LastRifleRound

Many, many other bombing methods have been messed up in the Hornet and are currently still messed up. In fact, more are messed up now than ever. You can't AUTO drop in a dive, for instance, or your bombs will always be short. CCIP was always long in the dive and now is completelt screwed up. For three years Mk83's could be delivered spot onat 7000ft and 350kts, any slower or lower you could make the bombs fall short and vice versa. That one got fixed for level drops only. In fact, so much of the iron bombing is demonstrably messed up that one should assume that a bug is being encountered before chastizing people with the complete history and discussion of what iron bombs are. TL:DR; you're not doing anything wrong. If you can't drop level, don't iron bomb in the Hornet, and that could break any moment. It's by far the most bugged jet in DCS. 99% of the AG work and effort seems to go into TOO rippling 87 JDAMs. The only jet in DCS with a fully implemented dedicated loft feature is the Viper.

Ok all good. The system operates as @Kercheizexplained. However, I'm noticing once I correct for drift and bomb, I get dead on results, but 5 minutes in on my second pass the INS is accumulating errors faster than I can correct them. I need another PVU in the time it takes to extend 10nm and turn around. I went 20nm one time, did a PVU, re-mapped, had to fix the drift again, and by the time I bombed the TOO the nav had drifted enough to miss. I bumped the mission to 2016 and the problem goes away (as updating and PVU becomes unnecessary with EGI). Is excessive drift a known issue they're working on? It seems more related to the amount of time in mission and the amount of "inflight time" you program into the ME just sets initial conditions. It basically makes pre EGI periods impossible to fly without GBU's.

Thanks, this clears it up. Looks like it works as intended, then. I'll give this a shot and report back.

MN PVU does nothing to limit drift it only clears up the radar map, as MN isn't implemented. Use INS PVU and leave the nav source on the UFC as INS. I will upload a track showing the behavior I described. It's sounding like it's unintended behavior.

Let me ask a fundamental question to illuminate the issue. What is the difference between an "UPD" on point x., and a designation of "TGT"? If the answer is literally anything at all, the current implementation is bugged

The target point should shift, not the entire nav polygon. Also the designation on the radar doesn't match the HUD

I don't know if this is a bug or a misunderstanding on my part on how the radar is supposed to function. I have a target point with 4 offsets. I start a mission with some significant INS error built in (70min of flying). I perform an INS PVI update and get the error low, no problem. I map the target, it's an airfield. There is significant drift (mission is in 1991). Expected. I update using one of the offsets, then refine the update using another one of the offsets on a smaller point. I switch to the target waypoint (it's 2 in this case) both on the UFC and in the AG Radar format. Designation looks good, so I leave it alone and bomb the target. No problem, target hit (though the string doesn't center, I'm sure that bug's already been reported). I go for a second pass and decide to drop a pair of Mk84 on a target of opportunity, an IL76 on the ramp. I make sure the radar is set to "TGT", and designate the aircraft and get "DESIGNATE" appearing on the radar. The ENTIRE nav polygon for waypoint 2 (which is a target point) shifts as if I had just done an update. Not only that, but the original target is still the one marked by the ASL. I assumed the point of using TGT vs UPDT is that it should treat the designation as something independent of navigation and set it as the "SPI" essentially. What gives?

Offsets would be more useful if they could be set in the ME. Entering in the aircraft, the precision isn't enough using the map tools to make it all that useful (like RAZBAM does with the Mirage, Harrier and F15E).

I responding to someone discounting the opinion of a newer account because of the age of the account. The comment was referring to "There are so many things which are broken for years" which is a factually true statement, regardless of the age of the account making it.

But is he wrong?

Boy howdy those F16 and 18 patch notes shrink with every release but the bugs stack up. I love how they brought all of the Hornet bombing issues they caused 3 patches ago in the beta into stable. But hey, clouds and hatches everyone! Cheers!

Well everything else is bugged, so maybe. There are 3 auto delivery bugs reported in the bugs section right now

TACMAN does state that if you have a designation, bomb drops will always be AUTO.

The recent F15E video by Natso for RAZBAM (who was an F15E WSO) demonstrating HRM shows a good example of this, though the logic you have is backwards from what he does. The waypoints are the intended flight path, with the offsets being prominent features along the way not found on the flight path, as well as around the target area OP, if you want to understand offsets I can't recommend this video highly enough. https://youtu.be/ycthNP-FLfI

yup. Had to jump through all the "not that accurate" "wasn't really used" and "correct as is" hoops to get this reported years ago and it hasn't been touched since. Here's the bug report, there were several but this one was the one marked "investigating", started by the OP here, which itself contains reference to another confirmed bug report from Dec 2020.

Depends on the era you're talking about how it's most commonly used. You'll get a LOT of incorrect responses to this question. Waypoint offsets were originally an idea from the cold war era, when low level ingress under SAM cover was expected. This means the target may not be visible until the last moments of the attack, or in the case of a loft attack, maybe not at all. Also, the target itself may be low-vis. By placing an offset a known distance and bearing from the target, you can correct your navigational drift and height-over-target (or HOT) just before or on ingress by referencing the offset. VIP bombing in the F16, computer IP in the F14, and IP mode in the Mirage 2000C all use this same concept for the same reason. The procedure on a loft cold war style, would be the offset would be designated via flyover with the WOP button, the pilot can choose to accept the altitude correction, or both the position AND the altitude correction. You would then fly your ASL and use the loft cues to bomb the target. It's possible you never actually see the target. Models with AG radars can use offsets to correct navigational errors using a highly radar visible object a known distance and bearing from a target without having to see the target itself on radar. These procedures are actually outlined in the Harrier's manual (yes, the modern version seen in DCS) itself. I would cite the pages but I don't know if that would get me in trouble. They're in there, though. In the DCS of PGM everything, GPS everywhere and always perfect coordinates for targets, this sort of approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Offsets can be put on any waypoint and they could be a known IP for a CAS call, ideal ingress lines, or just reference marks to confirm you're in the right neighborhood. In DCS, they're really just kind of a convenience tool with no specific purpose. People will use them for tricks like JDAM TOO'ing or some such, but that wasn't their original intended use, and it kind of muddy's the water for a question of "what was their tactical advantage". I really wish DCS focused on the older less modern eras there was better information for before going super modern with the Hornet. It's lead to a lot of inaccurate information about these holdovers from previous versions of these aircraft. Often the modeling of the modern systems is wishful thinking anyway. The original mission statement for the Black Shark and A10 was only aircraft that could be near 100% accurately modeled in systems. That purpose has drifted significantly IMHO. TL:DR; waypoint offsets are used to refine a waypoint's position using something easier to see than what's expected to be seen (or can be seen) at the waypoint itself.

According to the linked FAQ, it doesn't really confirm one way or another: Q: What variants will the Heatblur F-4 Phantom include? A: The first release will be DCS: F-4E, the iconic land based variant of the Phantom. We will be launching two variants of the -E; a “classic era” F-4E (blocks 36-45 with updates retrofitted in 1974 and before, including new slats, DSCG and AGM-65) as well as an upgraded (DMAS) version of the aircraft in one package. First release is F-4E, classic era and DMAS in "one package". This doesn't really say whether they'd both be available at EA release, and it doesn't say they won't, either. It just means both variants are included in the price of this one module. Do you have a source indicating they will be available at different times?

How does an OA fix a steer point but not a line up?

OAs are sighting in with a sensor, to line you up for a visual attack on a target that may be difficult to acquire visually to begin with. The OA itself is not visual, but the attack on target often is.

The absolute key to this I've found is making sure that pipper barely moves for about 3-5 seconds before releasing electrical cage and after. If the pipper drifts up at all (which it will want to because you are gaining speed in a dive) the computer will interpret this movement and add it to the range of the target, which will give you long drops. If you do the opposite and nose down too much, this will get added and you'll drop short or not at all. It has to not move pretty much the whole time. If it moves too much, it is not enough to just get it back on target. You must re-electrical cage, stabilize 3-5s, release cage it make sure you don't move again till release. It's rewarding when you get it right and I like the added flexibility in the attack profile you can use. OP, what's your rocket technique? I actually struggle with the radar sight and usually shoot them close in so I don't have to account for drop, but this is less than ideal when there's a lot of AAA around.

This isn't really an argument against an offset aimpoint. An offset aimpoint is used to make sure your attack geometry is correct at roll in. It just has to get you close enough that when you nose down you'll be close enough to the right vector to get on target. An offset aimpoint is meant to aid a visual attack, not replace it. With always perfect coordinates and GPS that never fails, there aren't many scenarios outside of some weird vectoring situation from a third party that would use it in DCS. If you went no GPS, iron bombs, and gave a long enough flight to accumulate drift, and wanted to execute a pop up from low level or a mid-altitude attack on a target that is difficult to visually acquire (think Osirik reactor strike or some such), an offset aimpoint (or in the Osirik case VIP) is an excellent tool. As for OP, the function you seek does not exist in this jet.

The point of the function was to facilitate pre-GPS cold war tactics used in bombing, so most current grads, doctrines, and modern scenarios in DCS wouldn't really have a use for it. Also, if you did not have a set of precise coordinates but there is a known prominent feature an known distance and bearing from a target. The idea was that your navigation will drift in flight, or you may not have precise target coordinates. To get a final course correct before roll-in, you could find the VRP on a prominent feature expected to be around the target area. This way, you can slew the VRP box on the prominent feature if it was off, thus correcting your navigation, ensuring your attack geometry for the roll-in would be correct. VIP is similar, but a VIP would be something you expect to fly over, whereas a VRP is just a feature somewhere around the target you may not fly over. An offset aimpoint is the same principle, but would be something you would expect to acquire with a sensor (radar or TGP) and not necessarily visually. There's a video of a desert storm F16 doing just this before he goes evasive on SAMs. It would be nice if you could enter higher precision offsets like you can in the M2000 so you can simulate these early era tactics. This is the sort of thing you can expect to do a lot of in the A7 with visual offsets. As of right now, the best resolution of the map is 1 degree, and the input is tenths of degrees, so the feature isn't really usable due to map limitations.

Well the Hornet as currently modeled is a buggy mess, with AG and AA radar does not function properly, missing HOTAS functions, and MSI integrations that are not modeled, ATFLIR offset cues that don't work according to spec, LAR's that don't work, IAMs that are incompletely modeled, and if you don't have access to GPS the rudimentary INS ED put in the thing will have your CCIP pipper near parallel to the ground in level flight due to some unknown cross-wind it thinks it has. Most of these bugs are 2+ years old. The aircraft is out of early access and these issues persist. It took ED 9 years to put INS drift into the black shark and it still doesn't work right. So, I don't know in the real world what out-techs what, but I can tell you based on ED's recent track record and RAZBAM's, more of what the F-15E is supposed to have is likely to work properly than the Hornet. If I had to pick one or the other, I have more faith the F-15E will be a more usable aircraft.

The M2K is one of the best modeled, least buggy jets if not THE best modeled, least buggy jet in DCS. The INS actually works and drifts like a real INS, updates make sense and require care and attention, and cold war-era ground attack profiles are possible and work as expected. They even did small things other devs don't, like allow you start a mission with drift with a setting in the ME so you can practice updating, and allow the exact placement of offsets so you can run offset bombing profiles as they would have been done in the 80's and early 90's. If you like the Viggen, you like low-level cold-war era bombing. The Mirage does that in a more conventional, less Swedish way. Learning the Mirage will help you learn concepts that will carry over to later variants of the Mirage F1 that will come out, as well as the A7 Corsair. Not to mention the campaigns available for the Mirage are much better and more numerous than the Viggen. I say unequivocally you should get the Mirage.

In my experience TERNAV is extremely accurate unless you do one of the following: 1. Fly at higher altitude (forget the range for the TERNAV sensors) for an extended period 2. Fly over water for an extended period I thought it was almost too accurate. Are you flying low enough to the ground? Or is this something new introduced very recently?