LastRifleRound

No but vehicles to give a bright return and you can even watch them move in EXP3. You can't lock them (that requires GMTT), but you're pod will be bang on if you designate the return

Is it supposed to be in a different fornat? Is there documentation showing this? That might be all you get in the real jet if not.

Yup. Figured this would happen. Can confirm. Can even resolve moving vehicles as small as jeeps, but very large placed structures do not show up.

If you changed your heading at all since the jet was last cold, stored heading will give you an erroneous position

That's really cool, looks like they nailed it. Will be trying it out later.

Sounds like you didn't switch to IFA according to the last bullet point.

I suspect this but can't get official acknowledgement anywhere

Yes for the most part and the Viggen features no such processing

Not sure if this is too early to report, but currently the radar does not render placed buildings. Attached track shows a large aircraft hangar placed right next to a power line, the power line is clearly visible on the radar, but the structure is completely missing. jf17_missing_bldg.trk

But can see much smaller vehicles. To recreate: In the ME, pick a very large building, like an aircraft hangar or a warehouse. Place it on a nice flat area. Place a waypoint over it. You won't see it on the radar. Now, place a small vehicle, like a Mobile cmd jeep or some such right on top of the building. You will see a small dot where the vehicle is. It seems hit or miss as to what map objects will and will not appear on the radar, and placed static objects never show, which makes it kind of a pain for making missions. I never know what things I can use for nav updates or targets if I expect the pilot to be able to recognize ithem on radar.

Not yet. I think HNS isn't tightly coupled yet, that would keep the position pretty well by itself. There is no "DSG" option in the "POS" page, so sensors cannot be used to update own position, but DEKA has confirmed it's in the works. When available, you should be able to update position with your TPOD or radar just like you would set a "DSG" markpoint now.

JDAM WEZ when fully aligned on an aircraft with tightly coupled GPS is like 9m 50m is expected when GPS not tightly coupled, at least according to the Harrier documentation. I doubt the A10 is worse than this, and it certainly isn't off by that amount in DCS unless I do something wrong. You are right though, if it it's pinpoint accuracy you want, it's hard to beat an LGB, at least in DCS.

Question: Since TGP becomes the designation source on TMS long up, does the range revert back to DTSAS when the laser stops firing, or does it keep the laser for slant range until the pod is slewed again? I usually set SPI with TMS Long up with the TGP as SOI, then briefly hold the lase button for a second or so, but I do not leave it on through the whole attack (and do not slew the pod again either. If I do, I re-lase when I'm done)

Got it, this makes sense. I guess my point is it's hard to compare the two when half the objects are missing any way. I couldn't discern a big difference in scale between the two examples, just that the DCS one was way too empty. Would be cool to know which phase they went with.

Ok what you are looking at here is a demonstration of CIP processing, not an improvement to the radar itself. This is a technique used, coincidentally enough, to simulate and process images from several different radars, of which the apg73 is one. Which phase of the radar isn't mentioned as the report was conducted by researchers trying to improve the performance of ground analaysis of SAR imagery and it's breadth didn't address source form factors. Those images are legitimate shots of an -73 radar from an FA18D taken in the real world used as a benchmark for ground based signals processing. I don't see how they're not relevant when used as a comparitive basis. I will go back to the primary problem in the difference in the two representations isn't resolution, rather sensors' general inability to recognize ground objects through non visual means. The JF17 currently has its DBS modes. If you have that module, start the ME, place some large ground building objects on some nice unoccupied flat ground. Put a waypoint on it. Get close enough to set the scale to 10, set the mode to SLAVE then zoom in to DBS2. You won't see a thing. Now do the same over one of the towns in the Caucuses. You will be able to make out individual houses, many of which are smaller than the objects you placed. This is illogical, regardless of useful or useless one may think the feature to be. In fact, I placed mine along some power lines. I could make out each individual power pole, but not the huge warehouse I placed next to them. You can repeat this test in a Viggen. However, the Viggen will see vehicles. Go back to when they first modified the feature list for 2020. They removed FTT. See the reason why. They said they needed to have a way for the radar to recognize these objects. These two things might be related. TL:DR; this debate has been about resolution vs perceived anecdotal usefulness, but I think we're seeing the effects of a very old and annoying characteristic of DCS.

The group of people who wrote that paper are SMEs. EDs primary source of information are white papers. It's perfectly valid to cite them here. However, I would appreciate a link to the full source so I can examine the entirety of the documentation if it's allowed per forum rules EDIT: just noticed the link. Going through them now

The center of all your misses is still short. At 33k, there is no speed you could possibly fly to get them to land not short. The actual differential in elevation is 15k ft between you and the target. Some speed around .45 mach or so is probably needed there. So here's something you could test. If the target is at 5k ft, and you are at 12k ft, do you get the same result at 370kts you would if you were bombing a target at 16ft and 7kf in altitude? This would rule out target altitude as a factor. I don't think TGT altitude would play a role, as the error isn't the computed impact point, rather the computed release point. JDAM delivery and CCIP on these targets is still good, it's just AUTO that has an issue. At any rate, the issue is reported already so they'll be working on it.

Excellent explanation. I figured it was likely disregarding nav error for weapons employment. I think we'll have a DSG option when they're done with INS so we can use our TPOD or radar for updates. I also suspect HNS will do a better job position keeping than it does now. For now, DEKA took a reasonable approach. Until you have a good way of keeping the INS up to date, it would be annoying to have it effect weapons delivery. I will use your technique before I approach home plate, as the waypoint box is WAY off and can make IFR landings a challenge if the nav isn't trued up.

I'm confused at how this works. Waypoint 00 is ownship. Waypoint 40 is a SPI, a by-definition relative-to-aircraft measure. Don't you have to set the waypoint on the UFC POS page to the waypoint position you are trying to update, then overfly that area? With your procedure the SPI is a set position from the aircraft as measured by a sensor (let's say laser from TPOD). Overflying it and updating it's position shouldn't change anything at all. It already knew the slant range to that arbitrary point. Or is it purely coordinate based, and when you lase you are actually getting bad coordinates, and updating with an overfly fixes this? If that's the case the WEZ on INS munitions from the JF17 should be all over the place. Right now they're pretty accurate.

What were your airspeeds? Being 10kts too fast is enough to drop short enough to miss

You wish you could touch anyone in a sensitive area. Turns out starting sentences with "lol" isn't great for that sort of thing. Only one salty here pal is you. I'm good here.

This and make sure you have "Trigger" boxed on the TPOD display page on the DDI after you have done the above.

Dissenting opinion? Saying "Ag radar sux" is a few synapses short of just bleating "bahh bahhh" around here. Don't flatter yourself. The dude who spends half his posts getting butt hurt about features other people want is going to come in here and tell me to suck it up. People want AG Radar. YOU suck it up.

No one whines more about AG Radar than the people who whine about those who are excited about it. There's not a post about the topic you gits don't intrude in on and suck all the value out of the room. OP had a legit question that you spouting your emotional exposition did nothing to answer. What he's referring to is a big problem in DCS, that is sensor's general inability to recognize static objects as themselves. This impacts the Viggen, which needs its radar in many cases to register static objects, and it can't because of DCS lmitations. This invariably will effect the A7 as well. This is also a problem with the TPOD seeing "through" targets, laser ranging basically not existing, and will effect the timeliness of both FTT, AGR, and laser ranging. They're all tied to together and necessary for accurate simulation. However, instead of getting to have that discussion, we have to bat away 4 or 5 of the same people making sure we know how little pilots used it and how you're so much better for not caring. Of course, you still care enough that we have to see the same damned opinion in every otherwise productive discussion on the topic. I don't expect the AG radar to be good at everything. I DO expect it to recognize structures exist, and so does ED, which is why you don't see FTT yet, because sensors don't really register these objects yet. If you don't find any of this interesting, good for you, but I bet OP does and his money is just as green as yours and his blood just as red, so you can sit the hell down. To OP, I suspect the update that will carry FTT and AGR will constitute a major change to DCS in that your senors will now react to these objects. They are likely going to be given radar and laser reflectivity values, though I do not know if the render will support multiple values for an object (essentially 3d) or just one value per object (2d). Either way, you can expect to be able to use more realistic procedures for your bombing when this happens. "Scoop up" attacks in CCIP should now be possible. I also expect there will be penalties for accuracy if these modes aren't used. Right now, the Hornet always gets 100% accurate slant range because AGR is "on" all the time in CCIP (even if you have the MAP up in AG radar, which should not be possible). Once this is modeled, this is something you can get wrong and your procedures will have to adjust to ensure you're getting good slant ranges. Also, if the TPOD isn't corrected to recognize the objects first via laser ranging and an actual tracking model, then FTT will be MORE accurate IN SIM, as it will be recognizing the actual object in space, and not just the raw 100% accurate slant range at some point on the ground irrespective of the object. Whether this works it's way in to the render of these objects on the radar, it's hard to say. I'd be surprised if many of the static objects you can place show up at all at first. If they do, then that may be a reasonable enough approximation of EXP3. It is notoriously "blobby" in real life and the image quality is NOT as good as an F15E, as the F15E can make patch maps much smaller (and therefore higher res), than the Hornet. As for hitting a pre-briefed static target you have a briefed image of? I don't see why you COULDN'T use this mode along with FTT to deliver ordinance accurately, and no one on these forums, other than talking about resolution, seems to be able to offer any counterpoint as to why that might be. Sure, if I was a real pilot and I had a TPOD or coordinates, I would never us it, either. After all, I have a job to do and the best tool is the TPOD, no question. But I'm NOT a real pilot, and this is something interesting to delve into. Why not create a campaign with no TPODS? It's not like the default campaign in the Hornet takes place in NINETEEN FREAKING EIGHTY-NINE.

Or you could try the "save track" button.