cannot reproduce and missing track file HARMs, JDAMs, Mavericks, and JSOWs are broken. What are the options for standoff range A/G attack...?

[Fulgrim]

I understand this is early access, but we're actually progressing backwards:

• HARM: HAD/HTS PGM is broken, we've got PGM1 with >50NM on the longitudinal axis. Useless.
• JDAM: Splash damage isn't correctly modeled, so attacking a tank, AAA, BMP... is a coin toss in any case the bomb doesn't go directly through the vehicle's hatch.
•  Maverick: The WPN page is unreadable 98% of the times, this wouldn't be as troubling if the TGP worked but, alas, it doesn't.
• JSOW: These are a joke, they can't kill a rubber duck to save their lives.

Laser guided bombs work all right though. It's a pity they have so little range.

Please don't ask for a track, these issues are well documented throughout the forum. Please just let me know when will they be fixed so I can set a date in my calendar to come back to the game.

[skywalker22]

With these kind of comments, you rather stay away from DCS! Its just not the game for you.

Admins, please do not respond to this.

[Fulgrim]

3 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

With these kind of comments, you rather stay away from DCS! Its just not the game for you.

Admins, please do not respond to this.

[Hobel]

43 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

JDAM: Splash damage isn't correctly modeled, so attacking a tank, AAA, BMP... is a coin toss in any case the bomb doesn't go directly through the vehicle's hatch.

The GBU38 is quite accurate and even if it doesn't hit a AAA/BMP directly, the damage is usually enough for a kill.

Only tanks need a very direct hit otherwise it survives without damage as you already said

 

43 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

 Maverick: The WPN page is unreadable 98% of the times, this wouldn't be as troubling if the TGP worked but, alas, it doesn't.

can you be more specific about what the exact problem of the WPN is I do not see any problems.

Also the cooperation with TGP and Maverick works perfectly for me.

43 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

JSOW: These are a joke, they can't kill a rubber duck to save their lives.

I agree with you, but here the question is what is the bigger problem, the poor damage model of the vehicles to respond appropriately, or Jsow itself.

(fix2-4 years)

43 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

HARM: HAD/HTS PGM is broken, we've got PGM1 with >50NM on the longitudinal axis. Useless.

YOu have even forgotten a whole lot of other problem, much has been reported as they said already reported to it and it is in the works, When it comes but no one can tell them exactly.

(fix 6Months -2 years)

 

The times are a personal assumption, based on things that have taken a similar amount of time.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Hobel

[Furiz]

34 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

I understand this is early access, but we're actually progressing backwards:

• HARM: HAD/HTS PGM is broken, we've got PGM1 with >50NM on the longitudinal axis. Useless.
• JDAM: Splash damage isn't correctly modeled, so attacking a tank, AAA, BMP... is a coin toss in any case the bomb doesn't go directly through the vehicle's hatch.
•  Maverick: The WPN page is unreadable 98% of the times, this wouldn't be as troubling if the TGP worked but, alas, it doesn't.
• JSOW: These are a joke, they can't kill a rubber duck to save their lives.

Laser guided bombs work all right though. It's a pity they have so little range.

Please don't ask for a track, these issues are well documented throughout the forum. Please just let me know when will they be fixed so I can set a date in my calendar to come back to the game.

If you think there is a bug please report it on the appropriate section of the forum (everything has its own bug reports section) and read this before reporting so your bug can be identified with ease:

 

Rants like these lead nowhere but constructive criticism is very much appreciated. we all know there are issues and community here is always trying to help out ED to solve these issues as much as they can,

Be positive and respect others in life, it will do you lots of good

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

The GBU38 is quite accurate and even if it doesn't hit a AAA/BMP directly, the damage is usually enough for a kill.

Only tanks need a very direct hit otherwise it survives without damage as you already said

I've been having plenty of issues with JDAM, the don't seem to track very well and consistently fly well off target to the point where I'm more effective with dumb bombs. It seems to be a common issue if you search for JDAM related bugs, so I think there is a problem with the weapon in DCS.

 

[Hobel]

26 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I've been having plenty of issues with JDAM, the don't seem to track very well and consistently fly well off target to the point where I'm more effective with dumb bombs. It seems to be a common issue if you search for JDAM related bugs, so I think there is a problem with the weapon in DCS.

 

But first and foremost it was about the damage, wasn't it?

Which Plane  and which bomb exactly do you have problems and what do they look like?

F16/F18/A10/AV8

All are very accurate with the GBU38

In the case of the AV8 10 bombs = 10 kills

and so on

Partly I start to mark targets on 25-35nm with the TGP and then  i drop them all on TOO or Mark points.

 

do you have a link to the bug report?

Edited April 23, 2022 by Hobel

[Exorcet]

 

I don't really have a comprehensive list of issues. I had been trying them over time for while initially thinking I might have been doing something wrong, but time and time again I'd see JDAM sail miles off target. Eventually I did a bug search and found related threads, there seem to be a few issues.

[Frederf]

Standoff only has meaning when the question is answered, "stand off from what?" Strafe with 20mm cannon is standoff if the threat can only throw rocks back. Maverick is standoff against a tank but not an SA-5. Every weapon is and is not standoff depending on what it is pitted against.

HARM: This is a complicated weapon and I don't think DCS is modeling it adequately. When sent against a position destination and the radar is emitting everything goes smoothly. Other messier conditions it's not so good. The proper hands on controls could make it easier to use.

JDAM: I have found that the edge of the envelope can cause poor behavior and it is sensitive to TLE but that's not a weapon issue but a platform one. Damage-wise it's a Mk 82 so nothing specifically about the guidance is affecting that. From the heart of the envelope with good targeting the dispersion is as I expect.

Maverick: The missile itself works quite well and has for years. The DCS F-16 has had lots of usability issues that make getting the darn thing tracking and off the rail way more of a pain than it otherwise needs be. I know opinion of the image quality of the IIR video is low but I think it's close to accurate to reality in some situations.

JSOW: Another complicated weapon that's missing a few features. Notice the CTRL page is inaccessible. BLU-97 is under performing in DCS I think we all agree. I find the guidance logic to be decent for most situations and the warload is what it is.

Anyway here is a selection of each of the above weapons employed 4 weapons against 4 targets to good effect. While improvements can be made the weapons can achieve good effects at least in ideal conditions.

 

F-16 4xHARM Preplanned.trk F-16 4xJDAM BTR Preplanned.trk F-16 4xMav Preplanned.trk F-16 4xJSOW Preplanned.trk

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Frederf said:

Maverick: The missile itself works quite well and has for years. The DCS F-16 has had lots of usability issues that make getting the darn thing tracking and off the rail way more of a pain than it otherwise needs be.

True to life. Mavs can be spotty to lock on with IRL, this is why the bigger variants have force correlate mode, and why TGP handoff (which works OK in our Viper, as long as you do it right and not expect miracles) is a thing on the D. 

JDAM and JSOW work, as long as you don't skim the edge of envelope (true to life, if you're at the edge of the envelope, you never can be sure on which side you are at the moment), and don't expect too much from the BLU-97. AFAIK, after the recent-ish changes to CBUs, the submunition performance is now realistic. They're just not great against armor or otherwise hardened targets.

As for the HARM, I think it's still being worked on. It doesn't always work well IRL, as far as actually hitting the radar goes (IRL, they shoot them just to prevent the site from going active while other aircraft are crossing the SAM's WEZ) but it's probably still missing some stuff in DCS.

[Hobel]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

True to life. Mavs can be spotty to lock on with IRL, this is why the bigger variants have force correlate mode, and why TGP handoff (which works OK in our Viper, as long as you do it right and not expect miracles) is a thing on the D. 

I have heard elsewhere that the mode "Force Correlate" is supposed to be very inaccurate in real compared to what we can do with it in DCS, are there reports on what is now more true?

ah here ist the quate :

Quote

@Yurgon
For many years, people here on the forum have pointed out that Force Correlate isn't used as a long range sniper IRL, and is instead used to launch at sufficiently large, low-contrast targets where pinpoint accuracy isn't the primary concern.

Just a few weeks back some user said it doesn't work anymore in DCS and considered Force Correlate broken.

Just pointing out that the sniper-way that has been advocated by people on this forum and on Youtube is a game mechanic, and can be changed to become more realistic at any point in time. It's the fine-print that should always be attached, so that new users know what they're dealing with.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They're just not great against armor or otherwise hardened targets.

I think everyone knows that

The only problem is that if a BLU-97 does not hit a light vehicle directly, it will get 0% damage.

At least some damage  would be appropriate, that would then also disable the SD in DCS And many other examples
https://streamable.com/fxf08n

 

 

3 hours ago, Frederf said:

HARM: This is a complicated weapon and I don't think DCS is modeling it adequately. When sent against a position destination and the radar is emitting everything goes smoothly. Other messier conditions it's not so good. The proper hands on controls could make it easier to use.

but in addition is that as soon as the same radar type is somewhere in the vicinity and we are talking about 20nm and more it is pure luck where the AGM88 goes in the example here all the missiles go to the first SD-11 position.

This provides in missions and or on MP servers again and again for very annoying situations

 

AGM88 Bug.trk

Edited April 23, 2022 by Hobel

[Fulgrim]

8 hours ago, Hobel said:

can you be more specific about what the exact problem of the WPN is I do not see any problems.

 

No matter how much I play with brightness and contrast I just cannot see most targets unless I'm right above them, which is useless by then. HOC and COH just changes the crosshairs color, nothing else changes. I usually target through TGP and pray that the Mavs are locking in the target, but if I have to refine I need another pass.

8 hours ago, Hobel said:

YOu have even forgotten a whole lot of other problem, much has been reported as they said already reported to it and it is in the works, When it comes but no one can tell them exactly.

 

I would be OK with the other problems as long as the PGM was fixed. What doesn't make sense is circling a SAM 3 times and still not having the Y axis dialed-in.

--

 

I have no problem with JDAM's and JSOW's precision, but I believe the splash damage is not modeled correctly since impact from a JDAM 10 feet away results in 0% damage. The JSOW... where to being, I just threw two JSOWs onto a SAM-2 site that dropped bullseye and 0% damage again.

[Dragon1-1]

19 minutes ago, Hobel said:

The only problem is that if a BLU-97 does not hit a light vehicle directly, it will get 0% damage.

I think it works on actual light vehicles. Buk, in particular, is mounted on a chassis that is somewhat protected against shrapnel. That the radar dish is also armored is a deficiency of the DCS vehicle damage model, hopefully to be corrected when the new one comes out.

[Hobel]

21 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

No matter how much I play with brightness and contrast I just cannot see most targets unless I'm right above them, which is useless by then. HOC and COH just changes the crosshairs color, nothing else changes. I usually target through TGP and pray that the Mavs are locking in the target, but if I have to refine I need another pass.

 So, as the others noted, the picture is pretty close to reality.

It also depends on which monitor you use, with each it always looks a little different, so there could also differ the experience.

Be that as it may, why don't you use the TV Maverick, the picture is great in comparison? it can also be fired with the force correlate mode. I do not use other Mav

Edited April 23, 2022 by Hobel

[Ignition]

JSOW is by far the worst weapon of the F16. Its very unprecise plus unreliable. Always has been like this.

The DCS F16 doesn't have AGM-84 nor gbu-39 for bigger standoff.

 

[TheBigTatanka]

I had a weird Maverick issue the other day, flying DCS at night with an IR Maverick. Got a column of tanks in the TGP in white hot, but nothing at all on the weapons page. Had to go through dry, because they never appeared on the weapons page. On the second pass, i had my night vision goggles on, and with the goggles on, the tanks were clearly visible on the weapons page. Flipped the goggles off.... Tanks disappeared.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Bunny Clark]

On 4/23/2022 at 3:44 PM, Hobel said:

I have heard elsewhere that the mode "Force Correlate" is supposed to be very inaccurate in real compared to what we can do with it in DCS, are there reports on what is now more true?

Technically, every Maverick version has Force Correlate logic in it, it's just not usually user-selectable. It was originally built into Mavericks as a terminal guidance mode. Once the missile is close enough to the target that the seeker can no longer identify a contrast blob to lock onto and centroid track, the missile goes into force correlate, essentially using the seeker image to fly straight for the very last moments of flight. It functions by trying to keep identifiable shapes in the image traveling outward from the center as consistently as possible, causing the missile to fly straight. 

When the Maverick got a new seeker and optics, the engineers realized that the terminal guidance logic could be useful as a user-selectable mode to attack targets that did not present a good contrast lock. Buildings were intended as the primary target for this mode, which is why it was only implemented in the heavy warhead versions of the missile. With building sized targets it was considered acceptable that accuracy was mediocre in this mode. 

Force Correlate was never intended for use at long range, and was never intended for use on a point target where a contrast lock should be achievable. The weapons delivery manual explicitly says not to use Force Correlate on a point target like a tank.

[BIGNEWY]

On 4/23/2022 at 1:11 PM, Fulgrim said:

I understand this is early access, but we're actually progressing backwards:

• HARM: HAD/HTS PGM is broken, we've got PGM1 with >50NM on the longitudinal axis. Useless.
• JDAM: Splash damage isn't correctly modeled, so attacking a tank, AAA, BMP... is a coin toss in any case the bomb doesn't go directly through the vehicle's hatch.
•  Maverick: The WPN page is unreadable 98% of the times, this wouldn't be as troubling if the TGP worked but, alas, it doesn't.
• JSOW: These are a joke, they can't kill a rubber duck to save their lives.

Laser guided bombs work all right though. It's a pity they have so little range.

Please don't ask for a track, these issues are well documented throughout the forum. Please just let me know when will they be fixed so I can set a date in my calendar to come back to the game.

Please if you are going to make bug reports make it one issue per thread and include short track replay examples. 

thank you