Targeting pod slew out of allignment with spi

[andygrar]

Lets say I'm heading to steer point 1. I put the cake on steer point 1. Then slew the targeting pod to spi and it shows the diamond on the cake. This is a lie! It is actually slewing well off the spi. Every time I slew targeting pod to spi targeting pod comes out of point mode and as soon as i hit the point/area button or just tap the joyhat (which is how I move the pod around) to stop it moving, the tad then updates and shows the diamond well off the spi. This is actually where the targeting pod is slewing to. It isn't slewing to the spi at all. It just says it is on the tad until you do something with the targeting pod then the tad updates to where is has actually slewed to and shows the diamond well off the cake. This is driving me nuts. I even reinstalled the game and it is still doing it. Any ideas please?

[Rongor]

Don't slew it to the SPI, slave it with China Hat. Don't touch the slew steering at all.

[Flagrum]

What is the elevation of your steer point you are slewing the TGP to? If it is above the ground, you will be looking somewhere behind it - due to the slant angle.

 

Otherwise ... post a track please.

[Bunyap]

I know what you mean, it drives me nuts too. It means that the steerpoint is not at ground level and the pod is slewing to a point in space above the steerpoint at whatever elevation the steerpoint happens to be set to. The pod is pointing directly at the SPI but line-of-sight to the ground, and therefore what you see in the display, is out in the distance.

[Yurgon]

I put the cake on steer point 1. Then slew the targeting pod to spi and it shows the diamond on the cake. This is a lie!

 

In addition to the points already made I would also like to point out that the cake is indeed a lie.

[McBlemmen]

It's bad mission design. It means the waypoint is actually not at ground level. Lets say its at 1000ft , and you slew your TGP to it using china hat fwd long, it will look at that spit 1000ft in the air , wich makes the TGP's actual targeting marker point at something way off in the distance.

 

Long story short : make sure your waypoints are set to ground level altitude.

[carrollhead]

I think the others have it - it's slewing to a point in space above your steerpoint.

 

If this happens, you can change the elevation of the steerpoint from the CDU. Hit "WP" on the FSKs, then choose "steerpoint" from the menu. The elevation of the steerpoint is on the line saying "EL" on the left hand side. Just put a zero into the scratchpad and hit the LSK next to the "EL" (as long as it's on the right steerpoint of course :)) The steerpoint will now be on the ground.

 

I'm not infront of it at the moment, but I'm fairly sure that's correct! :)

 

Another slightly more "hacky" way of doing it is to put your TAD cursor over the steerpoint, make a markpoint and slew to that. It will be on the ground, and pretty close to the steerpoint (depending on how accurately you placed the cursor). This isn't an awfully "tidy" way of doing it, but it works without having to do too much with buttons in the cockpit, most of it is on the HOTAS.

 

The trick is to have it done before you start running in :P, maybe something worth checking on the ground before you depart.

Edited June 19, 2014 by carrollhead

[ENO]

It's bad mission design.

 

I'm sorry but this is just garbage.

 

It's not up to the mission designer to spoon feed you specific target data and locations.

 

It's not called a "target point."

[andygrar]

In addition to the points already made I would also like to point out that the cake is indeed a lie.

 

Everyone who has played portal knows this. Whatever was I thinking. :thumbup:

[Yurgon]

Everyone who has played portal knows this. Whatever was I thinking. :thumbup:

 

:D

[benargee]

As ENO said, its a waypoint not a target point. waypoints are meant to instruct you where to fly to. Waypoints were designed to have an altitude value for a reason. This is a sim, learn the plane before you start thinking the game is broken.

[PFunk1606688187]

As ENO said, its a waypoint not a target point. waypoints are meant to instruct you where to fly to. Waypoints were designed to have an altitude value for a reason. This is a sim, learn the plane before you start thinking the game is broken.

 

Thats just stupid. A waypoint is nothing but a point in 3 dimensional space logged in your computer for the purpose of mission accomplishment. Its purpose is whatever you use it for. Considering the fact that in real life its required that you drop IAMs on steerpoints as a matter of CAS protocol, this supposed distinction you're making is ridiculous.

 

One of the advantages of the SADL uplink is that you can use waypoints for this easily. Broadcast a spi and have your wingman put his cursor on it. There's a reason you have an OSB that'll create a brand new waypoint from that SPI.

 

On a pre-planned strike mission against a known target I seriously doubt real pilots don't have one of their steerpoints as the spot they're dropping ordnance on set at the target elevation. Honestly, people's misconceptions around here about how you're supposed to use the systems and the plane are puzzling sometimes.

[ENO]

And in that event when it states in the briefing that the targets are set in steer points and they are set up in the mission by the designer up in the air... Okay. Mission designer takes a hit.

 

In the specific scenario where you are deploying IAMs and you're dropping on pre briefed coordinates... Fine.

 

In other missions- you're tasked to an ip to wait for a task or to search for targets... In which case moving an elevated waypoint to the ground level is what- 3 mouse clicks on the cdu- if you needed to? Maybe a second of slewing the tad cursor and creating your own mark point?

 

A mission designer doesn't exist to spoon feed you target information- and the various systems on the aircraft exist to help a pilot help himself- provided the pilot knows how to use them... Which was his point.

 

Pfunk- you've taken his entire comment and raked it over one unique scenario that a data card loaded into the aircraft for that specific mission would have pre determined coordinates... IN REAL LIFE at that and only amongst "serious doubt."

 

Get into a mission and see an elevated waypoint? Improvise, adapt, overcome. Don't write it off as bad mission design.

Edited June 20, 2014 by ENO

[PFunk1606688187]

A mission designer doesn't exist to spoof feed you target information- and the various systems on the aircraft exist to help a pilot help himself- provided the pilot knows how to use them... Which was his point.

 

 

Pfunk- you've taken his entire comment and raked it over one unique scenario that a data card loaded into the aircraft for that specific mission would have pre determined coordinates... IN REAL LIFE at that and only amongst "serious doubt."

His point very clearly was that waypoints aren't meant to be target points. A waypoint is a term used to define a recorded point that could be anything. Even the term steerpoint doesn't exclude its use as a SPI for weapons targeting. His point was excessive in its generalization of what a waypoint is supposed to be.

 

As for your unique scenario, well even though we have no MDCs we still have systems designed to be used by people who use MDCs and have very specific ways of planning missions and executing them. Whether we use those systems in a realistic way doesn't change the fact that if you're gonna say something as foolish as "learn to use the systems" then you better actually understand how they're meant to be used and not just how the internet amateurs adapt to using them. Real pilots use waypoints in a way which doesn't seem to jive with his perspective and so what real pilots do does matter, especially if we're into "learn the systems nub". Whats more the closest thing you get to having MDCs is the moment the mission designer is plugging waypoints in so uh... he should probably try to make those waypoints as good as they can be. Real pilots never have to do CDU tricks with a preset steerpoint's elevation unless someone screwed up the MDC.

 

A pilot can help himself by using his systems with all the flexibility they offer. His point about what a waypoint is supposed to be seems to contradict this idea.

 

And as for raking him over. Well he did basically say the sim forum user equivalent to "Lrn2play nub" while saying things which really aren't true.

 

Get into a mission and see an elevated waypoint? Improvise, adapt, overcome. Don't write it off as bad mission design.

What are you adapting and overcoming if not a mission designer failing to give you the correct waypoint for the specific instance?

[ENO]

You're defending noobs. I'm defending mission designers.

[Flagrum]

Going just by the meaning of the words, for me a "waypoint" is a point on the way that I intent to fly along - it's primary function is to define a flight route. A "steerpoint" is the point I am navigating towards to, to which I am steering to. Usually a steerpoint is the next waypoint on my flight plan.

 

That all and everything can be a SPI and thus be used as coordinate for my weapon employment is a nice and quite powerfull feature of the A-10 and the lack of genuine "target points" (in just our suite of the A-10?) is therefore bearable.

 

It is up to both, pilots and mission designers to keep that in mind and to apply it depending on the circumstances. Imho. :o)

[McBlemmen]

Lol people are getting way too mad over this.

[PFunk1606688187]

You're defending noobs. I'm defending mission designers.

Its unfortunate that in order to put together this quip you had to infer something altogether incorrect about what I was saying.

 

I don't even know why you're arguing with me. All I did was disagree with someone's assessment of the maximum usefulness of things called "waypoints". I didn't even really care about the mission maker angle.

 

Going just by the meaning of the words, for me a "waypoint" is a point on the way that I intent to fly along - it's primary function is to define a flight route. A "steerpoint" is the point I am navigating towards to, to which I am steering to. Usually a steerpoint is the next waypoint on my flight plan.

 

That all and everything can be a SPI and thus be used as coordinate for my weapon employment is a nice and quite powerfull feature of the A-10 and the lack of genuine "target points" (in just our suite of the A-10?) is therefore bearable.

I believe the real world nomenclature treats Waypoint as if its the generic navigational point not necessarily applied to any particular use. So you can have Steerpoints, Anchor Points/Bullseye, Mark Points, and they're all Waypoints but all Waypoints aren't necessarily a Steerpoint or a Bullseye or a Mark Point.

 

Therefore my initial resistance to benargee's statement was surrounding this general understanding of the term and the actual thing and how its meant to be used. Basically a waypoint is both for navigation and for target location and prosecution. At the end of the day its all just MGRS/LL coords run through an elevation database. Modern FACing would look pretty different if they didn't use waypoints I think.

 

As for your idea of the specific "target point" I'm not entirely sure what that would be. Granted I haven't read the entire updated real life A-10C manual nor do I know if there would be such a thing but in general I don't know what a specific target point offers that you don't already get with either the current waypoint varieties integrated into the systems. If there is something I'm definitely curious.

[Flagrum]

Its unfortunate that in order to put together this quip you had to infer something altogether incorrect about what I was saying.

 

I don't even know why you're arguing with me. All I did was disagree with someone's assessment of the maximum usefulness of things called "waypoints". I didn't even really care about the mission maker angle.

 

 

I believe the real world nomenclature treats Waypoint as if its the generic navigational point not necessarily applied to any particular use. So you can have Steerpoints, Anchor Points/Bullseye, Mark Points, and they're all Waypoints but all Waypoints aren't necessarily a Steerpoint or a Bullseye or a Mark Point.

 

Therefore my initial resistance to benargee's statement was surrounding this general understanding of the term and the actual thing and how its meant to be used. Basically a waypoint is both for navigation and for target location and prosecution. At the end of the day its all just MGRS/LL coords run through an elevation database. Modern FACing would look pretty different if they didn't use waypoints I think.

 

As for your idea of the specific "target point" I'm not entirely sure what that would be. Granted I haven't read the entire updated real life A-10C manual nor do I know if there would be such a thing but in general I don't know what a specific target point offers that you don't already get with either the current waypoint varieties integrated into the systems. If there is something I'm definitely curious.

Well, there is no use in nitpicking about words here - it is just my understanding of things that, well, seems to differ from yours.

 

Fwiw, I would call all XYZ-points just "coordinates". And coordinates for a specific purpose would be i.e. "waypoints", "target points", etc.

 

Why I would differ between coordinates for different applications? To make things less confusing/immediately clear/reduce (mental) workload. As this thread is primarily about the A-10C where we don't have "target points" and we can't even load mark points via the DTS, we have only waypoints at our disposal. But isn't it confusing/less-than-optimal that we end up with flight plans that have targets mixed in? The pilot has to be carefull now to not accidentally overfly enemy positions - he needs to actively skip certain waypoints when following his flight plan. Suboptimal, eh?

 

From what I gathered, later versions of the A-10C (and other aircrafts) allow even more types of coordinates. For example to mark specific features of the landscape ("point of interest" or so :o) - just to aid in enhancing your situal awareness.

 

Btw, the Ka-50 has distinct target points that can be set to mark enemy positions independently from the waypoints of your flight plan.

[PFunk1606688187]

I think the danger of having a target waypoint mixed into your flight plan is overstated. The only reason this is a risk is if the pilot loses SA and is a victim of relying too much on his digital systems, ie. just doggedly following that steerpoint indicator when he should be drawing his knowledge from more places than just the HSI or TAD. Real pilots, especially mud movers, are hardly going to let this happen. There's a reason the wingman contract would have heads up/heads down measures.

 

As this thread is primarily about the A-10C where we don't have "target points" and we can't even load mark points via the DTS, we have only waypoints at our disposal.

You'll have to explain this to me.

[Flagrum]

I think the danger of having a target waypoint mixed into your flight plan is overstated. The only reason this is a risk is if the pilot loses SA and is a victim of relying too much on his digital systems, ie. just doggedly following that steerpoint indicator when he should be drawing his knowledge from more places than just the HSI or TAD. Real pilots, especially mud movers, are hardly going to let this happen. There's a reason the wingman contract would have heads up/heads down measures.

 

 

You'll have to explain this to me.

Well, "danger" is a strong word perhaps. But why not make things easier if it is possible? Making things as obvious as possible is just good design. If you have a clear symbology that does not need any interpretation at all can only benefit your situational awareness.

 

Regarding "As this thread is primarily about the A-10C where we don't have "target points" and we can't even load mark points via the DTS, we have only waypoints at our disposal." ... what I meant was just that we can only have one flight plan with waypoints pre-defined in the mission editor. The mission designer can not pre-define mark points (or any other point types, as that is all that our A-10C knows about). In the real thing, these things (and lots of other mission specific data like weapon config, terrain data, etc.) would be predefined during the mission planing and then loaded up in the aircraft via a data cartridge by the Data Transfer System (DTS).

Edited June 21, 2014 by Flagrum

[PFunk1606688187]

Well, "danger" is a strong word perhaps. But why not make things easier if it is possible? Making things as obvious as possible is just good design. If you have a clear symbology that does not need any interpretation at all can only benefit your situational awareness.

There is something to be said for simplicity though. Too many symbols, too many discrete subdivisions and you can actually make something more unwieldy in a dynamic situation where you're overloaded already. Thats at least the counter argument.

 

Again I still don't know how you practically segregate target waypoints from regular ones in a meaningful way. I do know that there is in reality a wealth of symbolic information represented in the TAD which carries over to other sensors which we do not have in DCS thanks to our lack of an MDC. That would allow you to see friendly forces, FLETs and FLOTs and the margins of kill boxes all displayed on the map, on the TGP, and possibly I imagine also selectively in the FOV of the HMD. Nevertheless I struggle to conceive of a new class of waypoint that would augment things.

 

Seriously, if someone knows of something altogether different in another modern aircraft I'm interested. I don't count the Ka-50 because that thing is a mess. Its features are really limitations when it comes to most of its avionics. The limitation on waypoints and the absurd way you have to navigate through uplink targets makes my head hurt.

 

Regarding "As this thread is primarily about the A-10C where we don't have "target points" and we can't even load mark points via the DTS, we have only waypoints at our disposal." ... what I meant was just that we can only have one flight plan with waypoints pre-defined in the mission editor. The mission designer can not pre-define mark points (or any other point types, as that is all that our A-10C knows about). In the real thing, these things (and lots of other mission specific data like weapon config, terrain data, etc.) would be predefined during the mission planing and then loaded up in the aircraft via a data cartridge by the Data Transfer System (DTS).

 

Well Mark Points would never be predefined. They're explicitly in situ. As for other points well the mission designer actually can populate the map with points, lots of them and I'm not just talking about the flight plan. You can actually place nav points on the map in the mission editor, give them names and when you type that name into the CDU scratchpad it will show up and you can then enter them into your flight plan or set them as your steer point in mission mode. You ever seen a video of someone playing FSX with something like a 737s CDU (they call it an FMS)? They enter the flight plan by typing the names of waypoints that are in a database. Mission creators can create their own waypoint database in every mission if they wanted. With the right briefing you could say know enough on the tarmac to create a second flight plan made up of only target waypoints if you were so inclined so long as they were already under database waypoints in your CDU.

 

This is of course where I can turn back to the point about mission creators. They can easily populate a mission with flexibility providing good briefings and lots of nav aides that aren't even necessarily included in the default flight plan, depending on the scenario.

 

Thinking about the multi-flight plan idea, using the CDU repeater and a quick UFC Func command you can swap flight plans pretty fast. Off the top of my head I count 3 button presses to change flight plans, 4 if the CDU repeater isn't open on the MFCD, 5 if you want to return to a different CDU page or a different MFCD page. The only way to augment this as it is in the Franken suite of our A-10C I think would be to have an option to dump new waypoints directly into new or existing flight plans. Maybe add a button to cycle bewteen flight plans as easily as we cycle between steer points. The absence of such a thing in the real aircraft however suggests to me that the real pilots don't even bother with these things.

 

Ultimately these systems are designed to be used in very carefully orchestrated ways by trained people. The real pilots' methodologies are almost definitely not the least bit like most DCS A-10C players. The way they operate makes most of our perceived issues immaterial I imagine.

[Flagrum]

Hiding information because it could lead to information overload? No. Bad Idea, imo. Better: filter relevant information and make it easy to grasp.

Ofc you don't scatter 50 "point of interest" all over the map. You do that only for 1 or 2 land features that will actually help you to orientate yourself. Use intelligent symbology to make things clear, provide a declutter option, etc., etc.

 

And for the navpoints in our mission editor: they all end up in one single flight plan. You will need to name them consistently to distinguish between true navpoints and "target points". Wouldn't it be just much more convinient if the symbology would be also easily distinguishable? Red X = enemy/target point, green square = nav point? That can hardly be "information overload", can it?

[PFunk1606688187]

Hiding information because it could lead to information overload? No. Bad Idea, imo. Better: filter relevant information and make it easy to grasp.

The difference between filtering and hiding is entirely semantic.

 

The goal is always to show as little relevant information as possible. Notice how in dogfight mode for an F-16 how much suddenly disappears from the HUD?

 

And for the navpoints in our mission editor: they all end up in one single flight plan. You will need to name them consistently to distinguish between true navpoints and "target points". Wouldn't it be just much more convinient if the symbology would be also easily distinguishable? Red X = enemy/target point, green square = nav point? That can hardly be "information overload", can it?

Red X, makes me think of a video game.

 

Thats still one more tier of information organization that the pilot is asked to manage. One more thing to consider. One more cluster of buttons he has to remember to use when that information becomes outdated and needs to be changed. If a pilot isn't using clear naming conventions for his waypoints that keeps him from getting confused in battle then how is a new system going to help him? In that situation it becomes a crutch. Its benefits can't come from an assumption of pilot incompetence.

 

This is when things start to turn into a matter of dealing with amateurs using the systems versus professionals.

[Flagrum]

The difference between filtering and hiding is entirely semantic.

 

The goal is always to show as little relevant information as possible. Notice how in dogfight mode for an F-16 how much suddenly disappears from the HUD?

 

 

Red X, makes me think of a video game.

 

Thats still one more tier of information organization that the pilot is asked to manage. One more thing to consider. One more cluster of buttons he has to remember to use when that information becomes outdated and needs to be changed. If a pilot isn't using clear naming conventions for his waypoints that keeps him from getting confused in battle then how is a new system going to help him? In that situation it becomes a crutch. Its benefits can't come from an assumption of pilot incompetence.

 

This is when things start to turn into a matter of dealing with amateurs using the systems versus professionals.

Filtering as in "by pilot choice" as opposed to "not even available to the pilot at all". And no, it must not be to goal to show as little as possible. It must be to goal to show as much as possible of the relevant information.

 

I don't know, perhaps we even have the same idea here in mind - your F-16 example idicates that to me ... and I am totally with you there.

 

But then, when you see the red video game "X" ... what about the green video game "X" that we actually have in the A-10C for marking friendlies (equipped by EPRLS)?

 

Actually, I don't get it why you seem to be so opposed to the idea of providing the pilot more relevant information that is easier to understand than text - which needs to be read and it's meaning to be interpreted and the consequences considered. If you consequentely follow your own idea, you would end in a plane without a HUD and perhaps a Head Down Display that lists flight plan, threat warnings, engine status, etc. all in a huge text display?

 

Using different visualisation methods to present information - when done right and carefully - reduces information overload. This way not only one part of the brain is forced to deal with all the information (i.e. when reading only text), but also the part that deals with "picture recocnition" for i.e. icons and hearing for audio cues (think RWR!).

 

Red icons vs. green icons are much easier to distinguish than for example "F" for friend and "E" for enemy. :o) And you don't even have to care if the green "X" is a friendly and a green square is a flight plan nav point. When you get shot at, a quick look for anything red will provide you SA in an instant.