Jump to content

Realistic ASP -- General Questions


Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm trying to understand how the realistic ASP works but the tutorials are set around the non-realistic ASP; the manual doesn't help much, and the forums witness that ASP has been re-worked a few times. So here's my anthology of questions:

  • Is the realistic ASP working as intended at the moment? Are there any bugs?
  • Is the pipper indeed expected to be fixed on a specific position (rather than following the target) when employing AA missiles? Is it normal that the pipper either completely disappears or expands in size when locking a target?
  • How does it work for gun (ground) and rockets (with radar)? Does the pipper represent where the the gun and rockets are going to hit (it doesn't seem to work)?
  • Is there any point in setting target size (as shown in tutorials)? You get the range from radar in AA engagement. What's the point of setting target size? Even more for ground targets...
  • Bombing procedure doesn't require the radar to be on. Neither an accurate QFE is necessary. How is it even possible to get the scale needle working without any input?
  • Is it actually possible (IRL) for the radar to lock ground targets? What is the point of locking the ground (except for the Grom which I understand it couldn't even be employed by the Mig-21 version we have in DCS)?
  • What does the Automatic/Manual switch do? Is there any point of using manual? And...
  • is there any point touching the intercept angle knob?

 

I don't like asking all these questions; they sound like "teach me because I'm too bored to read". But the approach taken in this module being centred around the non-realistic option for the ASP has me confused.

  • Like 3
Posted
9 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • Is the realistic ASP working as intended at the moment? Are there any bugs?

There are quite some, some of them related to your other questions. Most importantly the range indicators below the sight are not selected as they should.

 

9 hours ago, john4pap said:

Is the pipper indeed expected to be fixed on a specific position (rather than following the target) when employing AA missiles? Is it normal that the pipper either completely disappears or expands in size when locking a target?

Yes it will stay as is for AA missiles. There is actually not a lot of information gathered from the ASP when using missiles. Second question may also be bug related, as the automatic scaling acts weirdly. I cannot find a good reference for real operation regarding that though.

9 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • How does it work for gun (ground) and rockets (with radar)? Does the pipper represent where the the gun and rockets are going to hit (it doesn't seem to work)

The gun should be left in A2A mode for ground usage. Unguided rockets are probably the best represented mode this module currently has. The sight will use either slant range calculated by altitude and set QFE, or radar when active and in fixed beam mode. The pipper will indeed give you impact location.

10 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • Is there any point in setting target size (as shown in tutorials)? You get the range from radar in AA engagement. What's the point of setting target size? Even more for ground targets...

Not really a point at all, if it actually works, which I doubt. However I would depending on the engaged enemy also not rely on the radar. With a non-manouvering target you can use the ASP just like the sights you know from the MiG-15 for example. That is gyro mode, wing-span set to the target, manual range per smallest scale on the range indicators and no radar lock. I have never succesfully used the pipper on a manouvering target and my assumption is, that pipper size calculation is bugged for small targets. Also keep in mind the maximum deflection of 6.5° in all directions makes the ASP quite useless in a turn fight anyway.

10 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • Bombing procedure doesn't require the radar to be on. Neither an accurate QFE is necessary. How is it even possible to get the scale needle working without any input?

Unlike the simulation, there is absolutely no automatic mode for bombing in the MiG-21bis. It is purely manual per bombing tables. You would set the depression (intercept angle) manually to a value from a table and get release altitude, speed, angle, etc. from the table too. This is both for level and dive bombing.

10 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • Is it actually possible (IRL) for the radar to lock ground targets? What is the point of locking the ground (except for the Grom which I understand it couldn't even be employed by the Mig-21 version we have in DCS)?

This whole part is pure fiction.

10 hours ago, john4pap said:
  • What does the Automatic/Manual switch do? Is there any point of using manual? And...
  • is there any point touching the intercept angle knob?

See above.

 

Hope that all helps.

  • Like 10

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
1 hour ago, finger said:

ASP-21 PFD logic is still out of reality,so it is pointless to discuss about it.

 

I think there is a point to discuss about it that how it works in real one, and then why the DCS one is wrong/correct.

 

 

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted

Hmm,OK-a manual for ASP-21PFD has 230 pages and I provided it to guys of M3LLC,so maybe someday.........Big discussion about ASP was here 4-5 years ago,but if you need to know something specific ,I am at your disposal.

  • Like 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

@Jonne , thank you very much for your detailed answer! I have a much clearer picture now.

 

7 hours ago, Jonne said:

Most importantly the range indicators below the sight are not selected as they should.

Could you elaborate on this point? Out of pure interest...

 

7 hours ago, Jonne said:

Not really a point at all, if it actually works, which I doubt. However I would depending on the engaged enemy also not rely on the radar. With a non-manouvering target you can use the ASP just like the sights you know from the MiG-15 for example. That is gyro mode, wing-span set to the target, manual range per smallest scale on the range indicators and no radar lock. I have never succesfully used the pipper on a manouvering target and my assumption is, that pipper size calculation is bugged for small targets. Also keep in mind the maximum deflection of 6.5° in all directions makes the ASP quite useless in a turn fight anyway.

I do not own MIG-15 but always assumed that it is similar to WW2 planes. You set the windspan of the target and when it fits into the pipper you have the correct range to fire. But the Mig-21 has two scales and that means that target size is also pertinent to other weapons aside the gun. But in what other scenario other than using the gun would target size be of any relevance?

 

Just to make sure I got that correctly, regarding intercept angle & Manual switch, the only practical uses would be for gun and rockets without radar, and in real life for bombs. Correct?

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Thank you! I am so going to test these all out, but I guess most of them will not work. Could you also explain the columns where the distance is given as a range or fixed value, like D=600-650m for guns in a2a gyro mode? Does that mean the range (pipper) is set to that range, or shall you dial it manually?

1 hour ago, john4pap said:

Could you elaborate on this point? Out of pure interest...

 

The four range scales are not used correctly for the given mode. Most of the times its the largest upper scale. I don't know the exact allocations anymore.

 

1 hour ago, john4pap said:

Just to make sure I got that correctly, regarding intercept angle & Manual switch, the only practical uses would be for gun and rockets without radar, and in real life for bombs. Correct?

 

 

No, for guns and rockets without radar, you would still have slant range calculated automatically. This is less accurate and depends on the correct QFE set.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted (edited)

Just want to chime in to say thanks to @Jonne and @finger for the very interesting and condensed information shown in this thread!

It makes me really sad to see (once again) how far from reality the ASP simulation in DCS is :sad:

Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

Tornado3 small.jpg

Posted
13 hours ago, finger said:

Real work modes of ASP-21PFD

DSCN1626.JPG

That is clear specification that what should be usable.

 

It is really interesting how it is really just manual for bombing, but it must be that gunsight is so small, so bad low visibility, radar gimbal limited to forward etc. This so that one can't just have automatic solution in the system. And likely easier considering how many bombs you can have that anyways are trained to be used like in dive.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted

The gun sight dimension cannot be the reason for the lack of a CCIP mode. You would still use the pipper even for level bombing, but fixed to a preset angle. Why there is no automatic mode for bombing is a bit beyond me, as the technical difference to the existing unguided rocket mode should not be significant. Actually it would be interesting to know the details of the difference between the unguided rocket and bomb A2G modes.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

I got quite good at using the sight to drop bombs accurately tonight,  I don't mind that it might not have had that function IRL,  it adds a string to its bow,  it still makes a pretty bad bomber anyway!

Mods I use: KA-50 JTAC - Better Fire and Smoke - Unchain Rudder from trim KA50 - Sim FFB for G940 - Beczl Rocket Pods Updated!

Processor: Intel Q6600 @ 3.00GHz

GPU: GeForce MSI RTX 2060 6GB

RAM: Crucial 8GB DDR2

HDD: 1TBGB Crucial SSD

OS: Windows 10, 64-bit

Peripherals: Logitech G940 Hotas, TrackiR 5, Voice Activated commands , Sharkoon 5.1 headset. ,Touch Control for iPad, JoyToKey

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I wonder if M3 has any plans to address the above, I was wondering about the sight and the above isn't great to hear.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Posted
On 2/20/2021 at 2:12 AM, jib said:

I got quite good at using the sight to drop bombs accurately tonight,  I don't mind that it might not have had that function IRL,  it adds a string to its bow,  it still makes a pretty bad bomber anyway!

Considering the DCS difference to reality, the DCS doesn't simulate bombs properly.

The fragmentations and damage effects are still way too small.

 

Dropping a 100 kg bomb is still more than a single HE artillery shell, and those are devastating for large areas. 

250 kg and 500 kg becomes just massive by their destruction powers. But nothing like a artillery battery 60 second firing at full speed to example 500x100 meters area.

 

Where in DCS we are required to get direct hits or almost direct hits (5 m or so), in reality we talk about 50 meters for on target and 100 meters for acceptable effects and 150 m for a miss.

 

So in DCS we need to be almost 10-15 times more accurate with a 250 kg bomb than in reality.

 

Sure we can argue that as in reality ground ain't flat but has own roughness, that DCS would model it, but it just doesn't really fly.

We don't even have the fragmentation direction by the shell/bomb angle when exploding. Or have a delayed fuze or proximity fuze for airburst.

 

This all makes these old fighters bombs far more challenging to destroy targets, not to forget to damage them to lower their combat effectiveness.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted (edited)
On 3/5/2021 at 7:14 PM, Northstar98 said:

I wonder if M3 has any plans to address the above, I was wondering about the sight and the above isn't great to hear.

 

I'm also desperate for an official answer on this as it really bothers me... :sad:

Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

Tornado3 small.jpg

Posted
17 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

I'm also desperate for an official answer on this as it really bothers me... :sad:

 

Agreed. :sad:

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

  • 6 months later...
Posted

I'm trying to figure out how the sight is supposed to work and I stumbled upon this thread. Even with the picture uploaded by finger I am not sure of what's going on :

- I thought the Missile/Gyro switch only changed the axis of motion of the piper (Gyro = two axis, Missile = only vertical axis). However when I look at finger's picture I understand that vertical depression is never computed (not even to account for ballistic drop ?) in air to air when the switch is in the missile position, except in manual & gun mode. Is this the correct way to read the picture ?

- When distance is written as D=400-600, does it mean the pilot can choose the distance manually with the twisting grip ?

- The target span can be entered by using the red window in all mode except in the fixed 300 m mode, then it is red on the B&W scale, correct ?

 

Thank you in advance for your answers.

 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Pipper motion is based on the angle of a reflecting mirror. This mirror can move in angle relative to a carriage and rides a carriage which can rotate only in pitch. So there are two ways the mirror can do pitch (carriage motion and mirror rotation relative to the carriage) but only one way to move laterally (mirror motion relative to carriage). Gyro pitch motion is the combination of the "float" away from the center of the car and the rotation of the carriage itself. With switch in missile "CC" the mirror is mechanically locked to the carriage so float is impossible. However the carriage can still tilt the mirror with the mirror locked to the carriage by rotation of the carriage itself.

 

So yes, carriage tilt can be computed. You can fire rockets AG with mirror locked and it will provide aiming but without the addition of mirror float. Mirror float is optional for certain uses of sight. It's a better solution but harder to use. When you hold down the lock button with the gyro gunnery sight it engages electrical fields which electrically drive the mirror back to the zero position similar to the mechanical caging.

 

I assume because distance value is analog electrical signal that it's a range due to imperfect precision in the analog electronics. E.g. radar distance value when not locked of 400-600m really sounds like a value of 500m +- 100m tolerance. It's interesting that unguided rockets have just a 50m window for range.

 

Yes, the paint on the knob only refers to the D = 300m mode. When the throttle handle is twisted to the minimum position electrical contacts inside are made which switch the sight over to the 300m mode provided you're in AA-shoot-man-gun-gyro settings. So you can be attempting to gun with manual range input in the normal regime but quickly change to the 300m override distance. This does more than just change the distance. It also engages the "stiff" floating mirror control fields to "harden up" the floating mirror response which is appropriate for maneuvering combat.

  • Like 2
Posted
15 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

You're perfectly in the right here for asking these questions and being confused, the state of ASP in DCS is not acceptable. It is confusing even for people who have flown this module for years.

 

Indeed, and I'm reaching a point where I have lost all hope that this will ever be addressed by the devs... :sad:

@Hiromachi

  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

Tornado3 small.jpg

Posted (edited)

@m4ti140, perfect resume.

 

The underlying problem is that all the core programming code of the mod is the old code from the 21bis lomac mod.

If you dig into the files, you can see leftovers from old weapons from Lomac that are present in the warehouse of the ME for example, and how the 21 uses their own weapons (in the beginning, long ago, it was to be a "separate program";  and for example the 21(IA) has a call to the "shkval sensor" to allow the use of the grom  as a "laser beam rider" sort of Vihkr. Hence the "lock on radar beam", a masked laser designator with lock-on capability (the shkval from the su-25t)

 

In order to solve all the problems, the base code must be cleaned, but I don´t think it will be possible in the short or medium term.

Edited by Tarres
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

All of this problems were/are in their mantishub bug tracker, even from the first days of the module.

 

Maybe after the "F-8 Crusader", they could "remake from scratch" all this module, from the ASP to the ARK-10 (functional in the MiG-15), the RSBN (functional in the L-39), the MRP-56 marker beacon (funciotnal in all modules even in the FC3), missiles firing outside parameters (functional  as IRL in the 39), symetrical loadouts (only need to use a call in the LUA definition of the weapons and associated pylons)....

 

Oh, I forgot... RSBN beacons are part of the DCS core from KA-50 onwards. So no need to "invent it for the module". Well, yes, for a mod you need to "program these things from outside", back in that days.

 

Maybe in the long run.

 

 

 

Edited by Tarres
Posted
22 hours ago, Tarres said:

All of this problems were/are in their mantishub bug tracker, even from the first days of the module.

 

So long, but yet no single word from the devs on these core issues. I can imagine that this would require much more work than just a quick fix and I can understand that it is not feasible, but what I really can't understand is the total silence on such fundamental issues of this module for many many years!

  • Like 3

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

Tornado3 small.jpg

Posted

We must remenber that this module was created as a standalone product long ago (around 2012?) and had a very complicated development with some serious internal issues, but you are right regarding the silence about the long standing issues.

 

The module only could be fixed if redone from scratch like the C-101, that has become a gem of a module.

 

 

Posted

I talked with one of the people that was affiliated with the original dev team and he said that there was a limit on how much could be done to the module without rippin' everything out and start over. Like you mentioned: MiG-21bis was made a long long time ago, with the tools and knowledge available at the time. Back then, there was no other third party developer except Belsimtek (former ED developers) that knew how to make a module from scratch.

My guess it is still why we have a bunch of afterthoughts and band-aids like a checkbox for Realistic ASP and "Experimental Features" for the realistic RWR. Problem with the special option checkboxes is that they are affected by multiplayer. So even if you check the box you might end up with unrealistic ASP when joining a host that has not checked those boxes. So it's not a good solution.

I would also like to see a more realistic implementation. Or at least implementing the optional checkboxes fully into the module. But it has been 7 years now... Unless Magnitude 3 really want to fix it, there is little we can do about it.

  • Like 1
Posted

As it's such an old module and actually still up there as one of the most popular, I think a case could be made for a paid for refresh ala Black Shark 3 ( if that ever happens ). It seems like the only thing that might allow the devs financially to invest time into an old product that probably doesn't earn them much £££ anymore. It's my fave module by far and I feel they did finally listen and address a lot of the flight model issues that people had, I think the FM is in a decent place now. I have hope, not much though.  

  • Like 4
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...