ARBS

[DaveRindner]

 

Hughes (contractor) promo vid for ARBS in AV-8B and A-4M. I haven't yet got AV-8B, I don't my rig can do it justice, maybe after my new one arrives. Anyhow, I found this vid that explains the USMC ARBS on Harrier II and A-4M. I also realized that a Russian version of ARBS, or something like it, is on our SU-25T, and SU-25 modules. Engagement seems similar. Locate target, lock it, lase it, hold down weapon release m fly the aircraft to release point, bomb is automatically released. Maybe not exactly the same, but similar enough.

Personally, I prefer CCIP or CCRP in A-10C.

[Fri13]

There are similar systems by Soviets, using the same calculations etc.

The Su-25T we have should have same capabilities as well, but some more special ones like automatic Shkval targeting when approaching target area. It as well should have automatic re-targeting when turning back toward the last target area like ARBS does. And it should as well have a automatic target scanning in a area.

 

I although prefer the CCRP in Su-25A/T as it is easy to find the heading where to fly unlike at the moment in Harrier.

 

The ARBS as well is far more accurate than a F-18C/D Hornet radar based targeting system, making AV-8B N/A as well more accurate than a AV-8B+ with radar or TPOD.

 

The ARBS system made Harrier capable to drop bombs as accurately as others with laser guided bombs.

[hololight]

Srry to revive a quite old thread...

Is the accuracy you're talking about actually modeled in DCS?

[kengou]

I find the arbs makes for very accurate bombing in the Harrier. It’s a pleasure to use.

[jojo]

Srry to revive a quite old thread...

Is the accuracy you're talking about actually modeled in DCS?

 

Actually, I think a while ago, people were complaining it wasn’t accurate enough.

Now some of the same people are complaining it’s too accurate :megalol:

 

I don’t know how good it is IRL, but given the lack of effectiveness of bombs in DCS, I would say that too accurate is a blessing :D

[amalahama]

What I find unrealistic it's that an old system relaying on old school analogic cameras has an extreme 4K ultra high definition in game. Same for FLIR HUD

Edited April 16, 2020 by amalahama

[Harlikwin]

Actually, I think a while ago, people were complaining it wasn’t accurate enough.

Now some of the same people are complaining it’s too accurate :megalol:

 

I don’t know how good it is IRL, but given the lack of effectiveness of bombs in DCS, I would say that too accurate is a blessing :D

 

The inaccuracy had nothing to do with the ARBS but rather the bomb modeling in DCS at that time, it affected other modules too.

 

Currently the ARBS is barely modeled IMO. Just slew to whatever magically lock it up (it needs an actual contrast lock to lock, or INS point to point to) and because of the way DCS works this won't be fixed. Then instantly you have bombing solution under all/any conditions, whereas the real ARBS needs time and enough track rates to generate a slant range solution for the MC to calculate a bomb release. To the point specific maneuvers and attack profiles were used to generate accurate ranging data. Also, that slant range is perfect, versus the real plane with some inaccuracy. Also, depending on the situation, the ARBS can be used to compensate for moving targets or wind drift, and other circumstances this is handled via the INS.

 

Some of this "perfection" in terms of accuracy is unfortunately necessary due to the terrible bomb damage modeling in DCS though. I.e. you have to have pickle barrel accuracy to get a "kill" in DCS, where IRL "close enough" with 500-2000lbs of high explosive tends be "just fine".

 

But in our Hi-fidelty model, you put the thing on the thing, and magic, boom.

 

There you go, state of the ARBS in a nutshell.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

What I find unrealistic it's that an old system relaying on old school analogic cameras has an extreme 4K ultra high definition in game. Same for FLIR HUD

 

Yeah, at least heatblur tried to make their old school flir to be "less" resolved.

 

Most of those old sensors were 320x200 resolution at best for gen2 staring arrays, some worse depending on if they used gen1 scanning arrays and choppers.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Harlikwin

[jojo]

The inaccuracy had nothing to do with the ARBS but rather the bomb modeling in DCS at that time, it affected other modules too.

 

Currently the ARBS is barely modeled IMO. Just slew to whatever magically lock it up (it needs an actual contrast lock to lock, or INS point to point to) and because of the way DCS works this won't be fixed. Then instantly you have bombing solution under all/any conditions, whereas the real ARBS needs time and enough track rates to generate a slant range solution for the MC to calculate a bomb release. To the point specific maneuvers and attack profiles were used to generate accurate ranging data. Also, that slant range is perfect, versus the real plane with some inaccuracy. Also, depending on the situation, the ARBS can be used to compensate for moving targets or wind drift, and other circumstances this is handled via the INS.

 

Some of this "perfection" in terms of accuracy is unfortunately necessary due to the terrible bomb damage modeling in DCS though. I.e. you have to have pickle barrel accuracy to get a "kill" in DCS, where IRL "close enough" with 500-2000lbs of high explosive tends be "just fine".

 

But in our Hi-fidelty model, you put the thing on the thing, and magic, boom.

 

There you go, state of the ARBS in a nutshell.

 

I’m sure you did the same, but since Lock On, with A-10A, A-10C, MiG-29 and Su-27 and stuff like that, bombs were dead on accurate in CCIP.

 

So no, the bombs didn’t became accurate because of external changes.

[Harlikwin]

I’m sure you did the same, but since Lock On, with A-10A, A-10C, MiG-29 and Su-27 and stuff like that, bombs were dead on accurate in CCIP.

 

So no, the bombs didn’t became accurate because of external changes.

 

Like when they were dropping long or short of impact points a few months back, i forget i think the 82s were short 83s were dead on and 84s were long? Yup EDs bombs have always been bug free. Thats what im talking about.

 

And im not blaming raz for the crappy ED bomb damage model.

[LastRifleRound]

The Arbs requiring contrast lock and generating angles could be simulated with no changes to core DCS by using a function wrapper that calls back to the bombing API. Use a PID-like system to narrow down the accuracy over time at different rates depending on the slant angle. This doesn't simulate how the sensor works in real life, but it DOES simulate what the user would see and the problems they would face if they didn't do things correctly. I.e., it simulates the experience of using the sensor accurately, just not the way it actually works (which, quite frankly, is most of what DCS does and it's perfectly fine).

 

Contrast lock could be implemented by simply removing the ability to use the area track API.

[Shimmergloom667]

The Arbs requiring contrast lock and generating angles could be simulated with no changes to core DCS by using a function wrapper that calls back to the bombing API. Use a PID-like system to narrow down the accuracy over time at different rates depending on the slant angle. This doesn't simulate how the sensor works in real life, but it DOES simulate what the user would see and the problems they would face if they didn't do things correctly. I.e., it simulates the experience of using the sensor accurately, just not the way it actually works (which, quite frankly, is most of what DCS does and it's perfectly fine).

 

Contrast lock could be implemented by simply removing the ability to use the area track API.

 

Haha, I like how you suggest that razbam suddenly knows how to model complex stuff :D

[Fri13]

What I find unrealistic it's that an old system relaying on old school analogic cameras has an extreme 4K ultra high definition in game. Same for FLIR HUD

 

That is something I hope ED is addressing in their FLIR overhaul. That they completely rewrite their "Picture in Picture" system that is currently in use for all the displays and mirrors all together.

 

This means IMHO that their rendering engine with virtual cameras should get new features like:

 

1. Separate mirrors, FLIR/TV and digital displays pages (radar, storage management, RWR etc) to individual graphics settings. This so that you can set high resolution mirrors with own refresh rate and rendering scale and have it separated from the TV/FLIR resolution and update as well rendering. And then have of course high resolution data pages and radar scopes with low refresh rate etc. Like there is no reason to have 60 FPS going for analog radar scope, when you can have just 24 FPS update and for a static storage management page you only update display when the screen refresh, so you can have just 1 FPS when someone press button.
    
   
2. TV/FLIR etc have a realistic definition. Like currently the FLIR in Litening etc are unrealistic, completely too high by definition while we are talking 640 x 480 definition. Yet they are now 1024x1024. And as those would be still analog feeds, they would have soft blurring. That is something ED already does but when you zoom in you just have sharper image instead blurrier. And then have the digital zooming (the optical one is Wide/Narrow) that blurs more heavily the video feed even more. This means that the rendering can be lowered as you don't need high resolution virtual camera to be blurred, but you actually take that 640x480 video feed that you just crop to smaller like 320x240 and then apply a blur on it.
    
   
3. Have an actual contrast based locking and INS tracking. Meaning you will have severe drifting even when you are "ground stabilized" and you need to keep correcting the sight position, and the contrast lock would require you to be good to find the contrast and supervise the lock as it could slip off easily. This would as well fix the magical ARBS lock on the ground when not locked to contrast/scene.
   And this would dramatically change the IR seeker missiles and bombs behavior as they get locked on "burning bushes" and shift locked targets in the flight etc. You would really value the laser guided systems as in reality.
   

 

If we would get good image processing done for these virtual cameras, like FLIR for the HUD, then we can apply own separate filters like Anti-Alias separately as if one just blurs the footage more realistic manner, there is no need for AA to eat processing power.

[Harlikwin]

The Arbs requiring contrast lock and generating angles could be simulated with no changes to core DCS by using a function wrapper that calls back to the bombing API. Use a PID-like system to narrow down the accuracy over time at different rates depending on the slant angle. This doesn't simulate how the sensor works in real life, but it DOES simulate what the user would see and the problems they would face if they didn't do things correctly. I.e., it simulates the experience of using the sensor accurately, just not the way it actually works (which, quite frankly, is most of what DCS does and it's perfectly fine).

 

Contrast lock could be implemented by simply removing the ability to use the area track API.

 

Agreed. And once ED fixes the bomb damage model, you can actually add in ranging errors for both LRF's and optical ranging systems like ARBS. Maybe Raz could simulate a kallman filter. Cutting edge 1960's tech...

[Schmidtfire]

I wonder if the ARBS is still being commonly used on the Harrier today/a few years ago? A contrast lock needs good parameters/weather... and the ARBS does not function at night... Add to that a modern TGP integration with all it's advantages.

 

Im just trying to figure out if it is "realistic" to have it turned off. I think it is a very cool system, but the simplified implementation (in DCS Harrier) ruins the immersion a bit.

[jojo]

The Arbs requiring contrast lock and generating angles could be simulated with no changes to core DCS by using a function wrapper that calls back to the bombing API. Use a PID-like system to narrow down the accuracy over time at different rates depending on the slant angle. This doesn't simulate how the sensor works in real life, but it DOES simulate what the user would see and the problems they would face if they didn't do things correctly. I.e., it simulates the experience of using the sensor accurately, just not the way it actually works (which, quite frankly, is most of what DCS does and it's perfectly fine).

 

Contrast lock could be implemented by simply removing the ability to use the area track API.

 

Send them your piece of code or show your demo, maybe they will hire you :smilewink:

[ChickenSim]

I wonder if the ARBS is still being commonly used on the Harrier today/a few years ago? A contrast lock needs good parameters/weather... and the ARBS does not function at night... Add to that a modern TGP integration with all it's advantages.

 

Im just trying to figure out if it is "realistic" to have it turned off. I think it is a very cool system, but the simplified implementation (in DCS Harrier) ruins the immersion a bit.

 

LPODs have largely the same functionality of ARBS nowadays, and with the laser it is the most accurate method of employing weapons from the AV-8B (LCIP).

 

If available, ARBS is the second best option (CCIP/AUTO) alongside a radar designation for II+'s, and before the radar altimeter (RCIP), GPS (GCIP), or barometric altimeter (BCIP).

[LastRifleRound]

Send them your piece of code or show your demo, maybe they will hire you :smilewink:

 

No kidding I offered to help for free in a separate thread. Without access to the actual dev branch this isn't something I could mod in. I need to see the C code itself. My expertise is in business software, not really gaming but I did write my company's proprietary web based accounting software. I was able to get us off of Quickbooks, amocrm and our travel invoicing system as well as no longer needing to pay our payroll company to pay our 2500+ IC's. I know what I'm doing in general. I also am a stickler for testing (you don't get to write sloppy accounting software).

 

I'm sure there are many others like me who would love to help, not just develop but communicate and community manage as well. I would be happy to sign an NDA as well.

 

I'd love to fix the Mirages INS updating methods and the HUD parralax bug first, as those should be relatively easy, have been long standing and would make a big impact.

 

To be clear Raz doesn't owe me a damn thing (except completed modules at some point), I just want to help. I'm sure others do, too.

[LastRifleRound]

LPODs have largely the same functionality of ARBS nowadays, and with the laser it is the most accurate method of employing weapons from the AV-8B (LCIP).

 

If available, ARBS is the second best option (CCIP/AUTO) alongside a radar designation for II+'s, and before the radar altimeter (RCIP), GPS (GCIP), or barometric altimeter (BCIP).

 

Do you have some of the source documents for this? PM if you can, I've heard a lot of talk about these modes but they're missing from the NATOPS

[Fri13]

If available, ARBS is the second best option (CCIP/AUTO) alongside a radar designation for II+'s, and before the radar altimeter (RCIP), GPS (GCIP), or barometric altimeter (BCIP).

 

All pilots interviews I have heard has said that ARBS was more accurate than radar targeting in AV-8B+, F/A-18C etc by a good amount.

 

The system real downsides just were day time delivery and limited FOV.

 

Something that definitely could have been fixed partially with good upgrade program like adding IR capability, two factor zoom instead fixed 7x (like example 3x and 10x) and maybe, maybe extend slightly the gimbal limit little larger.

Add as well something like GPS coordinates generation and it could be great.

As well if it just would be possible have a fantasy kind feature like TV/IR/Laser in one and same optic, the ARBS system could have very well avoided replacement with TPOD.

 

But as Harrier was required to get a A-A capability for self-protection etc, there wouldn't be change to have it as well with the radar.

 

The ARBS was great by accuracy, if you got a contrast lock and didn't need to switch to INS targeting after failure to get lock, but too many downsides that DCS doesn't simulate at all because lack of the system unreliability and contrast based targeting (and this is with ALL modules!).

 

Again, DCS is "by the book" training platform, not a system to simulate real world limitations and behaviors.

So in DCS you can train the procedures easily against ground targets without any system having their fluxing.

[Harlikwin]

No kidding I offered to help for free in a separate thread. Without access to the actual dev branch this isn't something I could mod in. I need to see the C code itself. My expertise is in business software, not really gaming but I did write my company's proprietary web based accounting software. I was able to get us off of Quickbooks, amocrm and our travel invoicing system as well as no longer needing to pay our payroll company to pay our 2500+ IC's. I know what I'm doing in general. I also am a stickler for testing (you don't get to write sloppy accounting software).

 

I'm sure there are many others like me who would love to help, not just develop but communicate and community manage as well. I would be happy to sign an NDA as well.

 

I'd love to fix the Mirages INS updating methods and the HUD parralax bug first, as those should be relatively easy, have been long standing and would make a big impact.

 

To be clear Raz doesn't owe me a damn thing (except completed modules at some point), I just want to help. I'm sure others do, too.

 

IF I recall Larry's coding background was in business software too. IDK, sounds like you're at least as well qualified. :thumbup:

[Harlikwin]

LPODs have largely the same functionality of ARBS nowadays, and with the laser it is the most accurate method of employing weapons from the AV-8B (LCIP).

 

If available, ARBS is the second best option (CCIP/AUTO) alongside a radar designation for II+'s, and before the radar altimeter (RCIP), GPS (GCIP), or barometric altimeter (BCIP).

 

So can they actually do angle rate ranging? I mean, laser ranging is gonna be more accurate but I guess it does give off a signature, so maybe there is a redundant optical ranging capability?

[Harlikwin]

All pilots interviews I have heard has said that ARBS was more accurate than radar targeting in AV-8B+, F/A-18C etc by a good amount.

 

The system real downsides just were day time delivery and limited FOV.

 

Something that definitely could have been fixed partially with good upgrade program like adding IR capability, two factor zoom instead fixed 7x (like example 3x and 10x) and maybe, maybe extend slightly the gimbal limit little larger.

Add as well something like GPS coordinates generation and it could be great.

As well if it just would be possible have a fantasy kind feature like TV/IR/Laser in one and same optic, the ARBS system could have very well avoided replacement with TPOD.

 

But as Harrier was required to get a A-A capability for self-protection etc, there wouldn't be change to have it as well with the radar.

 

The ARBS was great by accuracy, if you got a contrast lock and didn't need to switch to INS targeting after failure to get lock, but too many downsides that DCS doesn't simulate at all because lack of the system unreliability and contrast based targeting (and this is with ALL modules!).

 

Again, DCS is "by the book" training platform, not a system to simulate real world limitations and behaviors.

So in DCS you can train the procedures easily against ground targets without any system having their fluxing.

 

I think the main thing was it was much easier to find and lock targets with a magnified visual system than the sort-of crappy radar systems they had. Hence more accurate. And those accounts are from the gulf war IIRC.