Advice to mission designers re waypoint placement

I had to edit and rename an offficial mission, "Weapons Training" in order to fly it, because waypoints co-located with specific briefed ground targets were placed at 9500ft MSL. This is silly. It is almost impossible to spot a vehicle group with any efficiency at a waypoint when you have to hunt downwards with the TGP cursor from 9k ft to ground level; it takes forever and requires blind luck. I altered every target WPT to the minimum altitude AGL that the Mission Editor would allow.

Mission designers should always place prebriefed target waypoints at ground level, or much of the TGP's utility is squandered. Navigational WPs or WPs for AI-only flights are a different matter.

It does not fill me with pleasant anticipation for the A-10 campaign if official mission designers have placed briefed target waypoints for the player's flight at cruising altitude. For me, this is an obvious mission design no-no.

Makes sense, but I bet there is a reason/use to locate it above min. MSL?

You could just change the altitude of a waypoint via CDU too.

I concur and add that having the target waypoints elevated also reaks havoc with the cannon engagements as you get a CICU error.

This forces the pilot to solve this error by lasing and creating a markpoint beside the target that has the correct altitude you want to engage. Then the gun pipper solution is correct.

DCS A-10 is completely unique in this respect. Every other hi-fidelity attack a/c or fighter simulation with the capacity to target ground objects uses radar, which the player can deploy to search within a large, defined area on the ground. A-10 uses optics, however, which is why it is a huge mission design problem to place target waypoints at cruise altitude.

There is an associated problem here for the mission designer/player: in most sims, missions can be playtested using AI only, which enables the designer to fast-forward/play through it in map view/relax, saving a huge amount of time, but in order to do this in A-10 he needs to reset WPs for the player's flight, because without doing this, AI will fly at 30ft AGL from the IP to the target WP instead of at a realistic tactical altitude.

In "Weapons Training" the player's flight carries LGBs and JDAMs, which can be deployed from the briefed altitude but without JTAC/FAC assistance, the targets cannot be located with the TGP when there is a 9000ft vertical error between WP and TGT location. The lesson here for mission designers is: either place waypoints on the ground when they are co-located with ground targets, or use JTAC/FAC/AFAC or datalink. The alternative is a recipe for frustration.

(WarriorX, I noticed my gun pipper veered high when attempting even the amended version of this mission, as the lowest the ME would allow me to place the WPs was 98ft AGL. I did not know that gun target solutions were slaved to WP altitudes. If this is the case, and a WP cannot be placed literally on the ground, it appears to build a regrettable aiming error into gun use against briefed targets.)

While I understand your point, I don't think your proposal is the ideal or realistic solution. Waypoints created in the ME are really flight plan waypoits and as such need to be set at appropriate altitudes and you should not be messing with them unless necessary for the needs of your flight plan. What we really need is an ability to set independent waypoints in the ME separate from the flight plan, which would be stored in the mission waypoints database of the CDU.

For now, I think the best approach is to set a markpoint at the waypoint location using the TAD cursor. This is a quick and easy function and will land you at a point on the ground near the WP location. You can then switch the CDU to mark points, make the markpoint your SPI and slew to it.

Thanks EvilBivol-1, always great to hear from you.

I will follow your suggestion and set markpoints at waypoints. If I can get used to this MO, I'm sure it will prove effective.

Of course the flight plan waypoints should be set to the appropriate altitudes.

For a ground pounder, this obviously means that waypoints designating suspected or confirmed target areas will be at the altitude of the targets. Little use to fly past at FL095...

Just my €0.16.

While I understand your point, I don't think your proposal is the ideal or realistic solution. Waypoints created in the ME are really flight plan waypoits and as such need to be set at appropriate altitudes and you should not be messing with them unless necessary for the needs of your flight plan. What we really need is an ability to set independent waypoints in the ME separate from the flight plan, which would be stored in the mission waypoints database of the CDU.

 

For now, I think the best approach is to set a markpoint at the waypoint location using the TAD cursor. This is a quick and easy function and will land you at a point on the ground near the WP location. You can then switch the CDU to mark points, make the markpoint your SPI and slew to it.

I agree.

Also having waypoints right on top of targets makes it boring and way too easy. I prefer the challenge of having to locate targets.

The only missions I make with targets on waypoints are training missions.

While I understand your point, I don't think your proposal is the ideal or realistic solution. Waypoints created in the ME are really flight plan waypoits and as such need to be set at appropriate altitudes and you should not be messing with them unless necessary for the needs of your flight plan. What we really need is an ability to set independent waypoints in the ME separate from the flight plan, which would be stored in the mission waypoints database of the CDU.

 

For now, I think the best approach is to set a markpoint at the waypoint location using the TAD cursor. This is a quick and easy function and will land you at a point on the ground near the WP location. You can then switch the CDU to mark points, make the markpoint your SPI and slew to it.

Whoa! You can set mark points with the TAD?! TMS right short I assume with the TAD SOI then? Creates a markpoint at the location of the TAD cursors?!?! I had thought that this was impossible!

Of course the flight plan waypoints should be set to the appropriate altitudes.

 

For a ground pounder, this obviously means that waypoints designating suspected or confirmed target areas will be at the altitude of the targets. Little use to fly past at FL095...

 

Just my €0.16.

Here's a few ideas for you to consider:

GBU-12

GBU-31

GBU-38

;)

Your flight plan indicates your recommended course, track and altitude for the navigation. Prosecute targets according to the situation, not according to navigation guides set up in a comfy briefing room on the other end of the country.

Whoa! You can set mark points with the TAD?! TMS right short I assume with the TAD SOI then? Creates a markpoint at the location of the TAD cursors?!?! I had thought that this was impossible!

Yes...TAD as SOI..but i think its TMS right long.... its damn useful, use it often. :)

It's TMS right short, according to the table on p85 of the flight manual TMS right long has no function.

I have not extensively messed with the in-game systems, but I have messed with human factors in aviation. Hence, the following is more philosophical/theoretical in nature.

Here's a few ideas for you to consider:

 

GBU-12

GBU-31

GBU-38

Aaaah, but of course! All weapons which require the pilot to acquire the target area on the ground with the sensors, while flying in over enemy territory where he should be able to keep his head outside of the cockpit looking for threats (can you say "SAM launch"?).

Yes, you would definitely want to give the pilot the possibility to have the sensors point directly at the target area when employing those, rather than require him to be messing about with creating mark points from waypoints and going heads down to switch between flight plan points and mark points on the CDU.

You really wouldn't want the pilot to have to remember to go from mark point mode back to flight plan mode in order to find the egress route after releasing either. At that point, the focus should again be on the outside world rather than systems management.

Brilliant case for keeping the waypoint elevations at target elevation, and the assigned/planned altitudes on the kneepad! ;)

Your flight plan indicates your recommended course, track and altitude for the navigation.

Your flight plan is built from separate waypoints in the database, which may or may not be created for the purpose of being used for a flight plan. Considering the nature of the missions, these waypoints would typically be recognizable ground features. That way, you can reduce pilot workload when WX conditions allow for navigation by pilotage, you can verify the performance of the nav system and you will be able to use them even if the navigation telly in the cockpit decides to switch over to a documentary on the effects of 23 mm rounds passing through avionics bays.

Such waypoints would obviously have an elevation at ground level, as they will be used for different flight plans with different altitudes.

Prosecute targets according to the situation, not according to navigation guides set up in a comfy briefing room on the other end of the country.

Enable the pilot to do just that by giving him fingertip access to all available intel and full use of his sensor suite without looking away from a hostile outside world to mess with the systems.

As we have no automated VNAV, the gain from having flight plan elevation set on all waypoints is small. Besides, chances are you will either be flying altitude blocks and modifying your altitudes yourself as you see fit, or be given new altitudes by your controllers. In both cases, your carefully preselected elevations will be moot, and you'd probably never bother to enter the new data in the CDU. Jot it down on the kneepad, fly it, use the cognitive ability for something more useful. You are single-pilot at 300 KIAS in a warzone - boredom should not be an issue.

Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the waypoint elevations are all GPS altitude. Hence they will usually not match the actual altitudes flown, as they do not correct for pressure and temperature.

What it comes down to is that we have two different kinds of waypoints (if not more), with two radically different uses. Flight plan waypoints, which are created with the sole intent of being used in flight plans, and mission waypoints, which contain data pertinent to the mission at hand. One should contain planned altitudes/levels. The other should do the best possible job of getting the pilot's sensors onto the target area. We should choose wisely, always keeping in mind that the penultimate purpose is to reduce pilot workload.

In my mind, flight plan elevation may be a nice crutch for cross country flying but not for combat sorties. For the latter, I'd probably ditch the FP altogether and stick with mission waypoints. That way, you can even have two waypoints at the same spot if you desire - one at planned elevation and one at target elevation.

While I understand your point, I don't think your proposal is the ideal or realistic solution. Waypoints created in the ME are really flight plan waypoits and as such need to be set at appropriate altitudes and you should not be messing with them unless necessary for the needs of your flight plan. ....

I disagree, if one waypoint is your IP then it should be at the required altitude, the next waypoint your TGT (target) should be as close to the targets altitude as possible, its misrepresentative to assume your ground target is at 9000ft.

Apart from CAS you will almost certainly have an approximation or exact location of the ground targets for your mission and therefore your TGT waypoint should be at the target.

Having said this, its not too difficult to use your TAD and slew your TGP diamond over the waypoint.

Yes, you would definitely want to give the pilot the possibility to have the sensors point directly at the target area when employing those, rather than require him to be messing about with creating mark points from waypoints and going heads down to switch between flight plan points and mark points on the CDU.

The whole job of marking can be done with the HOTAS, and you don't need to touch the CDU. That's what you have the UFC for. ;)

You really wouldn't want the pilot to have to remember to go from mark point mode back to flight plan mode in order to find the egress route after releasing either. At that point, the focus should again be on the outside world rather than systems management.

Which is why you make sure to plan your egress BEFORE conducting the attack? You should know that before you even think about maybe touching the Master Arm. ;)

Your flight plan is built from separate waypoints in the database, which may or may not be created for the purpose of being used for a flight plan.

Indeed. Steerpoints = flight plan. Markpoints can be steerpoints, but they can also be targets. Select according to situation. And remember - use the UFC. ;)

The whole job of marking can be done with the HOTAS, and you don't need to touch the CDU. That's what you have the UFC for. ;)

The point is that you need to go heads down to the TAD, then to the steer point dial, then back to TGP imagery. Lots of switch flipping and cognitive ability spent - the scarcest resource in any single-pilot jet.

Which is why you make sure to plan your egress BEFORE conducting the attack? You should know that before you even think about maybe touching the Master Arm. ;)

Of course. And you should have the best support available from your systems to help you perform the planned egress safely. Without having to go into switch-flicking mode as you change from attack to egress.

When your egress is in dark and/or crud weather, among mountain peaks, no-fly zones and enemy SAM zones with unknown, you're going to be very interested in how much off course you drifted as you turned off the target. Having all those fancy systems already configured to tell you would indeed be nice.

Again, there are three key points which I would like to reiterate: Pilot workload, pilot workload and finally pilot workload. ;)

Cheers,

Fred

how is it done IRL ?

Well given that when it comes to CAS you won't know the location of your target more often than not (Pre-plan CAS/BAI missions are the exception) having a waypoint at the target location is pretty unlikely.

Flight plan waypoints should include your planned altitude, mission waypoints can be at ground level should it be required.

Mission designers can add additional mission waypoints not linked to the flight plan using the (much under used) prepare mission function should they wish.

I have no idea what is done IRL, but when I make a mission I normally follow a few rules of thumb. All my missions are for MP. Everything is in the one flight plan with nav waypoints at altitude and mission waypoints at ground level. This makes it really obvious to the pilots that when they encounter ground waypoints as they progress through the flight that they are now in the AO (Area of Operations) and have to fly tactically. I don't know if AO is the right term, but is what we use to describe the (Normally large) area where it is a hostile zone.

A little off topic, but most of our missions have one unarmed A-10 as a FAC. None of the waypoints for the A-10s point at targets. Instead the FAC has to locate and ID them and then link them over to the others and do the normal FAC work to engage. The handy thing about this is that it is heavy on team work which makes it fun, but also the attack aircraft can stay in the weeds to avoid detection and typically never get to see the target at all until just before weapons release. Also it makes them immune to Gymbol Roll as they are prosecuting an accurate mark and not a TGP SPI.

If you do not have target information, you obviously cannot include it as a waypoint. Good to have that clearly stated, in case people were wondering. ;)

I think mission designers need to think more mission planning and less flight planning. In fact, I'd like to see the flight plans omitted entirely. Half the job is planning, so to get a preplanned mission ready for execution is really playing in easy mode... as I said, ditch the FP and fly using mission WPs.

The point is that you need to go heads down to the TAD, then to the steer point dial, then back to TGP imagery. Lots of switch flipping and cognitive ability spent - the scarcest resource in any single-pilot jet.

No. UFC. Func+Mark.

And you don't do this as you attack. You do this BEFORE you attack. To do it as you attack is unecessary and a dangerous addition to the risk of saturation. This danger is easily avoided however: do it before the attack. Be prepared.

Of course. And you should have the best support available from your systems to help you perform the planned egress safely. Without having to go into switch-flicking mode as you change from attack to egress.

Why would you flick switches during egress? Do you seriously fly on hud and waypoint when turning away from an attack? If so - you are doing it wrong. Plan your attack ahead of time, set up ahead of time, and know your egress ahead of time. If any of those are in any way a question-mark at the time you reach decision range, your decision should be to abort the attack and make a new attempt.

When your egress is in dark and/or crud weather, among mountain peaks, no-fly zones and enemy SAM zones with unknown, you're going to be very interested in how much off course you drifted as you turned off the target. Having all those fancy systems already configured to tell you would indeed be nice.

Which is exactly why you plan in advance. Know as much as possible about the target area, establish an egress, and act on that. In most cases I just go something like "in at 7nm, popup, select markpoint with DMS, slave sensors to markpoint, Mav already on the right MFCD, lock, pickle, turn".

If you need instruments to tell you where you are after turning off from the attack you didn't plan it right.

Again, there are three key points which I would like to reiterate: Pilot workload, pilot workload and finally pilot workload. ;)

And you are somehow magically creating a lot of it. Fly with your head outside the cockpit, set up before the attack, if you are not set up when you reach decision range you break off. That way the only workload will be:

1 - Prosecute the attack

2 - Turn away in your decided direction.

There really shouldn't be any question marks beside that. Sure, you may end up having failed to see some hidden triple-A and have to take evasive action, but you should know the target area well enough to handle minor diverts without instrument help before you went in there. That's basic survival instinct. ;)

Waypoints.

Ultimately a Mission Designers choice.

I prefer to provide the Waypoints on the ground, some others prefer the realisitic solution of in the 'air' as part of a pre-determined, pre-programmed flightplan. No-one should be saying to anyone else this is wrong. If it was wrong, we wouldn't be able to do it in the ME. Remember folkes, we are NOT reall A-10C pilots here. 50% of the reason we do this is for fun, the other 50% for the priveledge provided by ED, for a small inkling of a view at what it must be like to be a 'real' A-10C pilot. We comply with that first 50% by reading tfm, by taking our ground discipline, flight and engagement skills seriously, by using brevity correctly, and by being able to interpret someone else's call, and act upon it.

In the air, on the ground, waypoints are just waypoints.

Not neccessarily where the enemy is!

'T'

Pilot workload? Planning determines your situational awareness, situational awareness determines your lifespan.

If you want to simply fly to a point on the map, point your gun and shoot, that's your choice, but the difference is survivability. I used to just hit wp > click waypoint > click wp number in question > type 0 > click OSB next to elevation. This sets my IP waypoint to ground level (auto computed by DTSAS). NOW what I do is create marks. I use my waypoints to steer, then my mark points to mark precision areas for reference. I like to get a look at the area while I steer in. Then I can:

*Mark AA and/or-

*Mark estimated AA envelopes

*Mark best ingress point

*Mark best egress point

*Mark terrain to mask an emergency (if not the same as egress)

I can sit back and take a look at the markpoints for a sight picture before run in. SitNess baby.

I'll usually put that in a new flightplan, but that's not necessary. There's nothing to the CDU and the more you use it the quicker it gets.

Read this post on the CDU and Situational Awareness.

.

Well, I flew the "Weapons Training" mission last night, the stock version with WPs at 9k, in order to test Bivol's advice to use the TAD as SOI and TMS right/short to overlay a markpoint on a target WP; it worked flawlessly. It does not really increase pilot workload at critical moments, as MPs for all target WPs can be created on the ground or before fence-in. And as others have said, you shouldn't need a HUD reference for egress, you should know a direction of turn, heading and altitude.

This has caused me to reconsider flight planning in the ME. On the one hand, if I use WPs strictly as flight planning references, I will need to assume that the player knows how to create MPs for targets. On the other, if I place target WPs at ground level, at will require humans to fly all such routes, as, left to its own devices, the AI will take it literally and fly NOE from IP to target. I think I will place WPs at altitude and include a note about markpoints in the brief or supporting documentation.

I believe that it's a good rule of thumb for mission design always to incorporate either JTAC/FAC/AFAC for target i/d where there are no pre-briefed targets, or, briefed targets with co-located waypoints. Missions requiring a wide-ranging optical search of a defended area without appropriate support assets, are both unrealistic and frustrating.