accuracy of the CCIP mode- not a bug

[heroe]

Hi.

launching an MK82 in CCIP in an A-10C and an F-18 is very precise, but in the Harrier it is very difficult to even give a bunker (I always wait for the cross to be solid to ensure the best accuracy, with the F18 and the A10 I am able to put an MK through the hatch of a tank commander), someone else has problems with this?

[Nealius]

No issues here. I regularly take out tanks with a pair of Mk82s, though I have to make the impact spacing 50' or less. Any higher and they tend to hit on either side of the tank, with the tank left intact between two craters.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Practice practice practice. When I noticed myself getting complacent I go out and plink BTRs with single MK-81s. Really makes you focus and be accurate.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[al531246]

To be honest this isn't totally inaccurate. Unless you have the ARBS focusing on your target or you're attacking a target on completely flat terrain (using your radar altimeter for height) then the CCIP won't be bang on. The AV-8B NA only has passive sensors for ranging, unlike the AV-8B Plus which uses the radar.

[heroe]

No issues here. I regularly take out tanks with a pair of Mk82s, though I have to make the impact spacing 50' or less. Any higher and they tend to hit on either side of the tank, with the tank left intact between two craters.

 

that's what I mean, in other modules it's easier than in the Harrier

 

To be honest this isn't totally inaccurate. Unless you have the ARBS focusing on your target or you're attacking a target on completely flat terrain (using your radar altimeter for height) then the CCIP won't be bang on. The AV-8B NA only has passive sensors for ranging, unlike the AV-8B Plus which uses the radar.

 

that makes a lot of sense, but I've seen some videos of previous versions of the Harrier when it just came out (I acquired it recently) and it shows a lot more accurate than now, hitting just in a tank with an MK82 from medium height on repeated occasions, which is very difficult to do now, it gives me the imprecision that has lost precision with the updates.

[Nealius]

I don't find CCIP in the Harrier any more or less difficult than the Hornet.

[baltic_dragon]

I find it much easier than in A-10C.

[heroe]

Well, I guess the problem is me, I will keep practicing, while my result is still in the F-18 against a Bunker1 impact 100% of the time and in the Harrier around 40%.

[shagrat]

Part of the problem may be, that the current CCIP is basically a mock up of the real AV-8B Harrier CCIP HUD symbology and thus is missing some vital cues.

For example, we don't have the inverted cue to judge the time to the CCIP cross entering the HUD FoV. The current dashed line/cross IRL is displayed on the bottom of the HUD while the inverted cue is coming down the dashed PBIL until it reaches the bottom of the HUD and is replaced by the solid CCIP-cross walking up the HUD and solid PBIL. As long as the symbology is dashed you can transition to AUTO mode by placing the dashed cross over the target/desired point of impact, pressing bomb release, and execute an AUTO delivery. A second quick press on bomb release should revert back to CCIP.

Neither the real life CCIP cross and inverted cue, nor the advanced CCIP to AUTO transition is implemented, yet.

Still the current mock-up symbology is pretty accurate, if you fly a good angle, speed and keep wings level before pickle. With a bit of practice, correct use of either DMT or flying a solid bomb triangle you get quite accurate results...

[Harlikwin]

To be honest this isn't totally inaccurate. Unless you have the ARBS focusing on your target or you're attacking a target on completely flat terrain (using your radar altimeter for height) then the CCIP won't be bang on. The AV-8B NA only has passive sensors for ranging, unlike the AV-8B Plus which uses the radar.

 

Mostly this.

 

But like the other posters I don't have many issues getting hits with CCIP. You can also try using bombs with a bigger blast radius so you don't have to be as precise in the delivery.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Something I haven't seen mentioned here as food for thought

 

The A-10 is significantly slower than the Harrier in this flight regiment, and usually it's flying lower, both of which equals a lower rate of change while on a dive bomb profile. This lower rate of change means the symbol is moving slower across the ground which, can lead to move accuracy when diving (this is also a reason to choose different dive angle profiles).

 

The Hornet, while loaded with stores, is arguably faster. But it is most definitely most stable as the speed increases into the transonic range in the dive, which again can lead to more accuracy as the jet isn't bouncing around as much. Combined with the added symbology in the Hornet. It is easier to anticipate the correct time to drop.

 

All that said, it is very possible to be very accurate in this aircraft, it's just you need to rely on the basics as the niceties of the software designed to make it easier are not yet implemented.

 

I suspect one of the things that may bother some people about the aircraft as it is currently implemented is not being able to rely on the things that makes life easier, which is understandably annoying. But I like focusing on the basics, so it doesn't really bother me that much. The way I see it, if you can be accurate/deadly without the aids, you'll be that much better with them. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

[Harlikwin]

 

I suspect one of the things that may bother some people about the aircraft as it is currently implemented is not being able to rely on the things that makes life easier, which is understandably annoying. But I like focusing on the basics, so it doesn't really bother me that much. The way I see it, if you can be accurate/deadly without the aids, you'll be that much better with them. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

 

Yeah, I really want the reflected bomb cue thing, as I'm just typically on the target, waiting waiting and boom, there's the cross, gotta click fast.

 

I think your point on the different aircraft speeds is spot on though. More time to do things in the Hog, I'm usually much faster in the harrier when in a dive.

[Vfa-81 Fix]

If you fly a solid pattern you´ll know when your cross goes solid.

Then again, those who expect pinpoint accuracy with Mk-8x series of bombs may want to rethink their stance torwards realism, regardless of the delivery mode choosen.

[Harlikwin]

So, I don't particularly want to derail this thread, but I'm wondering if someone else can double check a CCIP thing I've been wondering about.

 

Setup the plane on a map with no waypoints and load up some mk82's. Setup a target at some good level above sea level, 3-5k feet. Make sure when you select the mk82's that the target alt in the MFD is zero. Where do the bombs land? Per my reckoning it should be decently short since the bombs are hitting several thousand feet higher than the computer is projecting, but when I do it its pretty close or long on the target. Then again I'm releasing pretty close to the target.

[Vfa-81 Fix]

Setup the plane on a map with no waypoints and load up some mk82's. Setup a target at some good level above sea level, 3-5k feet. Make sure when you select the mk82's that the target alt in the MFD is zero. Where do the bombs land? Per my reckoning it should be decently short since the bombs are hitting several thousand feet higher than the computer is projecting, but when I do it its pretty close or long on the target. Then again I'm releasing pretty close to the target.

 

Why do you think it should land short?

The target elevation displayed in the weapons window is not used for impact calculation. It either reflects the selected waypoints altitude or, in your example, the altitude of the target waypoint that you generated when dropping your first bomb(s).

 

I made a few runs on Tonopah AB and the bombs where all on target.

[Harlikwin]

I hope this crayon drawing makes sense on the bombs falling short. Basically, if the bomb computer thinks the target is at sea level, and the target is at 3000ft it should land short by some amount because the continuously computed impact point should be for a target at 0', not 3000'. Essentially if you don't have a target locked up with the ARBS or a waypoint, and you are using baromertic altitude for CCIP, I would assume the bomb computer would "think" the target is at sea level and display the bomb cross for a target at 0ft not 3000'. And if thats the case the bombs "should" land short since the ground is 3000' higher than the computer thinks it is. If you are using the radar altimeter I "assume" it should use that, and assuming the ground is level that should work fine, if its not you should also miss somewhat depending on the difference between the actual target alt and your radar alt.

 

So if the target elevation shown in the weapons window isn't used by the bomb computer where does it get target altitude if nothing is selected? You need to have a target altitude of some sort to compute an impact point. Where does that data come from if you aren't using the ARBS or TPOD? The N/A harrier has no other way of computing a slant range as far as I know, the 8+ and the F18 use the radar for the slant range calculation, but we aren't flying the 8+ or the F18.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Vfa-81 Fix]

So if the target elevation shown in the weapons window isn't used by the bomb computer where does it get target altitude if nothing is selected? You need to have a target altitude of some sort to compute an impact point. Where does that data come from if you aren't using the ARBS or TPOD? The N/A harrier has no other way of computing a slant range as far as I know, the 8+ and the F18 use the radar for the slant range calculation, but we aren't flying the 8+ or the F18.

 

Where does the A-10 gets target altitude from? It has not neither ARBS nor a Radar.

The very same as the Harrier or the Hornet, calculated by the MC by means of position, altitude, speed and stored maps.

 

Again it seems you are looking for flaws where there are none, or rather no more or less than in every other module.

[Harlikwin]

I guess I should clarify, I'm just trying to understand how it works in the real plane and then compare that to what I'm seeing in the sim. And just so everyone is clear I'm not gonna go on some crusade against RZ over it.

 

As for the DTED data, yes the A10 has that, possibly/probably the F18 too. And maybe the harrier does too but at least going through the TAC manual I couldn't find any reference to it getting the solution that way. But there was a chapter devoted to why and when you should use the radar alt data or the gps alt data or the baro alt data and the perils of each and the target alt being based on flat-line model in the radar case at least. And I'm also reasonably certain that 1987 era electronics didn't have the storage capacity to store a maps worth of DTED data, then again I'm not sure what specific version of the harrier is actually modeled. Its also not rocket science for the pilot to enter an approximate target altitude based on a topo map.

 

From a programming perspective, the game engine has perfect XYZ data on the plane and target, but again it wouldn't be rocket science to use XYZ' data of where the plane "thinks" it is based on INS and the targets are based on other sensor data. And I think the Heatblur Viggen module might just do that.

[Ramsay]

... I'm not sure what specific version of the harrier is actually modelled.

AFAIK the software modelled (60 waypoints, 10 markpoints, 5 targetpoints, True button, etc.) is H4.0, so places the DCS AV-8B as a 2006 or later version.

 

Obviously not all of H4.0's features have been implemented.

 

Note: AFAIK C1 = 1999, H5.0 and H6.0=2008

[Harlikwin]

Hi Ramsay,

 

So two questions:

 

1. How do you know that? Or rather how did you deduce that.

 

2. Do you know if this models MC uses DTED data to calculate CCIP solutions (the question at hand)

[shagrat]

And I'm also reasonably certain that 1987 era electronics didn't have the storage capacity to store a maps worth of DTED data, then again I'm not sure what specific version of the harrier is actually modeled.

 

I am about 100% sure the 1980 military system's storage capacity, like most classified advancements in technology could easily handle far, far more data than what was available to the public.

The version modelled should be the AV-8B Harrier II Night Attack version.

Basically that should be from no earlier than 1991/92. Given the armament (LGBs) and TGP my guess is on early 2000s...

[some1]

Where does the A-10 gets target altitude from? It has not neither ARBS nor a Radar.

The very same as the Harrier or the Hornet, calculated by the MC by means of position, altitude, speed and stored maps.

 

Again it seems you are looking for flaws where there are none, or rather no more or less than in every other module.

 

Nope. Different systems and AV-8B N/A is rather unique in this regard.

 

- A-10C has a digital elevation map for the whole area of operation. It's called DTSAS and it's pretty well described in DCS A-10 manual. Actually, you have DTSAS status displayed right in front on your HUD all the time.

- Aircraft equipped with radar usually can use radar ranging to solve bombing triangle and calculate altitude. This includes even MiG-21 and also AV-8B+.

- AV-8B N/A has neither radar nor terrain elevation database, at least according to TAC manuals available on the net. It also does not have a laser rangefinder. The only way to get accurate bombing solution is through ARBS lock on target (the system then performs computations based on ARBS angular movement) or by entering target elevation manually.

 

A sort of backup is to use altimeter data and triangulation, but it won't produce accurate result if target is on a slope.

 

So if modelled correctly, the AV-8B N/A should not be as straightforward bombing platform as other DCS aircraft, requiring some additional pilot input. However, this does not seem to be simulated by Razbam right now.

[Ramsay]

- AV-8B N/A has neither radar nor terrain elevation database, at least according to TAC manuals available on the net.

The AV-8B with the 'moving map' (TAMMAC) has DTED (Digital Terrain Elevation Data).

 

23.9.39 CHRT/DTED/CIB Pushbutton (Radar and Night Attack Aircraft with TAMMAC Installed)

Selection of this option will scroll through the available map imagery formats. The pushbutton legend will scroll from CHRT (chart) to DTED to CIB and back to CHRT.

 

However, AFAIK this :

 

The only way to get accurate bombing solution is through ARBS lock on target (the system then performs computations based on ARBS angular movement) or by entering target elevation manually.

 

... looks to be correct, at least for CCIP ?

 

Where

 

• GPS altitude - Radar altitude = Target Elevation.

 

or without GPS

 

• Barometric altitude - Radar altitude = Target Elevation.

 

is used with the HUD/aircraft attitude, Line of Sight angle to calculate a bomb solution.

[some1]

The AV-8B with the 'moving map' (TAMMAC) has DTED (Digital Terrain Elevation Data).

 

 

Ok, the TAC manuals are older than this modification, so they don't cover the possibility of using DTED at all. I hope Razbam has something newer.

 

Anyway, it doesn't look like it's implemented in DCS, can't change the map from CHRT to anything else including DTED.

[Harlikwin]

Ok, the TAC manuals are older than this modification, so they don't cover the possibility of using DTED at all. I hope Razbam has something newer.

 

Anyway, it doesn't look like it's implemented in DCS, can't change the map from CHRT to anything else including DTED.

 

Well the TAC manual is dated 2002. And the natops where the moving map is referenced is 2006.