LastRifleRound

Ragnar, I think you almost nailed it this time! I downloaded OB just so I could test this out. Figured I owed it to you guys after whining about it in 2 threads. The second phase of the sight leads smoothly to the third. The only thing I'm unsure of is just what I'm supposed to do in phase 1. For right now, I set the HUD altitude to LD, then fly until the altitude displayed is the safety altitude then level out using the ADI. In the video below you can see I overshoot this, but phase 2 of the sight guides me in and the steering order is useful as the target passes below the hud. The bombs no longer consistently fall forward. The center of the stick of bombs (16 at 10m interval) lands just after the center of the ammo depot. Great grouping. What is your intention for the first phase? Is the sight really supposed to guide to the altitude (not sure how it could pre-designation) or is the profile proper as I have flown it? Finally, I believe the steering order (phase 3) should be placed according to the pipper position when the trigger was held, not when unsafe. I think this is the progression set forth in the manual. I'm pretty sure that logic would be similar to DYK. The attack is over after the 3m mark, after that is a landing if you're into seeing that sort of thing. I turn in way too late but was too impatient to do the real thing, which would have been a go-around back to the downwind leg. Let me know what you think. I just uploaded so if the embed is acting up the video is here: ${1}

this is confirmed in the bug sub-forum EDIT: I can see you know that already lol. Same here in OB

I am on stable which was just merged with OB, so we should have the same RR behavior. I just did a run in mode A2 with this, and bombs landed perfectly using the "by the book" procedure. I went trigger unsafe at some time before the cross was over the target, then held the trigger as soon as the return was under the cross, and held until bomb release. The problem with your method, is RR method in ANF is designed when the waypoint location is an unreliable source of information, which is why it uses the radar return to set the target. If the waypoint is exactly on target, you could stay in NAV master mode with RR and use that and it will be just as accurate. Neither mode I believe provides radar ranging, so QFE needs to be precise. If the waypoint isn't exactly accurate, then the distance line won't be a good indicator for holding the trigger. I will do a run in mode A1 and see if I see the same behavior. In the mean time, try giving it a shot in radar mode A2.

According to the pocket guide, they wouldn't be able to simulate errant hits, nor would it work on scenery objects. It would however, work on vehicles. They plan on releasing it anyway in this state according to the guide. According to the Harrier pilot AMA, the hotspot detection actually was quite reliable. Just wasn't sure if they ever announced at what phase of development they'd implement it

The original report was from the open beta, which has since been merged with stable about a month or two ago. I can confirm TERNAV functions properly in stable.

Ragnar posted that he made adjustments in response to my testing. He knows the aircraft way better than me. If I was wrong he'd simply say so instead of wasting man hours working on it. He's the dev who worked on the sight from day one. My understanding of what the pipper does comes from him, not me. Here's a post where he says the first phase guides to safety altitude when pointed at the target: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182228 Based on his description, the sight is not doing what he intended, hence the bug report. In regards to phase 2, I'm not asking for modernization. Phase 3 behaves this way already. Is phase 3 of the plan sight more "modern" than phase 2? I'm starting to beleive you think I'm asking for something I'm not. Allow me to post a video to demonstrate so I can clarify. Also, you never addressed my point about how you leave profile to dive on the target to make it easier, which was one of my predicted knock on effects of this behavior. You keep bringing the discussion to convenience and modernization like I need this to be easier and that's why I'm posting. It's unfounded and I believe it shows a lack of understanding of what I'm saying. All I'm saying is phase 2 should use the same data as phase 3. Do you understand what I mean by this? Ragnar said he picked an arbitrary angle for phase 1. I believe based on HIS description that the angle should be greater. Neither of these changes make anything more "modern" or "simpler". They may make it harder. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are correct.

Your last two paragraphs answer the question in the first sentence. You just said you fly intentionally out of profile because sight depression makes visual acquisition impossible, and thus having to deal with the "jump" and consequent uselessness of the steering order. This is the whole point of my post. I do not think this is intended behavior. I can't issue a track tonight, I just compiled a major build (we have a major version release next week so it's balls to the wall) and I am TIRED (It's almost 3AM here) but I might get some stick time tomorrow to record a track. Better yet, I'll probably record it on shadowplay and post a vid up on youtube for you. I will demonstrate the target designation being off as well as my procedure. Don't get me wrong, I hit what I'm aiming at most of the time, I don't need training. I simply don't think it's working right. I'm just glad at least one other person gives a crap enough about an obscure 1960's era aircraft's bombing modes to keep posting about it! :lol: (well, aside from the devs, of course)

Does anyone know if there's a project roadmap for the Harrier? Wondering when dive/toss and navflir hotspot detection will be implemented

If your target varies in altitude from the ground below you currently are when you go trigger unsafe, the spot you designate is NOT the correct spot. This is because the calculation uses triangulation, not radar ranging at this point. Like you say, CK37 doesn't "know" where the target is, only the depression angle and your own altitude. The jump I refer to here is different than flight direction. In this scenario I am already at the correct altitude. The target that is getting "stuck to" (the actual designated point) is BEHIND where you actually pressed trigger unsafe due to this error. This isn't insignificant. It is the difference between hitting your target and missing completely. This is why it's critical for me to wait for radar ranging before trigger unsafe, to avoid re-acquisition or worse, re-attack. This isn't the case for all targets, but it must be watched out for. I will supply a track showing the phenomenon. It is real and it is an expected limitation of using simple triangulation, one all aircraft in DCS are susceptible to. Another way to explain it is, the designated spot hasn't changed according to the computer, it holds on to that triangulated spot you designated. When ranging becomes available, it still believes that spot is the correct one, but essentially updates ownship slant range based on the new data. This causes the APPEARANCE that the target has changed, but it has not. That is the spot the computer thought you were targeting all along. A similar effect can be achieved in the A10 when using the TPOD without laser ranging. The same phenomenon will occur and your bombs will always be long because the same principle is at work. To test, make an ammo dump your target. Designated it at about 7km out where there is only triangulation. You will land long nearly every time, often missing completely. The further east in the Caucases you go, the worse it gets (more uneven terrain in general). As for steady targeting information and pipper on target, why have variance at all? Why leave it to chance? When I hold the trigger, there should be some consistency as to the location of the steering order. Seeing as the steering order and the pipper use different data sets, it's difficult to predict the last minute corrections necessary. It seems unlikely that SAAB would have the steering order work one way for flight direction (pitch dependent) and the pipper sight work another (altitude dependent). It's nowhere near as graceful and would actually take longer to implement from an engineering perspective. This wouldn't make the COMPUTER more accurate, but it will make the profile more heads-up and easier to fly, and thus will make YOU more accurate. Again, the difficulty here is aTtitude, NOT aLtitude. Since the two phases use different calculations, they often don't agree. When the piper hands you off to the steering order, vertical correction is often necessary. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The phase 3 steering order should just be a representation of what phase 2 was doing but no longer using the visual on target as reference (as it is no longer assumed to be visible), hence the ring (steering order). I see a lot of people miss with Viggens using slicks. You're flying at 400m in AAA and MANPADS envelope through turbulence at about mach .8 - .9. It is not the time to be fudging it and errors multiply rapidly. "Close" leads to misses in this performance regime, and the Viggen only gets one shot. The current modeling of blast damage often requires direct hits, especially with 500lb bombs. Accuracy is paramount. But you're right, at the end of the day we don't really know how it would work in the real jet and it is accurate and if you get good designation and ensure you overfly the target, you can pretty much ignore the symbology and hit your target. I just want to fly the profile as it is meant to be done, not just score hits. I'm the kind of guy that always cold starts. I could just "get up there" but working the way it's designed is part of the fun for me. BTW, the DYK mode is also a consent-to-release mode. You can hold the trigger anywhere after the line flashes and before the wings appear, and the computer will automatically drop the bombs at the right moment according the spot you were at when you went unsafe. It's very similar to PLAN mode in that way, except the steering order is there to demonstrate the ~4g pull to get the correct bomb spread as input in the weapon panel. I think Ragnar did an awesome job on the sight. I read a fair bit of the actual manual (with the help of Google translate, I don't speak Swedish!), and it is quite vague on the topic like Ragnar says. It does say the target becomes a reference in phase 2, but doesn't really say in what way, so any interpretation could be correct. I think phase 2 and 3 should use the same data so that people will find phase 3 useful. If you don't enter it early, you won't use it (you say you only saw it for a second, meaning most of your deliveries you still had visual at release). If you don't mind me asking, how do you set up for this profile? What speed do you like? How far out do you pop up to the safety altitude? Do you have to dive because you can't get visual in time for the sight? It seems like you always have visual on release, which means you're probably flying it more "clean" than I am.

Thinking about this a bit more, shouldn't the angle be at least 5deg to facilitate radar ranging before designation?

This is a good write-up of the procedure and it makes perfect sense. And you're right, more often than not it works and I can put bombs on target, but it's not working the way it should and depending on the target may involve a few workarounds. I think the sight depression at 400m may be a bit high, as it forces trigger unsafe outside of radar ranging range, which leads to the point designated often times being somewhere BEHIND the target, causing bombs to land long. (You can see the target spot jump when radar ranging available behind the target). This requires going trigger safe with a dive to reacquire. As for after trigger unsafe, before the trigger is held, the pipper does act as a flight director when used in relation with your target. However, when it commands a climb, the pipper does not move with pitch, which would be what a flight director would do, it moves to the target with regards to altitude, and imprecise altitude at that. If you have a safety altitude of 400m, you have a window of about 380m to 420m where the pipper will "stick" to the target. This makes it difficult to tell if you are at the correct attitude (not altitude). It also makes it difficult to see if you've leveled out after making adjustments without going heads down, which is what the sight should be avoiding at this point in the attack. The knock-on effect is when you hold the trigger the steering order isn't all that useful as it responds to attitude, not altitude, and is often above or below the FPM far enough where it's useless for lateral guidance. It's my belief that after trigger unsafe, setting the pipper on the designated target should set the correct attitude so that when the trigger is held the FPM should be in the middle of the steering order. I find if I immediately hold the trigger after going unsafe, I can slot the FPM in the order and gracefully reach the safety height right at the point of release.

Sounds great! I think my main gripe with it's current implementation is that if you're not holding the trigger it's really difficult to gauge your attitude (climb angle). If you wait too long to hold the trigger it's impossible to use the steering order. The way I currently use it is I designate the target as soon as I have radar ranging available then immediately hold the trigger to get the steering order (I don't wait for it to slide under the nose or the ranging bar to flash). This works well and makes bombing much smoother but it's not how the manual indicates it should be done. Have you changed the 3rd phase? I hope not, that works perfect. Can't wait to see the new implementation! Is it slated for the next OB update?

Boy am I glad I ran into this thread before encountering it flight!

Personally I'm holding out for the Harrier-equipped Mirage :megalol:

It is. It's the sight that"s bugged. Can't use the ADI to designate the target.

I posted this in the bug thread, but will post it here for other people to see who are scratching there head at the PLAN bombing sight. The sight before trigger unsafe should guide you to the safety altitude (default 400m unless changed in the mission editor). Instead, it guides the aircraft to a lower altitude. In the screenshots below, I have the HUD set to show barometric altitude. The sight should command a climb (I was at 50m) until I reach 400m. Instead it has me level off at 300m (see the ADI). When I go trigger unsafe, this causes the sight to "jump" below the target, indicating I should climb to get the pipper on target. The other parts of the sight appear to function properly. Hopefully this is a quick fix for HB, looks like a small overSIGHT (ba-dum-tiss) on their part. I'll see myself out..... :pilotfly: EDIT: Turns out I can't attach the same file in two different places, so here's the link to the post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=243466 Ok NOW I'm leaving :pilotfly:

I've attached screenshots. The PLAN sight should guide the pilot to the safety altitude from the mission planner before trigger unsafe when the dot is held at the target point. The screen shots below show correct QFE set for waypoint M2. The HUD is set to display barometric altitude. The sight should command a climb until 400m (the safety altitude for this waypoint). instead, the sight guides the pilot to 300m. This means it is impossible to designate the target at the reference altitude without initiating a dive (which is why most users report the mode is easier to use in a slight dive). However, it means the sight will always "Jump" when trigger is unsafe, because you will not be at the correct altitude and the sight wlll have to command a dive or climb. Below is showing the aircraft at 300m, with a level flight path being commanded by the sight (view the ADI to make that more clear). I can take another screen if need be at 400m, wherein a dive is commanded (sight takes you to 300m). You can also see a shot of when trigger is set to unsafe. The sight jumps below the target to command a climb, as this phase of the symbology appears to operate correctly. Also, when trigger is held, the steering order also commands the correct course to the safety altitude. To recreate, take note of waypoint QFE and set correctly. Drop hud glass, set altitude display to LD. Master mode ANF, weapon selector in PLAN mode. Hold the pipper over the target and take note of where you are being guided. Give yourself 15km or more to give yourself plenty of time. Note for a 400m safety altitude, you will be commanded to level out around 300m.

Hey Ragnar, I think I figured out what's going on here after a LOT of testing. It seems the phase 1 sight does not guide to the safety altitude like it should. I've ensured a good QFE setting, and did several (about 50) passes. For a medium safety height, the sight seems to guide the aircraft to around 290-310m instead of 400m. It's consistently too low. I did several passes, switched the hud to LD (baro altitude), manually flew to 400m. At this altitude, the sight should be keeping me at level flight. However, it's still guiding me to descent at this altitude. I've also tried approaches from below the altitude, starting from an altitude of 50m and initiating a pop-up at 10km out from the target. Same result, sight guides me in to about 300m, so when i trigger unsafe, a sharp climb is commanded to make up the extra 100m. QFE checked several times. Also, the target ring is dead center of the target. I also tried passes with NAV bombing (Weapon selector in RR and master mode NAV) to check my QFE against another mode. Bombs land squarely on target in that mode, and the pole track always guides to 400m. Once in phase 2, the sight dot appears over the designated area at around 350m and stays there until about 420m, which seems accurate. The drops themselves land on target (though maybe a little long, hard to say). Also, to answer Edit 1, that may be the reason it's guiding low, I'm not sure, is that it commands a climb but is ignorant to the actual vector of the aircraft. That would lead to it guiding low consistently like it does, so I think you might be on to something there. Thoughts?

Not necessarily. "Later" could refer to after the video was shot or after the release. It is logically ambiguous. Doesn't matter to me either way I just wanted to point that out

Nice! Keep it up guys!

The superb quality of the Viggen made me consider the Tomcat. This thread convinced me to buy it.

I run on stable. What's the new RR mode and RB 04 symbology look like in A2 B scope mode? Would be cool to see a screen shot. Also is the cross finally at 3km?

Excellent. They need the help and I think that's a wise decision.

Serious question for those on the "leave RAZBAM alone" tip here. 1. Do you think wheel chocks should be added to an aircraft when it's air-to-ground missions are at 20% capability, and the INS is broken? Do you think minor damage modeling should be done first, or the remaining 50% of an attack aircrafts AG profiles? 2. Do you think it's ok to postpone an update (not a module, but an update) a year and a half? 3. Do you think EASY things should be done first, or CRITICAL things? 4. How much, by %, of mission profiles, should an aircraft be capable of after 1 year in early access? 2? 3? 4? 5. If an update a dev did broke a core mission profile, how long is an acceptable time frame to fix the issue? Answer JUST THOSE questions WITHOUT mentioning other devs.

I believe the steering dot is intercept course for your aircraft, not your missiles. That's how it is in the M2000C as well.