LastRifleRound

I agree with this. The Hornet is a much deeper simulation than the A10 was. The A10 didn't have complex modeling of IAMS, INS/Inertial Drift and other such things. The Hornet will and many of those updates are going right back into the A10. What I noticed with ED's approach is how methodical it is. When they release a system, I always know right away what will work and what won't, so I can set my expectations and learning experience accordingly. What they do release and say will work, more often than not, does work. You can really see each release building solidly on the last. Not all devs do this, but ED does. I noticed right away the step up the Hornet was from the A10, and the recent news that the A10 is getting the same treatment is just more reason to support these guys. 3-4 years development for something as complex as the Hornet is not even slightly unreasonable.

I think we'll see the three EXP modes. I hope they model FTT, but I think you won't see AG radar until they've created an RCS for all objects on the map. When you are in RBM or one of the EXP modes, there are two types of designation. A "Stabilized NAV" designation, which is an INS plot of the interpolated position of the TDC on the radar map. This isn't too accurate. The other is FTT. If the radar, when commanded to designate, can "see" something to track at that location that stands out from the background (kind of like point track on a TGP), then it will enter FTT and provide very accurate targeting information. We don't have anything like that in DCS right now. It's a deep system with a lot of cool features. I wish we could know what the extent of its simulation will be. It even has a mode that auto acquires ground targets like structures and vehicles kind of like ACM, something a TGP can't even do. Imagine diving on a moving vehicle, auto acquiring it and dropping a Mk20 with lead computed. I know it's early, but it would be good to know which version and modes will be simulated.

1. I just looked through your posts again. Still see one track 2. Of course you have to compare the designation point to the salvo center. That is the entire point of the thread. If I designated something 1km away and hit the target, would you say that's working properly? 3. Yes, to maintain altitude. It is like ILS. The closer you get to it the more the MOE shrinks until it is so small it is irrelevant and impossible to follow. Again, your track shows this. You chased the order and it screwed up the latter half of your interval. Note the OP doesn't say "I can't hit targets in the viggen". It's that they fall short of where you point them. I'm good enough with the Viggen to be able to consistently overcome this (you saw the lovely string I put down on the ok track). That's not the point. The point is that it doesn't work right. I can post 12 tracks of me purposely aiming long and shacking all kinds of targets at various altitudes and speeds, but I think I've done enough for this bug report. I say it's a bug and I'm walking away from it.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on anything it seems, and that's ok. I just viewed your track, and honestly, I'm shocked at your conclusion. I am saying that in PLAN bombs always fall short of the designation point. To counter this, you post a track where you designate a point that your bombs fall short of. Here is a picture of pre-designation. Your actual designation was a few ms after this, and was actually FURTHER OFF than this. Your initial string was going to hit dead center of the target. It should not have. The latter half of the string went way long because you chased the steering order (you shouldn't when you're that close, the error is magnified since it's an actual point in the sky. The steering order is a guide) and yanked all the bombs forward at that point. Re. my altitudes, again, supports my claim. In the ok track I SHOULD HAVE MISSED or at the very least the center of the string should have been forward of the target. In your posts above, you admit my designation is too far, and you admit I'm flying the altitude perfectly with the correct speed in this latest post. If this is true, then why didn't the bombs land where they are supposed to, which is the point I designated? The goal of this test isn't to merely hit the target, but to test if the bomb center point is at the pipper designation. The target is just a measurement tool. Just because I hit the target in that track doesn't make it a "good" run, because the goal of the track is to test the Viggen. Your track proves my case. You keep adding argumentation that supports my claim, then conclude my claim is wrong. I don't know what to say other than for Ragnar et al, there's plenty of observable evidence if you want to look at this and draw your own conclusion. For now, if you want to hit a target, you will need to designate long like Random did in his track, and I did before. You may conclude that the code is "fine" as a result, but scientifically, that aim point is not the center point where the bombs will land, and the difference is not random, but consistent. Again, until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with this is an unintentional bug introduced in the latest update. Here's the picture of your designation point, way long, not "good enough". Most people will be putting the pipper on the target and will miss as a result. If you want to persuade me, post a track where you're level, designate the center of the target, and hit close to the center of the target with the center of your string, otherwise I'm unconvinced. PS Re. designating the mission point, I merely do this for muscle memory. The step can be skipped if desired to run the experiment. I do this every time in case I designate a different point with radar for whatever reason as I don't want the nav polygon changing

Sorry but your assessment on speed is wrong. Same result regardless of speed. Here are three additional tracks, this time, target is only 16ft ASL on very flat terrain. One track shows center hit, the other two show center short (in fact, whole string is short). Both times I followed the steering order. Steering order has nothing to do with this. It's bugged and the times you hit are probably due to missed designations. Notice on the center hit, I accidentally designate long. Notice on both runs my airspeed is above the level you suggest, and also notice I follow the steering order on all. Also, I use a Saitek X52, not exactly top of the line. It's almost 10 years old. I love it, but it's hardly precise. PS Target ring drives me nuts, too. Rarely placed right and it gets in the way of getting eyes on. I feel your pain. bomb_ok.trk bomb_short5.trk bomb_short6.trk

You specifically asked in one of your posts why sometimes the bombs hit and other times they didn't. I was simply explaining this could be why. If you weren't careful of having AGR active at the time of designation, you may be designating long, thus your bombs hit the target as normal, masking the bug. No need to get upset at me, I assumed most people waited for AGR. This is not the only spot in DCS where this is an issue. It might not even be a "bug" per se. I think right behind that ammo depot the terrain might dip a bit. If you designate before radar you are really looking "through" the ammo depot, as, without radar the jet doesn't know it's there and therefore thinks your designating some spot behind it (kind of like in the A10, if you designate with the TPOD but don't lase, your bombs will always fall long of a structure or vehicle for this very same reason). The dip can exacerbate this effect and even more so the low angle of observation the Viggen has because of the low altitude methods you are likely to be using. So no, if you use AGR like I did it is not a confounding factor. It is also accounted for in the fact that I've flown this test mission many times before without this specific issue. Why not provide a track of one of your runs that hits the target so I can examine what you are doing? And also one of your misses? It would be better if worked together on this. I want to stress that before the update I ran this same mission and had no issues hitting that target hundreds of times. The "elevation error", if it exists, only affects DESIGNATION, not the actual bombing algorithm, which before now was working fine. You can't hit the target consistently and have no idea why. This isn't a valid conclusion in the face of the observable data. Further, which specific procedure do you believe I failed to follow in the track? If it is practice, that implies I did something wrong. Where EXACTLY did I go wrong? Correct QFE, non-loaded aircraft, correct designation, correct altitude, correct dial set up, bombs land short. You mention speed, but there is no minimum speed for any of these bomb modes. Mach .8 is the generic recommended run-in speed for any target point in the Viggen, but it's not the only one and it certainly hasn't been a requirement for the past 3 years of the module existing. If it is now then I'm right that something did indeed change and it would be valuable for people to know that. The only opinion there should be is whether we believe it is intentional. Also, I would like an explanation for why such a restriction does not affect NAV or RR modes (also further proof the elevation issue is really only on designation without AGR) It worked before the update in that same exact spot. It works AT LEAST inconsistently now. I've flown this practice mission 100's of times to keep my skills sharp. I know EXACTLY how to drop those bombs and nail those targets. I use the same one all the time. It's why I'm able to spot subtle changes right away. I've been using that mission for over a year. The reason the vehicle is on top of the bunker is so I can even practice the RR mode in ANF, which, by the way, works perfectly. Every weekend, I make sure I can hit that target in my sleep in PLAN, CCIP, DYK, RR and do a passable job with NAVTOSS (which works after the update, before it would always land long. Related? Maybe.). I land after each time (except this one, as I generated it specifically for this) using breaks, straight ins, sometimes I'll throw fog in, hit in RR, and land IFR. I have a youtube video demonstrating PLAN where I shack THAT EXACT TARGET in THAT EXACT MISSION that you yourself watched and commented on. I know what I'm doing in the Viggen and I can hit that target in every other bomb mode center-string. I would not waste anyone's time producing a map location or method that I wasn't sure was hitting the target previously, and there's plenty of evidence that I was hitting targets just fine. Until someone gives me an actual explanation that I did something actually wrong, I'm going to go ahead and say something is up because that is what the observable evidence tells me.

The Mirage suffers in all of its missions. There's not one mission set you can perform that some bug doesn't put you at a major disadvantage. The HUD suffers parallax issues that make any bombing but dive bombing more inaccurate than it needs to be. Ramsay's done some great work in showing this. Bugged TWS means without GCI you're going to have a hard time being competitivd in BVR against maneuvering and dynamic opponents. Bugged ACM modes make dogfighting a little annoying, though the Mirage really shines here, especially if you limit it to guns. The INS update isn't realistic and has been incorrect literally for years. RAZBAM has announced many new projects, but relatively simple bugs to fix have remained in the Mirage for years with new obes being introduced with every update. I'm not sure what to make of that but it doesn't look good. Jojo, not to get off topic, but I remeber you linking a French website for offset bombing using coordinate mode. I can't seem to find the link. I'd like to run some tests and I think that site can help.

I disagree with the common sentiment. First, the obvious, GPS degraded environments and low cloud decks. Add to that earlier designations, better offset strategies, scenarios where prior recon did not resolve exact target point, mid-90's simulations are all things a ground radar can do (especially since the Hornet has DBS3 which provides a very readable map for structural complexes and "sore thumb" scenarios that would not resolve well on FLIR). In the JF17 I often find myself using DBS to acquire my targets because it is easier to make out certain targets, especially at range, than with an optical system. I can enter FTT early and concentrate on flying. GMTI will allow the easy acquisition and lead computed dumb bombing on movers in all weather conditions. AG radar will give us way more new options. Uodated FLIR is great, but I don't think, for the Hornet, it would have as much an impact.

You are seeing the confluence of two screwy things. This location is like the DCS bermuda triangle. If you designate directly on the target without radar ranging, what you have actually designated is a point behind the ammunition depot. Therefore, the bombs will land on target (because they typically fall short). As for track 1, you'll notice another odd behavior. The ground altitude at that location is higher than what the ME thinks it is. This is why designation without radar is too far away, and why when you designate with radar, if you've been maintaining 400m LD, you'll be asked to climb I don't believe it's accurate that PLAN mode should enforce a certain speed or minimum speed, so I believe this is not intended behavior. Also, we know they've been messing with the algorithm because the last patch notes indicated "improvements to LD bombing" but did not specify what that means. If it were a new methodology or restriction, I'm sure they would have listed it in the patch notes. Edit: my interval was the default (15 I think). Looks like that tight string was dropped in a dive

How were the centers of your strings? I can hit too, but usually it is the last few bombs

You guys are amazing. You deserve every bit of it.

Is no one else having this issue? It's actually impacting my mission effectiveness. At the low altitude and with shorter strings I'm forced to guess an overshoot point to get the bombs to land

Not like it matters. As modeled the INS is always easy mode because updating doesn't update according to your input, rather it just resets accuracy to 100%. Your designation could be off by miles but the result is perfection every time

I have to say I've been playing the new campaign and it is excellent. I feel like I'm in a mid 90's conflict and have been avoiding sams by ensuring TOT discipline and NOE flight. The add ons you suggest would be excellent, but the tools are there for you to make something great now in my opinion. Flying the Viggen out of its comfort zone is realistic. When the Viggen got it's S upgrades the Soviet Union didn't exist any more. Adapting it to fly in the post cold war battle space is a valid experience to model.

This thread is incredibly informative. Thanks gentlemen!

You don't see this capability because it isn't necessary. As skootch has said, if you're hauling that many jdams, it's because you have pre planned targets. You probably wouldn't use MAN mode either. Qty relases of this magnitude would use AUTO mode, not MAN. The OP's process is a work-around designed to satisfy the challenges of online MP lacking many planning features as well as the current state of JDAMs implementation. Though it's possible to do it in the real jet, no one would because there are better methods in place for QTY release we don't have yet.

I agree. I don't know if TERNAV was that accurate in real life but it's basically GPS as long as you're flying low and not over water. I can't remember the last time I actually had to update my navigation. It's always accurate thanks to TERNAV.

I don't think there is any difference in the tracked targets themselves. The main difference is TWS maintains track files on the non-bugged targets whereas RWS does not.

And here's a DYK run. bombs_short3.trk

Two tracks attached of PLAN bombing. Centerpoint is way short. Radar ranging used both times, correct QFE entered. bombs_short1.trk bombs_short2.trk

:megalol:

Thanks for this. Especially #4. With this symbology on the EHSD, I can see how this would enhance SA. Is this going to be implemented, though? I don't recall seeing that in the works anywhere.

Make sure your real life throttle is pulled to idle and then move it to the cut off position in sim (RWIN+T)

I'm going to ignore the previous posts, as re-reading your thread, I think we may actually agree, but are talking past each other. It seems like you're saying the CAS page is very valuable, then start saying you should keep your eyes out of the cockpit and focus on the radio, which is the opposite of using the page (and was my original point, if I don't have an exact location, why do I need something as specific as the CAS page). So my question is this: how do you plan on using the page? I'm genuinely interested to know what your approach would be

This makes sense. The vehicles I was targeting were not moving. Still a bug, though.