w.i.p. F-16 Pre-setting JDAM Accuracy (Steerpoint) in free server after april Patch

[Swift.]

26 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

You are trying to overlap two systems that are mech’d differently. I am not talking about the weapon self correcting after launch…I’m talking about your previous statement of absolute vs relative targeting not existing. It does. Example. BOC via CC mem vs sensor (radar in this case) targets. Nav coord transfer doesnt even exist in the SE in DCS, you are using sensor xfer in that case, so comparing that with how the -16 releases is apples and oranges here. 
 

But this is all getting well OT to the original report…that’s in a -16 forum so…

So you piqued my curiosity and I ran some tests quickly. It looks like I was wrong. RB have added an absolute vs relative logic, but worked around the issue of there not being a GPS acquisition modelling on the weapon by implementing it at launch.

If you are designating a nav point, ie XFER SEQPT, it will behave as if in Absolute, ie it will fly to the actual coordinates of the point regardless of the drift state of the MN/INS.

If you are designating with a sensor, ie XFER RDR, it will behave as if in Relative, ie it will fly to the location that the sensor was pointing relative to the jet. Even if the MN/INS is drifted.

These behaviors are as expected from the documentation.

Good job Razbam for finding a neat little workaround to that, because the end effect is the same. The oddity that this way causes is that its effectively making the GPS weapon acquisition happen at 0 seconds TOF.

 

As you say though, F-16 forum...

Hopefully this can help ED model a full or temporary solution for viper, perhaps using a similar workaround to what RB used in SE.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Swift.

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Swift. said:

So you piqued my curiosity and I ran some tests quickly. It looks like I was wrong. RB have added an absolute vs relative logic, but worked around the issue of there not being a GPS acquisition modelling on the weapon by implementing it at launch.

If you are designating a nav point, ie XFER SEQPT, it will behave as if in Absolute, ie it will fly to the actual coordinates of the point regardless of the drift state of the MN/INS.

If you are designating with a sensor, ie XFER RDR, it will behave as if in Relative, ie it will fly to the location that the sensor was pointing relative to the jet. Even if the MN/INS is drifted.

These behaviors are as expected from the documentation.

Good job Razbam for finding a neat little workaround to that, because the end effect is the same. The oddity that this way causes is that its effectively making the GPS weapon acquisition happen at 0 seconds TOF.

 

As you say though, F-16 forum...

Hopefully this can help ED model a full or temporary solution for viper, perhaps using a similar workaround to what RB used in SE.

 

Indeed. And certainly, hopefully that is a overall ‘weapon’ improvement as it will aid everyone across the board with ‘realistic’ weapon function if its a global enhancement to JDAMS and not just something that is relative to the -16. BOC  can certainly work out badly in terms of meeting the proper release point with enough drift present  

Edit:  I dunno if RB has any control over the weapon targeting itself. With enough error, you might find that the bomb can still miss if you are relasing outside of the limits for the bomb to make it to the right target  Your biggest problems are likely going to come from high drift and using Seq or BOC and the jet being too far away from the actual target   The radar is sending the bomb to where its looking because its using bad target coordinates essentially, its just the right az/el away from the jet.  That’s rel in a nutshell.  If the jet drifted and the radar didn’t, it would be giving bad coordinates and the bomb would go to the wrong place.  The secret recipe is making the radar and the jet both drift, not one but not the other  

edit # 2:  i think I get what you are saying now  I think that comes down to one of two things  Either RB did give the bomb correct coordinates to fly to the correct point on the map orrrr the bomb has been capable of relative targeting for a while now.  I dunno which is true.  That answer would have to come from a dev  

and if XFER SEQ is in there already, then I was wrong, cuz I didn’t think it was in there yet. 

Edited May 10, 2024 by Rainmaker

[Shibiswag]

This has been happening to me as well, even with the proper GPS coordinates, It doesn't matter what Alt I drop the bombs at they keep missing the target, which can range anywhere from Angels 15-30.
Yet I have no issue in the Hornet or Strike Eagle, all JDAMS land right on target.
So this has to be a bug within the 16.
Just like after the patch the Mavrick to the TGP Boresight no longer is accurate.
To me the 16 has become useless as to what I like to use it for, I've actually been using the hornet more which to be fair, isn't exactly a personal fav, love the strike eagle but takes too long to pre-program the bombs, by the time I'm done the target airfield like on the 4ya server has been taken out, making it all for nothing.

[Swift.]

4 minutes ago, Shibiswag said:

This has been happening to me as well, even with the proper GPS coordinates, It doesn't matter what Alt I drop the bombs at they keep missing the target, which can range anywhere from Angels 15-30.
Yet I have no issue in the Hornet or Strike Eagle, all JDAMS land right on target.
So this has to be a bug within the 16.
Just like after the patch the Mavrick to the TGP Boresight no longer is accurate.
To me the 16 has become useless as to what I like to use it for, I've actually been using the hornet more which to be fair, isn't exactly a personal fav, love the strike eagle but takes too long to pre-program the bombs, by the time I'm done the target airfield like on the 4ya server has been taken out, making it all for nothing.

Are you targeting your JDAMs with the TGP or just dropping them blindly on a steerpoint?

[Shibiswag]

4 hours ago, Swift. said:

Are you targeting your JDAMs with the TGP or just dropping them blindly on a steerpoint?

Well, in response to your statement.
#1. Why would I use a TGP for JDAMS? not saying you can't if you want to do TOO however that literally defeats the purpose of using them for high alt standoff weapons, If I'm going to use a TGP I would just take LGB's.
#2. No, I create steer points on top of targets, same way I do in the 18 and in the Strike Eagle. 
#3 This happens both online and offline from hot or cold start.
#4 I made a mission testing JDAMS with all 3 aircraft, as stated the 18 and 15E work perfectly when dropping JDAMS on pre-planned target steer points created from the UFC, however when I do it with the Viper the bombs always miss. 
#5 Again as stated doesn't matter what Alt I drop the bombs at from the 16 they all miss by my estimate by at least 10-20+ ft.
#6 They worked just fine for the 16 pre patch. So it's not human error that you are suggesting.
I've been flying the 16 since the OG Falcon 4.0 all the way through Falcon BMS and since it came out on DCS, so pretty sure I know what I'm doing.
So maybe not make a rude statement by asking if they I'm "dropping blindly" You could of have asked how familiar I was with using JDAMS.
 

Edited May 10, 2024 by Shibiswag

[maxTRX]

17 minutes ago, Shibiswag said:

...#1. Why would I use a TGP for JDAMS? not saying you can't if you want to do TOO however that literally defeats the purpose of using them for high alt standoff weapons, If I'm going to use a TGP I would just take LGB's...

 

 

Certain things can be moved.  It's a bit reassuring to see the bomb looking at the right spot.

Edited May 10, 2024 by oldcrusty

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, Shibiswag said:

#1. Why would I use a TGP for JDAMS? not saying you can't if you want to do TOO however that literally defeats the purpose of using them for high alt standoff weapons, If I'm going to use a TGP I would just take LGB's.

If you lase for 3 sec prior to release aircraft will get better ranging info and JDAMs will be more precise.

1 hour ago, Shibiswag said:

I've been flying the 16 since the OG Falcon 4.0 all the way through Falcon BMS and since it came out on DCS, so pretty sure I know what I'm doing.

But you didn't know about 3 sec lase?

 

1 hour ago, Shibiswag said:

So maybe not make a rude statement by asking if they I'm "dropping blindly" You could of have asked how familiar I was with using JDAMS.

He was not rude, he asked that cause you didn't state how are you using them.

[Swift.]

7 hours ago, Shibiswag said:

Well, in response to your statement.
#1. Why would I use a TGP for JDAMS? not saying you can't if you want to do TOO however that literally defeats the purpose of using them for high alt standoff weapons, If I'm going to use a TGP I would just take LGB's.
#2. No, I create steer points on top of targets, same way I do in the 18 and in the Strike Eagle. 
#3 This happens both online and offline from hot or cold start.
#4 I made a mission testing JDAMS with all 3 aircraft, as stated the 18 and 15E work perfectly when dropping JDAMS on pre-planned target steer points created from the UFC, however when I do it with the Viper the bombs always miss. 
#5 Again as stated doesn't matter what Alt I drop the bombs at from the 16 they all miss by my estimate by at least 10-20+ ft.
#6 They worked just fine for the 16 pre patch. So it's not human error that you are suggesting.
I've been flying the 16 since the OG Falcon 4.0 all the way through Falcon BMS and since it came out on DCS, so pretty sure I know what I'm doing.
So maybe not make a rude statement by asking if they I'm "dropping blindly" You could of have asked how familiar I was with using JDAMS.
 

 

So as has been discussed ad nauseam here, there is a mode of the JDAM that is absent from the current modelling in DCS Viper called 'Absolute'.

The purpose of this mode has not previously been apparent for hornet or viper as there has been no real benefit to it. However as you will have seen, recently the vipers INS/GPS simulation was upgraded dramatically. This now means that there is variation and tolerance within the INS system. You may observe this by slaving a TGP to the waypoint and watching how it wanders around.

It is this very variation that is causing this increased inaccuracy that you are seeing. The JDAM is flying to where the jet thinks the coordinates of the target are, so the weapon will have as much tolerance in its aiming as the jet does.

This is where Absolute mode would come into play, it would rely on the weapons own GPS to correct the targets location, correcting for the variation inherited from the jet.

As we don't currently have Absolute mode, we are forced to resort to using an onboard sensor to refine the location of the target beyond what is possible with the INS/GPS.

To summarise:

FA-18: No absolute vs relative + no INS variation = good against coords or sensor designation

F-15E: Good absolute vs relative + good INS variation= good against coords or sensor designation

F-16: No absolute vs relative + good INS variation = good against sensor designation but poor against coordinates

[Shibiswag]

2 hours ago, Swift. said:

So as has been discussed ad nauseam here, there is a mode of the JDAM that is absent from the current modelling in DCS Viper called 'Absolute'.

The purpose of this mode has not previously been apparent for hornet or viper as there has been no real benefit to it. However as you will have seen, recently the vipers INS/GPS simulation was upgraded dramatically. This now means that there is variation and tolerance within the INS system. You may observe this by slaving a TGP to the waypoint and watching how it wanders around.

It is this very variation that is causing this increased inaccuracy that you are seeing. The JDAM is flying to where the jet thinks the coordinates of the target are, so the weapon will have as much tolerance in its aiming as the jet does.

This is where Absolute mode would come into play, it would rely on the weapons own GPS to correct the targets location, correcting for the variation inherited from the jet.

As we don't currently have Absolute mode, we are forced to resort to using an onboard sensor to refine the location of the target beyond what is possible with the INS/GPS.

To summarise:

FA-18: No absolute vs relative + no INS variation = good against coords or sensor designation

F-15E: Good absolute vs relative + good INS variation= good against coords or sensor designation

F-16: No absolute vs relative + good INS variation = good against sensor designation but poor against coordinates

Yeah, so basically aside from TOO in the 16 with a TGP, they made JDAMS/JSOWS useless in the viper for long range stand off capabilities.

8 hours ago, Furiz said:

If you lase for 3 sec prior to release aircraft will get better ranging info and JDAMs will be more precise.

But you didn't know about 3 sec lase?

 

He was not rude, he asked that cause you didn't state how are you using them.

Yes, I do know what he was talking about. and yes, I do know how to use them.
I was not talking about using them in correlation with a TGP. I'm well aware of lasing the target to get accurate coordinates as this is done in the A10C when creating mark points.
I'm talking about creating Steer points and using those as pre-planned target points which negates the use of a TGP since it would be at high altitudes and in mostly cloudy weather to where the TGP is ineffective unless I want to be under Angels 8-10 which negates the point of using it as a standoff munition at high altitudes.
It's fine, I'll just fly the 18 until it's fixed.
Same with the mavrick boresighting bug in the 16.
Which Bignewy stated they were working on internally but no ETA as to when it will be fixed.
Just wanted to state I was having the same problems.
 

[Shibiswag]

10 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

Certain things can be moved.  It's a bit reassuring to see the bomb looking at the right spot.

 

Like i said, if that's the case then you might as well use a LGB, because that's not what the JDAM is for. Yes, you can use a tgp and use it for TOO and make mark points on the targets you want to hit.
However, what I'm talking about is pre-planned stpt stationary targets to hit them at a good standoff range at a high alt. Buildings, Radars, etc... non-moving targets or "Things can be moved"
When a server I play on has bad weather which makes the TGP completely useless unless you go in under the storm at very low alt which you wouldn't be able to see anything until you were almost right on top of it which negates the point of even carrying it to begin with.
The entire purpose of the JDAM is to stay at a standoff range at high alt especially in bad weather to drop precession guided ordinance. 
So, no point in using it if it can't perform its intended purpose, until they fix the INS/NAV in the 16 which they stated they are working on as well as the boresight bug with the Mavrick.
I'll just fly the 18.
Also, it seems this also affects the JSOW as well, so again, the way they updated the INS/NAV the plane and the weapons are not in sync with each other.

[SeeYouAtTheMerge]

11 hours ago, Furiz said:

If you lase for 3 sec prior to release aircraft will get better ranging info and JDAMs will be more precise

This isnt working correctly, the 3 seconds lase shouldn't matter for a BOC attack. The point of the lase before the drop is to provide valid ranging to the TGP to generate good coordinates. With BOC the bomb is loading the coordinates directly from the STPT so you don't need a laser to make the coords more accurate because you have perfect coords. 

[maxTRX]

8 hours ago, Shibiswag said:

Like i said, if that's the case then you might as well use a LGB, because that's not what the JDAM is for. Yes, you can use a tgp and use it for TOO and make mark points on the targets you want to hit.
However, what I'm talking about is pre-planned stpt stationary targets to hit them at a good standoff range at a high alt. Buildings, Radars, etc... non-moving targets or "Things can be moved"
When a server I play on has bad weather which makes the TGP completely useless unless you go in under the storm at very low alt which you wouldn't be able to see anything until you were almost right on top of it which negates the point of even carrying it to begin with.
The entire purpose of the JDAM is to stay at a standoff range at high alt especially in bad weather to drop precession guided ordinance. 
So, no point in using it if it can't perform its intended purpose, until they fix the INS/NAV in the 16 which they stated they are working on as well as the boresight bug with the Mavrick.
I'll just fly the 18.
Also, it seems this also affects the JSOW as well, so again, the way they updated the INS/NAV the plane and the weapons are not in sync with each other.

Yes, I know what you were talking about.  It was just a quick shot from the hip on one of your bullet points.

[Shibiswag]

6 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

Yes, I know what you were talking about.  It was just a quick shot from the hip on one of your bullet points.

okay no worries.
Besides, i didn't think it was relevant to even mention using the TGP seeing as the how the topic is about pre-planned stpt.

14 hours ago, SeeYouAtTheMerge said:

This isnt working correctly, the 3 seconds lase shouldn't matter for a BOC attack. The point of the lase before the drop is to provide valid ranging to the TGP to generate good coordinates. With BOC the bomb is loading the coordinates directly from the STPT so you don't need a laser to make the coords more accurate because you have perfect coords. 

I honestly don't know why people keep bringing up the TGP or lasing for accurate coordinates when my reply stating that it was happening to me as well was in response to the OP Topic post that it's about "Pre-planned Steerpoint" targeting, which has nothing at all to do with the TGP or lasing.
The 3 second lase would only apply if you are using JDAMS as targets of opportunity, where yeah you would use the TGP, lase the target for 3 seconds, generate a mark point for multiple targets so you can drop the bombs in quick intervals to hit multiple targets in one pass.

[Heesh]

On 5/11/2024 at 1:35 AM, Swift. said:

So as has been discussed ad nauseam here, there is a mode of the JDAM that is absent from the current modelling in DCS Viper called 'Absolute'.

The purpose of this mode has not previously been apparent for hornet or viper as there has been no real benefit to it. However as you will have seen, recently the vipers INS/GPS simulation was upgraded dramatically. This now means that there is variation and tolerance within the INS system. You may observe this by slaving a TGP to the waypoint and watching how it wanders around.

It is this very variation that is causing this increased inaccuracy that you are seeing. The JDAM is flying to where the jet thinks the coordinates of the target are, so the weapon will have as much tolerance in its aiming as the jet does.

This is where Absolute mode would come into play, it would rely on the weapons own GPS to correct the targets location, correcting for the variation inherited from the jet.

As we don't currently have Absolute mode, we are forced to resort to using an onboard sensor to refine the location of the target beyond what is possible with the INS/GPS.

To summarise:

FA-18: No absolute vs relative + no INS variation = good against coords or sensor designation

F-15E: Good absolute vs relative + good INS variation= good against coords or sensor designation

F-16: No absolute vs relative + good INS variation = good against sensor designation but poor against coordinates

I do get your points but why is there so much INS drift with GPS on the plane then? I mean I get that we don't have absolute mode but why should a bomb with GPS have superior self localization abilites (which absolute mode essentially is) over a plane with full fledged INS + GPS combined?

At the moment one can't use JDAMs stand off capabilities with pre defined coords because of the INS drift of the F16. But again why would the JDAM do the localization better than the plane itself?

This is no braggin I just really don't get the logic or something because even with no absolute mode the JDAMS should be able to hit just fine imo but maybe I'm wrong.

*edit: just for clarification, I'm talking about missions in the 2000s + where GPS is available

Edited May 28, 2024 by Heesh

[Swift.]

4 hours ago, Heesh said:

I do get your points but why is there so much INS drift with GPS on the plane then? I mean I get that we don't have absolute mode but why should a bomb with GPS have superior self localization abilites (which absolute mode essentially is) over a plane with full fledged INS + GPS combined?

At the moment one can't use JDAMs stand off capabilities with pre defined coords because of the INS drift of the F16. But again why would the JDAM do the localization better than the plane itself?

This is no braggin I just really don't get the logic or something because even with no absolute mode the JDAMS should be able to hit just fine imo but maybe I'm wrong.

*edit: just for clarification, I'm talking about missions in the 2000s + where GPS is available

 

Remember that the viper we have doesn't have EGI. So its not a 'full fledged INS + GPS combined'. I'm not quite sure the specifics, but it could be something like our viper takes a GPS fix every 60 seconds or something, and that would still be 'INS + GPS', but would clearly allow for 60 seconds of drift between each fix.

Additionally, GPS isn't perfect. There is always an error, the shape of that tolerance zone will change based on where the satellites are in the sky, but it always exists. 

[Nedum]

How I understand all the statements:

1. The Viper has a new (big) INS drift and can't currently correct it by itself (no matter of the time period of the mission (GPS is working)) or (seems to be not 100 % clear) can do a self fix for the INS drift every 60 seconds.

2. Nobody knows how big (in feet) in how many seconds the INS drift of the Viper is.

3. Preplanned GPS attacks don't work anymore with the same precision as before, with only using STPT coordinates. So preplanned doesn't make sense anymore, if you want to stay high and try to use the clouds as cover.

4. A JDAM can fix the INS drift by itself 30 seconds after the release (ED seems to working on it).

5. No other Jet has an issue with preplanned bombing runs like the Viper.

6. The JDAM module can fix the INS drift a way better than the GPS module of the Viper (Viper 60 seconds for an INS drift fix, JDAM 30 seconds (future)).

7. Nobody can tell us, how it should work in which way, if something special happens and why the old "correct as is" is now "was wrong all the time".

Possible Solution: The Crew Chief nails a future JDAM GPS module on the Viper. Now the Viper can fix the INS drift by itself every 30 seconds. Problem fixed and a huge upgrade for the Viper.

 

Fun aside: I know the Viper is still in development, but I didn't buy the Viper just to get every patch a new (then) broken "function" which was working before like a charm. And this year it looks like we have that kind of "new stuff" with every new patch.

The worst part is, there is absolute no documentation in which we can see how we have to use the new stuff (Fuzzes anywhere?). So we try to figure out, why a system is now "broken" (for us), investing hours of our time, and later we get a "correct as is" or "we mixed some things up and in "two weeks" you will get a fix". And if we ask for a documentation who explains all the new stuff, we get a link to the Patch Thread with e.g., "TGP: we have mixed up two different pods, to test some stuff and later this year (it's still May 2024) the things will work like they should". And to complete all the "fun" we get more "new" stuff with more things to learn without any documentation.

Sometimes I have the feeling, ED wants to fool us and not funnily.

We really want to work together with you (ED) and we will invest our time, so your product gets better, but you, ED, should reach us a hand and please start stopping slapping us with every new patch and changing things without any explanation and documentation.

 

I want to have fun, not working for you!

 

[Heesh]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:34 PM, Swift. said:

Remember that the viper we have doesn't have EGI. So its not a 'full fledged INS + GPS combined'. I'm not quite sure the specifics, but it could be something like our viper takes a GPS fix every 60 seconds or something, and that would still be 'INS + GPS', but would clearly allow for 60 seconds of drift between each fix.

Additionally, GPS isn't perfect. There is always an error, the shape of that tolerance zone will change based on where the satellites are in the sky, but it always exists. 

Thank you for answering! This gives me a better picture now but I still don't understand how a bomb after release can get a better fix on its own than the fighter jet it released from?! But even if this is the case I am not sure on what exactly we do have with the viper right now. As Nedum in his post described the biggest problem with all of this is that there is complete documentation missing about changes and new stuff. This plays a plays a big part in this whole situation and adds to the confusion in my opinion. We all want to have fun with a complex situation but to do that a good documentation is needed especially if something is changed.

4 hours ago, Nedum said:

The worst part is, there is absolute no documentation in which we can see how we have to use the new stuff (Fuzzes anywhere?). So we try to figure out, why a system is now "broken" (for us), investing hours of our time, and later we get a "correct as is" or "we mixed some things up and in "two weeks" you will get a fix". 

As I said before I really don't know what I'm having right now with the Viper. At least for me the INS drift seems to be really big and the GPS fix seems to not be working for me either. To my knowledge I'm not doing anything different procedure wise than before the patch but after half an hour I already got 2nm drift with GPS enabled!? There must be something wrong right? A few posts ago in this thread Lord Vader posted about the drift:

On 5/3/2024 at 12:38 PM, Lord Vader said:

[...]

First of all, 30 meters is the maximum drift value possible. If you have a factor of 10 INS alignment quality you probably will never see that much drift.

[...]

So there must be something wrong with what I am doing because as mentioned before I have WAY more drift. After an hour of flight in can see the TGP wandering around like I'm slewing it but I don't. I am doing a full alignment every time and got to a aligment status 10 precision. I will try to replicate this and provide a track if possible.

By the way I read somewhere that the alignment status 6 is fully aligned and enhanced to 0.6 with GPS data. How to achieve 6? Is it even possible right now?

Edited May 30, 2024 by Heesh

[gryphondcs]

What happened?

• GBU-38 dropped by F-16C on a Waypoint does not hit the desired coordinates and misses by 80ft

What should happen?

• GBU-38's should land very close to the desired coordinates

Steps to reproduce

• F-16C air start armed with 2 x GBU-38's
• Enemy unit placed on map at coordinates Lat Long Decimal Minutes: N 44°40.136'   E 37°46.777' at 131ft
• Waypoint added at 131ft exactly on the enemy unit
• Drop the GBU-38 when within the release parameters
• The GBU-38 will miss by +-80ft

Supporting Files

• Mission File
• Track File
• Tacview File

Tacview-20240531-095731-DCS.zip.txt.acmi Example Bug.miz Example Bug Track File.trk

[Hobel]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb gryphondcs:

 

• GBU-38 dropped by F-16C on a Waypoint does not hit the desired coordinates and misses by 80ftThis

is basically still WIP.

   PP bombs do not currently work accurately, before each bomb drop you have to redesignate the target for a good result

 

 

Here is the whole discussion :

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/347411-f-16-pre-setting-jdam-accuracy-steerpoint-in-free-server-after-april-patch/page/3/#comment-5447434

[Wing]

Bump - this is still borked. In the current implementation, bomb on coords still doesnt work and neither does VIS. You either have a point track and lase for ranging or you miss...

[Sinclair_76]

While I really value that ED is trying to further realism in simulation, the fact that the JDAM implementation is still halfway done is frustrating to say the least. Instead of introducing a new, but feature complete solution, ED introduces a half baked (only relative mode) on only the F-16. It’s been a couple of months at least now and some information is welcome.

Furthermore it would be prudent to apply this to all things coming out of ED’s hands. Recently all solutions seem to introduce more problems than they solve. 

[Lord Vader]

Hello all.

All we can say for now is that the weapon's GPS self-guidance logic is being worked on currently.

This is not "abandoned" or "half-baked", it involves proper simulation and implementation and that takes time to make it as accurate as everyone expects.

We thank you for your patience and please wait for future updates.

 

[Clawhammer]

Hello all,

i wanted to learn jdams, so i put a target on my map, put my f16 on the map, added the bombs and a waypoint on my desired target.

But my bombs never hit the target. They always hit the same spot next to the target. so i put a tgp on my plane to check where he looks and it seems like somehow my plane does not match with the waypoint.

Any ideas what iam doing wrong? I started the mission cold on ground and in air. FULL INS Alignment. And yes i entered correct elevation in the wp settings and i checked it in my plane they match! Is this a bug or did i something wrong?

Thanks for help!

EDIT1: I did a small test with the f18, here it works perfectly.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Clawhammer

[Gunnar81]

I had this same issue on BDs new Gamblers campaign. The briefing stated to enter a set of coordinates to bomb through some cloud cover on a specific part of a large building. I enetred the coords and missed.

 

I have noticed this same issue a couple other times. **Edited, I see the OP did a full alignment so my proposed test is invalid at this point. I was doing stored and same result.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Gunnar81

[Clawhammer]

I never did Stored Alignment during these tests. I did either full or hot start in air.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Clawhammer