause the simulation to pull it off, and that's quite 'gamey', but it's your product, do it if you want. 2. You could choose to initiate an FTT. This WOULD give you accuracy enough to hit the target. However, it sounds like in your scenario, you have multiple vehicles. ED DOES simulate the AG radar track mechanic accurately, in that the beam will try to lock the strongest return at the scale of the RBM map, not EXP. Unlike the real thing though, it never 'changes its mind' once it tracks something. What this means is if you have several objects, be they vehicles or placed structures, you have no way of knowing which object the radar is tracking without getting a visual on it. Place a bunch of structures down in the ME, make a few moving vehicles among them on a patrol route, and try to GMTT or FTT something. You will notice the target the radar 'selects' is unpredictable. This is true to real life and this in combination with #1 is why the Hornet is not designed to bomb blind with the radar even if you can clearly see your target on the radar map. Now, if that BMP is all by itself then FTT in DCS will give you an accurate enough relative position to land a JDAM close enough to destroy it. This is what I demonstrate on the attached track. Seeing as the vehicle is alone in an open field, I know in DCS the radar will track it and nothing else. FTT DOES generate enough accuracy IN DCS to hit with a JDAM. If there's a group of vehicles and you don't care which one you hit or have a JSOW you want to dump off (motor pools are VERY recognizable on the radar), this is a valid approach in DCS. Find your group of (stationary) vehicles, drop an FTT in there, and drop your bomb. The procedure outlined in official documentation when radar bombing (assuming dumb bombs being used) is to begin a 30 degree offset from the target 15nm out. By about 7nm that should grow to 45deg (you'll have to adjust as you go on I've found). This will give you good enough resolution to figure out where your target is. The whole way you 'sharpen' your designation. At 7nm, you make your final designation. If the target is FTT appropriate, initiate it. Roll in, SCS up to the HUD. The diamond should be close enough to the target for you to find the target visually (or if your FTT was good it will be right on it). Slew the diamond over the target. If the diamond is too far away or other factors prohibit slewing it to the target, undesignate and use CCIP. I guess this wasn't used all that much if ever in real life, but there it is all the same. There are no procedures for radar bombing that involve any PGMs or any other methods outlined in the documentation. Maybe they exist but if they do I don't know them and I haven't seen anyone else mention them. As others have stated, the scenario you're using probably wouldn't exist in the real world. If you care about that, then change the scenario. If you don't, have fun with it. Life is short. It's a game. Knowing how it works in real life is a good thing and the sim should strive for that, but so is knowing how it works in the sim, then YOU get to decide how YOU want to approach it. You also get to know what might change later, what ED still has to work on, and so on. Watch Mover's channel. He doesn't even read the manual many times. He's just having fun his way and that's good enough, then other times he'll do sorties with full comms and what not. It's all good and it's all valid and you shouldn't be shamed out of making whatever the hell scenario you feel like and talking about it. That's a pedant's game and you don't have to play it. Now, if you came on here and demanded that the AG Radar be accurate enough to do this, then I'd say the reactions would be justified and the answers you got here would apply. But you didn't. You simply wanted to know why you were missing. TL:DR; You're missing with your JDAMS because you are not using FTT and there is a bug in INS designations. INS designations are perfect in the absence of this bug, but may not be in the future if map shift is modeled. Whether or not the scenario OP made is true to real life does not describe what is happening in the sim. His bomb is missing because INS designations are bugged on the radar format, not because of AG Radar modeling. As others have said, that 'other' sim isn't very realistic in its approach to AG radar if it's giving you that level of accuracy. JDAM_FTT.trk

Excellent! No need to go in depth I've been waiting for this update for a long time!

I saw this in the update notes: Improvement: INS Vertical Update. Improvement: INS Oblique Update What does this mean?

I'm confused. I always ask for the wheel chocks to be removed right before letting out the parking brake and taxiing. This means the jets on and at MIL Idle. Are you saying OP's throttle does not bottom out at true idle and that might be the issue? I've never encountered this problem in the Mirage and I can't replicate it to help him.

This thread is closed but this is what I'm referencing : https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260143-gmt-track-will-not-hand-off-to-flir/?tab=comments#comment-4552516 This thread references a problem wherein a target with GMTT could not be updated with FLIR slew when TDC is given to the FLIR. I wanted to point out this was a problem before the patch with FTT mode as well if it helps to know this.

If you hold SCS to the radar format, do you get the cross hairs on screen? You could FTT designate that way, which means the problem is only with the captain's bar display and not anything to do with FTT mode. I won't have time to sim tomorrow night but I'll see if I can get an agreeing track if I'm seeing the same issue as you.

Biggest practical difference with SAR in DCS is it's a constant 1.2x1.2nm area. Exp1&2 are angle rate, so the amount of area covered will vary with distance. This means within 7nm EXP2 actually produces a higher quality image than EXP3. Again, this is my experience with DCS.

It was announced for the Harrier, and there's some bug where it's active for some people already but not for others. Yes, you can use the BAD input functions in the pit, but your input is limited to .10's of degrees, and the map ruler only has a precision of 1 degree. For any reasonable run-in distance (around 7nm), the difference between 0 deg and .9 deg can be hundreds of feet. Being able to place it in the editor means the precision will only be limited by your placement of the point itself, or at least will resolve to the nearest .1 deg which would be good enough.

Is this coming to the mirage? It would make PI bombing much more viable since we won't be bound to the limitations of the ruler tool.

The last major update post said this would be in the next release, which is now tentatively 01/27. Is this slated for release then? Will there be a post explaining its use?

Flying mission 10 of TEW campaign. Involves rocket and dumb bomb use. I'm finding with the TGP as SOI (and as the active SPI sensor as indicated in the lower left-hand corner of the HUD) and an active firing laser, the aircraft is getting the slant range COMPLETELY wrong in both CCIP and CCRP. I'm talking off in range 500ft plus. This missions engagements largely take place over mixed terrain. Is it possible the A10 is erroneously using radar altimeter data instead of laser slant range to establish height over target? Also, on a side note, why are trees invincible? I'm supposed to kill infantry in the woods and I've pumped the same copse of trees with: 1. 7 WP rockets 2. 1 mk82 3. 800rds cannon 4. 3 HE rockets I know I'm on target because the last few passes I put labels on to make sure I was hitting where I was aiming (after adjusting for the fact that the aircraft thought they were at a lower altitude due to the fact that the copse of trees is on a hill). WTH? These parts of this module are way too old to be having these kinds of issues. I'd post the track but these missions are long so the track file is huge. If other people are seeing this I'll make a range setup in the ME and try to replicate the mission on a smaller scale to get a track up. I get it people love the new toys, but a lot of us out here still like being able to do things with unguided weapons. Seems like they get the shaft in DCS for the shinier stuff.

I love the AZ/EL page. The primary way I use it is with TWS MAN. I keep the TDC on the attk radar format. Now, I can use the TDC azimuth to control azimuth and the elevation wheel to control the elevation and see positive readouts of both immediately without taking my hands off the controls and without ever leaving the same DDI. TWS AUTO isn't properly implemented yet so it doesn't use a scan centroid, so this is the best way of keeping the tracks I want in the radar FOV. It also works great in RWS when I'm trying to keep a track file on a subset of contacts (140deg AZ tends to drop tracks at more than 1 bar). As for FLIR, I haven't tried it yet, but could you use AZ/EL to cue the FLIR on to a datalink target, then track it with the FLIR? Should work within 20nm sort of like a poor man's IRST (really more of an IRT as you're not really searching with the FLIR).

This is what I've been thinking.

Does the version the Lot 20 used have multiple target cueing? How about a real offset ability?

The dive in your OP was too shallow, but the post above looks like a good angle. As for the ring, it broke in an update in late 2019. It's supposed to show you the minimum pitch to be at to achieve a 4g pull-out. Pipper should be at or above the ring at all times. Right now, I don't know what it's supposed to show you, but it's useless.

We're all making assumptions. It is possible the person who tagged this post DID read and understand it. Last year the ability to slew designation in the HUD in all modes, and TPOD PTRK designation following targets were also 'confirmed' not features of the legacy Hornet. It is possible that, like those items, new information has been presented that suggests that this was, in fact, a feature of the legacy hornet.

Yes, I was specifically referring to AA BVR engagements. I didn't see that post from Wags before. BN/9L, are you saying that the ability to see other aircraft's L&S target in AA engagements is coming soon?

'Coming soon' tag. Nice!

During this free period I've been able to try out the Viper. I've found it much easier to maintain SA in a BVR engagement in the viper mainly because the Viper MIDS shows which targets flight members (as well as other Link-16 fighters) have 'bugged' (basically the Viper version of an L&S target). Does the Hornet have a similar feature for its D/L that just isn't implemented yet, or is this something it just doesn't have in real life? Flying with AI wingmates is a real pain in engagements because they follow no logical sorting, so being able to see who they're targeting is a great way to efficiently use missiles. In MP, it helps me see sorting errors and adjust on the fly.

Correct

Here is a track showing the active pause leading to accurate designations. Notice a redesignate to force re-sweeps a few times. The first two times I do it, you'll see on re-sweep the 'X' is off position, as each time the radar sweeps when the AC isn't moving the map becomes more accurate. Once it's 'caught up', every designation I do is bang on. EXP_pause.trk

The countdown is bugged. It's just supposed to be 0-100-0. Represents how close to LAR center you are. Therefore, the bug could in the calculation, or the LAR itself.

with TOT broken currently, how are you guys managing TOT for mission 1? I fudge it using the TLAR method, but I wonder if there's a way to use the current TOT system. I tried setting up a NSEQ route with a TERM of WP12 (so a SEQ route in our Harrier) but the system does an awful job calculating and dumps you at each waypoint later and later. Does it work if you just ditch NSEQ and just enter the TOT for each waypoint as you select it?

Should allow you to specify a terminal heading and impact angle. Affects LAR when active.