LastRifleRound

Did you have LGB's or Mavericks, too? Even though they're at 0 if you already used them, you can still see them on the SMS page. If LGB's, use DTOS, if Mavs, use VIS. TMS up long to make HMD SOI, look at target, TMS up short, DMS down to get the TGP to be SOI. It's not much different than the A10 except the part where you have to pick a delivery mode. If you think you'll need to save that point for reference, hit MARK, then SEQ right to TGP as source, TMS up. If you want your new MARK to be active Steerpoint, hit MSEL while still in the MARK page. I really don't think it's that hard and the debate on who made it and why I think is based on the entirely subjective suppositions on how "clunky" it is when doing DCS stuff. Even for DCS stuff, it's not any harder than the Hornet is, and the A10 was purpose made for DCS stuff so you can't expect other airframes to be as good at loitering and plinking. In fact, you could argue DCS itself was built around the KA50 and to a lesser extent the A10, so DCS was built around this kind of mission. Give it some more time and I'm confident you will all will get in the flow in now time. I never thought it would be, but the team on the Viper has done an excellent job in my opinion and it's probably my favorite at the moment.

The confirmed issue is that bearing entry isn't working and is always 0 no matter what you enter. Are offsets being moved as a result of designation also reported? I didn't see it.

You're misreading it. It says an offset aimpoint is a waypoint with an offset associated with it, meaning OAP is the waypoint that has the offset as opposed to the Viper where the OAP is the offset itself. Further reinforcing this, it says OAPs can be entered using map slew, but the offset must still be entered through the UFC. Therefore, in the Hornet, OAP is just another name for a waypoint, except that waypoint has an offset associated with it. Further, NATOPS actually supports my assertion when describing how nav updating works. "Also, the next waypoint in succession becomes designated or, in the case of an OAP, the offset becomes designated. There is no ACPT/REJ display in the AUTO update mode." When updating an OAP with an overfly, the offset is designated, NOT the OAP itself. This is describing the same process as the Viper's VIP, and more similarly to the Harrier's W/OS procedure (same manufacturer, unsurprising). Then there's the description of NAVDSG, which says you should designate the OAP position (easily recognizable feature) then press "O/S" to add the offset to it, which will then indicate the target position. It appears right now, doing a nav designation designates the waypoint, when you slew to something else and then hit "O/S", you will find that the offset has been changed to match the designation, so it will appear in your sensors as if nothing has happened. This is backwards and appears to be a bug. According to NATOPS, you waypoint designate, slew to where your OAP should be, then hit O/S and you should be looking at the target, as the O/S should be applied to whatever you have designated. Instead, you'll find if you watch the data page it simply changed the offset position to match what you just designated. @Hulkbust44 are you seeing the same thing? I'm going to make a bug report if that's the case. We can't source TACMAN, but I'm pretty sure we can source NATOPS on here.

How do you know that? I ask because that would be counter to every other implementation of offsets, including those in other Navy aircraft and other aircraft made by the same manufacturer, it disagrees with the TACMAN for the Hornet, and it doesn't pass the common sense test. At this point, I would have to say unless there is strong affirmative evidence suggesting otherwise, my assertion is the most likely to be correct. Every other instance of offsets (just look at old youtube videos to confirm) was assumed to be for CAS scenarios and it wasn't true. That just turned out to be backwards rationalization, and not sourced from any documentation (I'm talking Mirage, Tomcat, Harrier and Viper). I'm guessing the Hornet likely isn't the only aircraft that's going to buck this trend.

The point of an offset is to resolve a target or waypoint location using an easily referenced feature relative to that waypoint/target. Right now in the Hornet, offsets just act like waypoints you access differently. If you have bombs loaded, Offset designated, shouldn't the ASL point to the target?

This isn't exactly correct. 1. Standard procedure in the viper is to switch to CCIP once a pre-planned target has been visually acquired, which is why the NWS cycling order is the way it is (CCRP->CCIP->DTOS->CCRP). CCIP does not necessarily equate to an attack on a TOO. Not a problem in and of itself. 2. The problem isn't that the reference point slews persist in VIS modes, it's that they bleed over into PRE modes (again, not necessarily a problem, might be the way it works) and can only be zero'd by hopping into a PRE mode (this is the weird part). You should be able to zero VIS slews in VIS, since every other SOI and modality demands it be zero'd by itself in its own mode. (HUD slews must be 0 in the HUD, TGP in the TGP, FCR in the FCR, so VIS is a HUD slew and should be zero'd in the HUD in VIS mode). The procedure breaks the logic presented in the write-up. Either the write-up is wrong or this procedure is, they can't both be right.

In what actual CAS scenario are you rippling 4 jdams on 4 targets in 4 miles in one go? JDAM TOO rippling is the number one AG thread on these forums typically and it is entirely a DCS contravention. It's cool you can do it in DCS, but knocking the real life control scheme for its ability to handle something almost no one was expected to actually do in a mission isn't logical. Here's a different scenario: In which aircraft do you think you could more easily perform a low level ingress to pop-up dive bombing attack on a pre-planned target without GPS, with weak coordinates and without a visual on the target until you were in the groove for release given a strong relative reference? Here's a link to a write-up on the Osirak nuclear plant attack in 1981 conducted by Vipers using what appears to be the VIP method with a CCIP terminal attack. Note that missing the VIP for one of the pilots threw off his run enough that he actually had to do a go-around: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/April 2012/0412osirak.pdf Everything in the Viper is built on the base of being able to do a mission like that. The A10C was pretty much gutted interface-wise and done from the ground up to suit more modern missions. I think people like that the A10 makes the least amount of assumptions of what the aircraft is supposed to be doing, but at the same time that makes certain things more complicated than they need to be. If you're doing a pre-planned strike on a target, why bother the pilot with constantly telling the aircraft's nav computer whether it should be paying attention or not? The Viper simply assumes if you slew something, it's because you're trying to acquire the thing you're after unless you're explicitly using a TOO mode. Makes it a lot easier. I made a scenario wherein you need to bomb a non-descript building in a city in the Caucuses. The waypoint you're given is not on the target, simulating low coordinate resolution and drift, but a strong OA is given to a terrain feature and a VRP for a distinct shaped nearby building. If you do your slews right, you'll never see the target till a few seconds before release, and VID'ing it would be hard anyway, but with the TD box, combined with the two references make a precise CCIP delivery possible. All of this is done in less than a minute from run-in to delivery and LTL egress. You can do this sort of thing in the F15E, but the Hornet is so whacked out with bugs it can't do this and I'm not even sure how you'd begin to do something similar with the A10. The Viper's AG mission has historically been closer to a Viggen's than an A10's, and I think multiplayer server's reliance on TOO vehicle plinking is making that more plain to see.

I love the Viper's work flow. I think the DCS multiplayer server environment is clouding people's judgement. It doesn't surprise me most of you find the A10C's interface better. It was made by going to Viper pilots and Hornet pilots, asking them what they liked about their HOTAS and what they didn't, and built on the results.

Everything makes sense save for the zeroing. CZ in VIS mode should zero out the slews made in this mode. As written here, to zero out the HUD symbology in a VIS mode, you have to go to a PRE mode then hit CZ. This makes no sense and I think that's what everyone's confused over. You don't go to a VIS mode to zero out something you did in a PRE mode, especially since PRE mode ignores slews made in VIS like it should. Hitting CZ in VIS should zero the slews you made in VIS, going to another mode should be unnecessary, and the write-up in the updated logic pinned thread backs this up. The pinned thread says that to zero a slew made in a mode, you have to go to that mode and zero it. But here you're saying we need to go to a DIFFERENT mode and zero it. Here's the relevant writing: Cursor slews are now possible in several different modes that are independently accumulated. As an example, the VIP cursor may be slewed and zeroed independently of the Navigation cursor. If Cursor Zero is pressed and "CZ" remains displayed on the MFD, it is because another cursor still has cursor slews applied. This may be seen when the DTOS/VIS cursor is zeroed back to the FPM, but the main Navigation cursor may still be slewed away from the original steerpoint location. To zero the Navigation cursor, CCRP or CCIP should be entered and then CZ pressed. This is providing an example where the nav cursor has been slewed elsewhere, not to expect the VIS mode CZ to reset that. This makes sense. However, the VIS mode according to you (and this write-up), does not actually move the STPT, it sets the current STPT to the slewed location IN VIS mode. We know this because if we go to PRE mode, the slew is gone like we expect. These two statements cannot both be true. Also, this thread suggests this behavior is a bug: TL: DR; hitting CZ in VIS mode should zero out all slews made in VIS mode without having to jump to another mode to zero out what was done in VIS.

This is great news. I got the F15E to fly it old school like Natso showed in one of the pre-release videos, but this bug shelved it for me till it got fixed. Glad to hear they zapped the critter.

I doubt ED fixed this, as it's been an issue since the A10 first came out. The laser (or any other ranging sensor), doesn't interact with objects at all, only terrain. It was SOP to lase the bottom of a vehicle to prevent it from going through the vehicle and designating a spot behind it. This is why you are seeing better accuracy in a dive, because as you adjust the pod in this posture you are getting closer and closer to designating a spot underneath the vehicle. (By going more through the top of the vehicle and less through the side). The changes in coordinates you're seeing with lase vs no lase is due to imprecise height-over-target calculations that arrive from not using an active sensor to vet slant range (height over target is assumed to be your jets current altitude).

The answer is A, within a certain range. AGR is automatically used if TGP is SOI, you are in AG master mode and you're within xnm of what it's looking at (I don't know the exact range). If the laser is used, the system will prefer it over the radar range. As far as differences, I don't know what's modeled in DCS. IRL, PP (or "absolute" positioning) is always more accurate than TOO (or "relative" position). This is because relative positioning has an additional computational hurdle in determining target position. As for sensor accuracy, the laser is generally more accurate (barring things like smoke and cloud cover which affect the two sensors differently). The radar increases in accuracy the closer and higher angle you are to the spot you're looking at. The Mirage models this phenomenon when doing radar Nav updates or PI mode bombing. Though that radar can't be slewed and looks at a fixed point, the concept is the same. In the Mirage for best results you need a dive and to keep the jet steady so the computer can figure out the center of the radar cone and take the range from that. The Viper does this part for you by pointing the beam at the TGP target (or CCIP pipper or HUD tgt etc).

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.