

LastRifleRound
Members-
Posts
1188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by LastRifleRound
-
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
-
A-G radar EXP3 scanning is broken and unusable (MT)
LastRifleRound replied to Rissala's topic in Bugs and Problems
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.
-
F-4E INS alignment duration + nav system question
LastRifleRound replied to Leviathan667's topic in DCS: F-4E Phantom
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? -
Is waypoint offset for navigation possible?
LastRifleRound replied to bones1014's topic in DCS: F-16C Viper
How does an OA fix a steer point but not a line up? -
Is waypoint offset for navigation possible?
LastRifleRound replied to bones1014's topic in DCS: F-16C Viper
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.
-
Is waypoint offset for navigation possible?
LastRifleRound replied to bones1014's topic in DCS: F-16C Viper
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.
-
Now: would I enjoy M2K if I love AJS-37?
LastRifleRound replied to VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants's topic in M-2000
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. -
Any way to make waypoints more accurate?
LastRifleRound replied to jubuttib's topic in DCS: AJS37 Viggen
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? -
reported A-G radar EXP3 and aircraft movement issues
LastRifleRound replied to Rissala's topic in Bugs and Problems
anything? -
I have to say I am continually mystified at what practices an entity could follow that would continually lead to releases like this. When I bought BS1 back in 2009, I noticed that the advertised "Highly accurately modeled GPS/INS system" never drifted like one would assume from the advertising. The manual said the update feature was performative only. I came right on this here forum to ask about it, and was told essentially maybe they'll add it later. 13 frickin years later, after paying for this module once more at full price and another $9.99, with the latest time the feature being 25% of the advertised feature set in explicit terms, it still doesn't work right and they don't even seem to know how or why or who or what or when it happened and somehow it got out of testing without anyone noticing. How can you not notice this? Someone had to know it, or it wasn't tested. When you fly more than 10 minutes and try to correct it literally dances back across the ring skip fakes and superman punches you directly in the face. It is literally impossible to miss. Then, when people dutifully reported the bug/s, they got the infamous "correct as is", presumably because whoever tagged the post followed whatever horrifically unreliable procedure leads to these sorts of things not getting caught in the first place (or just didn't check it at all but I repeat myself). Only after persistent lobbying was the tag dropped on 2 of the posts, with one now being confirmed (Datalink one just now doesn't say "correct as is", but remains unconfirmed). Maybe if we buy it another 3 times and they mega-advertise it we can have INS? People around here are so obsessed with tiny hatches. I just don't get it.
- 71 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
What is broken about the update feature?
-
You're right Avro, OAP logic is not correct. I was doing some test runs with VIP enabled, and while the logic was correct (slewing causes IP and TGT to move equally) the issue was how imprecise setting it up in the first place was. This definitely ought to be something that can be configured in the ME as RAZBAM has done. Same with the Hornet.
-
Is there a way to set VIP/VRP/OAP1/OAP2 in the mission editor? The resolution of the ME ruler is only in full degrees, and the resolution of the input in the jet for distance is in tenths of a mile. In the M2000C you can set these in the ME to act as an upload from the DTC and you can get more exact positioning.
-
reported A-G radar EXP3 and aircraft movement issues
LastRifleRound replied to Rissala's topic in Bugs and Problems
Just a gentle reminder this is still an issue. Has there been any progress on this? -
correct as is Strange Ground Radar behaviour while zooming in
LastRifleRound replied to AlexPlorateur's topic in Bugs and Problems
Re-check that link, they updated it to "reported" and merged it with another thread, so the snap-back is going to be fixed. -
[DONE] Any updates coming for the JF-17 in 2022?
LastRifleRound replied to WRCRob's topic in JF-17 Thunder
What about Designation updates for the INS? Currently only overfly is available. -
Need help on targetting bridges using tgpod
LastRifleRound replied to pete_auau's topic in DCS: F/A-18C
The problem is the sim doesn't recognize the bridge itself when it comes to sensors. Your laser will shoot right through that bridge and give a reading on the other side, so no matter what you think you're looking at, the system thinks it's the ground. High angles will be your friend here, which means altitude and/or proximity. Another way is to be sure to approach the bridge along the same axis it spans. This makes targeting them much, much easier. -
It's in the patch notes today that it's supposed to be fixed.
-
I don't know if this is intended but in real life an LST actually will sometimes pickup the emitter. JTAC should vector you the opposite way so your LST isn't looking at the emitter on the run in. Does this happen no matter which direction you approach the target?
-
The M2k in DCS World: Getting better and better? impressions
LastRifleRound replied to kotor633's topic in M-2000
I'm with you guys. All the ED modern aircraft get all the hype but they require work-arounds for virtually anything but PGM plinking. Mirage is out here delivering to specification and above and beyond original spec and not a word. RAZ is the No Man's Sky of DCS. -
It doesn't. This is a bug that has had exhaustive research done and dozens of tracks submitted and has been confirmed at least twice.