Swift.

So as has been discussed ad nauseam here, there is a mode of the JDAM that is absent from the current modelling in DCS Viper called 'Absolute'. The purpose of this mode has not previously been apparent for hornet or viper as there has been no real benefit to it. However as you will have seen, recently the vipers INS/GPS simulation was upgraded dramatically. This now means that there is variation and tolerance within the INS system. You may observe this by slaving a TGP to the waypoint and watching how it wanders around. It is this very variation that is causing this increased inaccuracy that you are seeing. The JDAM is flying to where the jet thinks the coordinates of the target are, so the weapon will have as much tolerance in its aiming as the jet does. This is where Absolute mode would come into play, it would rely on the weapons own GPS to correct the targets location, correcting for the variation inherited from the jet. As we don't currently have Absolute mode, we are forced to resort to using an onboard sensor to refine the location of the target beyond what is possible with the INS/GPS. To summarise: FA-18: No absolute vs relative + no INS variation = good against coords or sensor designation F-15E: Good absolute vs relative + good INS variation= good against coords or sensor designation F-16: No absolute vs relative + good INS variation = good against sensor designation but poor against coordinates

Are you targeting your JDAMs with the TGP or just dropping them blindly on a steerpoint?

So you piqued my curiosity and I ran some tests quickly. It looks like I was wrong. RB have added an absolute vs relative logic, but worked around the issue of there not being a GPS acquisition modelling on the weapon by implementing it at launch. If you are designating a nav point, ie XFER SEQPT, it will behave as if in Absolute, ie it will fly to the actual coordinates of the point regardless of the drift state of the MN/INS. If you are designating with a sensor, ie XFER RDR, it will behave as if in Relative, ie it will fly to the location that the sensor was pointing relative to the jet. Even if the MN/INS is drifted. These behaviors are as expected from the documentation. Good job Razbam for finding a neat little workaround to that, because the end effect is the same. The oddity that this way causes is that its effectively making the GPS weapon acquisition happen at 0 seconds TOF. As you say though, F-16 forum... Hopefully this can help ED model a full or temporary solution for viper, perhaps using a similar workaround to what RB used in SE.

So you are saying that if you have a drifted MN in the SE and drop on a targetpoint, the JDAM will acquire GPS during its flight and correct its trajectory to the GPS driven coordinates? Because that would require a modelling of that function on the weapon itself (which is EDs area), which I didnt think had been done yet.

Yeah so no jet (neither F-15E nor F-16C) currently implement an absolute vs relative logic in JDAM. In SE if you dropped on a targetpoint with the MN drifted, the weapon would miss the target because it would behave as if it were in relative mode. Which bit did you think was incorrect in what I said?

There aren't any modules currently that do it properly. F-16 is currently the most advance modelling of this, we are just missing a tiny little extra piece. They've changed the tag to WIP so hopefully that means the suggestions have been taken on board. In the meantime remember to sweeten your designation with TGP or FCR before you drop.

Do you have a reference for how F-16 should mechanize Absolute targeting? Without it, its kinda challenging to report anything.

Important point on this, your jet doesnt have 'perfect' alignment due to GPS. Remember that GPS is a measurement tool, and like all measurements there are errors. There's a complicated explanation of this that involves time of arrival and overlapping ellipses that you can google if you are interested. But the key takeaway is to never assume your GPS is 'perfect', this is why in F-15E at least, the best technique is to retarget using radar or TGP when delivering weapons, even if you have GPS.

If we apply the F-15E logic, then Absolute should be triggered by targeting of any steerpoint (including those pulled from datalink). The 'nice' logic that could apply to F16 is that Absolute is triggered whenever a weapon is dropped with no cursor slew applied to the SPI, ie CZ has been selected. Relative would then be triggered whenever a cursor slew exists (ie whenever the SPI is driven by a sensor). As a side note, Its very important to note in general however, that JDAMs even in Absolute will not be as precise as an LGB. I see a lot of people not understanding why their JDAMs are missing, and this is sometimes the cause.

The thing that I've always been missing when trying to make a report for this is how the decision between relative and absolute modes is supposed to work in viper. It's explained very clearly for strike eagle, that a Sequence Point or SIT designation will trigger absolute mode and a TPOD/Radar/HUD designation cause relative. But without explicit documentation to show that viper uses absolute for SPI with no slew applied and relative for SPI with a slew applied, then we can't really report anything?

idk what manuals you are reading, but I'm looking at wording that explicitly describes 'elevation rate control'. Additionally there are SMEs who confirm that strike eagle radar elevation is a rate control, not a position control.

The radar elevation in F-15E works the same as it does in the FA-18C. It controls the 'rate' of the elevation. If the axis is in a position other than neutral, the radar elevation will remain in motion. This is true in real life and in the module in DCS.

What is happening is that the transfer sources dont sync. What happens is this: Situation 1: No designations exist, both pilots have no transfer. WSO creates designation with radar, WSO sees XFER RDR. Pilot sees no transfer option. WSO will see coordinates transfer but pilot wont. Desync. To stop this, do the following: Situation 2: No designations exist, both pilots have no transfer. Target Point is selected, NAV designation is created for both members, both members see XFR STP. WSO creates designation with radar, WSO sees XFER RDR. Pilot sees XFR STP. Both pilots will see correct coordinate transfer and targeting symbology. The CRITICAL thing here is to do what you should be doing all the time with strike eagle anyway: Always start with a NAV designation. Yes, its bugged. But if you follow good technique regardless of the bug, you won't have an issue.

If you are having rendering issues, it might be worth trying the low VRAM cockpit textures. It certainly helped me out a lot with performance.

It appears a lot of the issues still aren't fixed.

Pretty sure this is related to multicrew.

Probably because we don't have the ICS yet. I don't think anyone is using that switch.

try setting the radar threads to 1 and see if that improves things.

It would be theoretically possible for a CMWS to discriminate between different types of missile, and also missiles that are on intercept or not. Depends on how precise the sensors are of course, modern vs old etc. For example, the IR/UV signature of a hellfire would be unique when compared to an igla or something. Similarly, if a detection is made with a rapidly transiting line of sight, it can be said that that detection isnt for a missile thats on a collision with your aircraft. Things on collision courses tend to have 0 line of sight rate.

15/20 AOA would probably be a nose attitude of 5-10 degrees on the ground. Definitely push that nose up, get the waterline comfortably above the 10 degree mark.

Its already in the game. The actual interface I assume will come when we get a weapon that can use it.

It should be better once the distance has been fixed. The emitters should be arrange radially based on range, with emitters at approximately 60NMs showing approximately at the compass rose on the display. Currently the ranges are messed up so lots of things are very close to the centre.

Fly the AOA: Max range: 14.0 AOA <25,000ft 14.5 AOA >25,000ft Max Endurance: 18.0 AOA <25,000ft 18.5 AOA >25,000ft

Presumably because its not a 29 you are seeing on the TEWS, its a slotback. Its up to the pilot to determine whether that slotback is mounted in a mig29 or something else. Other airframes are more discrete in their radar usage, and can then be ID'd directly on the TEWS.

Are you perhaps seeing the radar channels conflicting. ie if everyone is on A1 it'll look like jamming.