Large INS drift - unusable for preplanned attack without TGP correction

[PawlaczGMD]

I know ED modelled INS drift recently, but I've just started using the Viper, so didn't experience it before.

Anyway, as the title says, INS precision is not good enough for an attack via STPT after a reasonable ingress time. I have experienced this in the Gamblers campaign. JDAM can miss the target by dozens or even 100 meters with a good drop. Don't have a track, as it would be too large after this time.

I also saw preplanned STPTs drift from targets during the mission - initially they were a few meters off, after 30-40 minutes - 100 m off.

Question 1 - is this a correct amount of drift? It makes a preplanned attack impossible.

Question 2 - is there a way to increase the precision or align in-flight? 

My procedure - stored alignment, switch to NAV when align is flashing, then MIDS on, all before taxi.

PS By preplanned, I mean that you drop a JDAM on STPT coordinates without looking what's there.

Edited October 20, 2024 by PawlaczGMD

[SpecterDC13]

Yes, that is correct and normal. 

Definitely suggest setting up a FIX point in order to a FIX before ingress. You can do a FIX by pressing ICP 8 "FIX" and you can use your HUD, FCR(GM Mode), TGP, or OFLY.

Yes you can do an inflight alignment by going to your NAV switch and right clicking to INFLT ALGN, note to do this you need to make sure you are flying in a straight line in a known direction. But I also wouldnt do this unless you really really have to. Start with a FIX first.
 

Highly suggest you read the manual or watch some videos.

Video for doing a FIX

 

 

Video for inflight aligning

 

[SpecterDC13]

Also, you should try to verify your target with either the FCR in GM mode or through your TGP. If using the TGP make sure you TMS UP long to essentially transfer that data to the bomb. 

[PawlaczGMD]

7 minutes ago, SpecterDC13 said:

Yes, that is correct and normal. 

Definitely suggest setting up a FIX point in order to a FIX before ingress. You can do a FIX by pressing ICP 8 "FIX" and you can use your HUD, FCR(GM Mode), TGP, or OFLY.

Yes you can do an inflight alignment by going to your NAV switch and right clicking to INFLT ALGN, note to do this you need to make sure you are flying in a straight line in a known direction. But I also wouldnt do this unless you really really have to. Start with a FIX first.
 

Highly suggest you read the manual or watch some videos.

Video for doing a FIX

 

 

Video for inflight aligning

 

Thanks, I will try taking a fix next time!

Out if interest, any idea why INS is not automatically updated by the GPS, which is available? the Hornet doesn't have this issue, for example. You just switch alignment to IFA, which is INS+GPS.

In this Gamblers mission (8?), I might need to do the in-flight alignment, as you are flying to the target at 25k ft over dense clouds, so there is no visual of the ground at all. Or I might try to do it via radar if I can find a landmark that shows up...

Just now, SpecterDC13 said:

Also, you should try to verify your target with either the FCR in GM mode or through your TGP. If using the TGP make sure you TMS UP long to essentially transfer that data to the bomb. 

Yes, I would normally do it, but I experienced this in exactly a mission where there is no option to see anything on the ground due to clouds.

[itn]

Don’t bother doing FIX when using GPS. GPS does update the INS and in current implementation you cannot improve it with FIX. This was just discussed in another thread.

Issue with JDAMs is different and currently you need to give them a SPI from sensors (i.e. TGP track). 

[SpecterDC13]

I haven't flown the F18 in a very long time like that so I can't tell you why it works differently other than it is a different jet from I think a slightly different time.  Other than that, go to this post where it has been and is being discussed still. Lord Vader explains it pretty decently. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/359039-help-getting-highest-ins-accuracy-for-pre-planned-popups/

And I can understand not being able to use the TGP due to clouds. If you need to use your FCR just make sure you find a really noticeable landmark that can be seen with the Ground Radar. Also, try to do a FIX with the GPS switch off. If you do it with it on the filter inside the jet will still try to correct it.  From my experience doing a FX with GPS switch on is really only good for doing it with one stpt and it will move the rest to correct it, but you need to be almost spot on. 

1 minute ago, itn said:

Don’t bother doing FIX when using GPS. GPS does update the INS and in current implementation you cannot improve it with FIX. This was just discussed in another thread.

Issue with JDAMs is different and currently you need to give them a SPI from sensors (i.e. TGP track). 

Also, what he said about the JDAMs. The GPS isn't fully finished yet with them.

Edited October 20, 2024 by SpecterDC13

[Nedum]

On 10/20/2024 at 8:40 AM, SpecterDC13 said:

Yes, that is correct and normal. 

Definitely suggest setting up a FIX point in order to a FIX before ingress. You can do a FIX by pressing ICP 8 "FIX" and you can use your HUD, FCR(GM Mode), TGP, or OFLY.

Yes you can do an inflight alignment by going to your NAV switch and right clicking to INFLT ALGN, note to do this you need to make sure you are flying in a straight line in a known direction. But I also wouldnt do this unless you really really have to. Start with a FIX first.
 

Highly suggest you read the manual or watch some videos.

Video for doing a FIX

 

 

Video for inflight aligning

 

 

No, it is not correct, and it is not a normal behavior when using GPS. Every GPS will autocorrect itself, even the one in my car which is not able to connect to military GPS.
So please explain, why this behavior is hitting only the DCS F16 and no other plane in DCS?
All "modern" planes in DCS, so the DCS F16 C, should be able to correct the drift by itself. There is no need to manually "fix" it, as long the GPS of the plane is working.
Most of the current DCS F16 Systems are not normal and working the false way. Since the INS drift was implemented, most weapons systems and sensors are working not the way they should.
To say or write people should take a look into some vids or the documentation, looks like someone try to fool them.
The current documentation leads to false doings, and described doings leading to wrong assumptions.
>>Nothing<< really works like it should, and many "new" doings have not find their way into the current available documentation.
I would really like to know when we will get a proper documentation of all the stuff we have to do and why.
But the most interesting part for me is, why >>all<< other US planes don't run in the same issues, even they all share the same systems!?
The GPS Fix is done from the F18 without any needed touch from the Pilot. What "special" GPS is the F18 using?
To be clear, a manual "Fix" should be only needed if the GPS isn't working correctly.

So, no, it's not a normal behavior.

 

Edited October 26, 2024 by Nedum

[Nealius]

Per -34 documenation, the Kalman filter only adjusts deltas that exceed 300ft. Doing a FIX only sends delta data to the Kalman filter, without actually fixing anything unless that delta exceeds 300ft. And since the currently modeled system doesn't ever seem to exceed 300ft, but regularly exceeds 200ft, FIX is effectively INOP when GPS in on even though it is technically functioning.

Edited October 30, 2024 by Nealius

[SpecterDC13]

On 10/26/2024 at 11:51 AM, Nedum said:

 

No, it is not correct, and it is not a normal behavior when using GPS. Every GPS will autocorrect itself, even the one in my car which is not able to connect to military GPS.
So please explain, why this behavior is hitting only the DCS F16 and no other plane in DCS?
All "modern" planes in DCS, so the DCS F16 C, should be able to correct the drift by itself. There is no need to manually "fix" it, as long the GPS of the plane is working.
Most of the current DCS F16 Systems are not normal and working the false way. Since the INS drift was implemented, most weapons systems and sensors are working not the way they should.
To say or write people should take a look into some vids or the documentation, looks like someone try to fool them.
The current documentation leads to false doings, and described doings leading to wrong assumptions.
>>Nothing<< really works like it should, and many "new" doings have not find their way into the current available documentation.
I would really like to know when we will get a proper documentation of all the stuff we have to do and why.
But the most interesting part for me is, why >>all<< other US planes don't run in the same issues, even they all share the same systems!?
The GPS Fix is done from the F18 without any needed touch from the Pilot. What "special" GPS is the F18 using?
To be clear, a manual "Fix" should be only needed if the GPS isn't working correctly.

So, no, it's not a normal behavior.

 

 

Did you miss the part where ED has already come out and said that the GPS in the 38s, for the F-16 or any other modern jet, is not fully completed? Or are you choosing to ignore that and gloss over that?  You mention other weapon systems but what other weapon systems are affected by this? If you say something give an example don't just make a generalization. Because from my experience I have had no issues whatsoever using any other weapon system to include the JDAM. Just the other night I tested the 38s alone, and once this update drops, I will test them again and include the 31s as well. You can see in the picture it was a good 30 minutes of straight dropping on a single point. Over those 30 minutes I had INS drift on me. 27 out of 47 JDAMs landed on or near the target. Nothing dropped outside of the box as you can see. The next time I test I will do an hour-long session of dropping if needed. This instance was with the TGP. In my next testing runs I will do it with the TGP again AND with preplanned stpts. I'm also not one that just gets into a jet and goes running into an AO nullall willy nilly. I play as close to the realism side as possible as I am an actual F-16 weapons troop, and I like to see how real I can make things. I'm not just getting my info off the internet from a -34 that has nothing to do with our specific model/year of the F-16. I have searched the internet far and wide and the only "-34" is from the other F-16 sim. Granted that does have some things that are shockingly identical to certain things but I won't get into that, it still does not tell you everything you need to know about how a FIX works or when you should do a FIX. 

Back to the main point though. The 38 we currently have on the F16 is not fully "equipped" with the full GPS package so no, it will not update as it should once it is released from the aircraft. So, without it you are going to see some weird behaviors which yes, is normal, but as you can see in the picture it is still accurate.

Also, not every jet has or works with the same set of systems as far as DCS goes. For instance, since you want to bring the F18 into this, the F-18 in DCS is from 2002 and uses EGI, whereas the F16 is from 2007 and uses only INS/GPS and you can tell this by the fact that the NAV knob says INS above it. I promise you the systems between that five-year gap is going to be quite large. 

But to shed some more light on FIX taking here you go. In order to perform a FIX/update certain factors must be met, and they can include: SYS ACCUR, GPS ACCUR, and GPS TRK/NOTRK. Now assuming normal GPS values of <50 feet and GPS in track, the Blended KF will have more confidence in GPS-aiding than a 300ft fix/update. But once the SHE exceeds 300ft for whatever reason, then a fix/update on a known stpt may be recommended. The position delta is estimated from the coords of the stpt. That delta is displayed to you on the FIX page. 

And talking to actual pilots who have flown older block 50s which had only INS, yes doing fixes was a pretty common thing, especially under certain scenarios. The newer jets with the EGI it is much less common for them to do so. Which is why you don't see it in the F18 I'm guessing. But I'm not going to speak on the F18 because I have never actually worked on it or talked to those pilots so to compare it with the F16 is just useless really. 

But I think the biggest problem with all this is everyone is complaining about something that ED has made very clear that it is all a WIP. Which sure gets tiring to hear but it is what it is at the end of the day. The GPS in the 38 and other JDAMs will come I'm sure it is just a matter of waiting. But to sit there and complain and not provide any proof of what you are experiencing only hinders advances in making things better. 

How about instead of complaining, go fly the jet, save the track of the problems you are facing and make a bug report about it in order to make it noticed. And if a bug report already exists then add to it if you can. The more evidence/proof you provide that something is off or seems broken could only help make it better. 

But from my experience, again, I haven't really noticed anything too off. There is only one thing I noticed, and it is dealing with an Air Start F16. And guess what, I am saving tracks in order to make an actual bug report in order to bring light to that particular problem. I'm not going to make a report making a claim and provide no evidence. ED has made it pretty clear that without a track file or even a video they can't see or know exactly what is going on. Most of the time it can just be a small value that needs to be changed in a Lua. 

And yeah, me saying go watch a video or go read something can only help the person especially when most of the time it is just user error. Not saying this particular case is, but you never know so to discredit me doing that is pretty crappy of you. But you can't say something doesn't work like it should and provide no proof or evidence that it should work XYZ way. 

 

But I will end with this. This JDAM issue isn't so much the F16. It is the JDAM and the lack of GPS on the bomb itself. And so far, I haven't noticed it on any other weapon, but that is mostly due to me dealing with GBU-12s and AGM-65s recently because people seem to be confused with certain things with those. I.e. the popup cue for the 12 still gets people.

I am going to do more testing and longer to see if I notice anything out of the norm with the JDAMs. But as of today there is going to be an update I am going to wait and see if there is any changes dealing with that issue. If not I will still run the 38s again but I will also run 31s and JSOWs for the F16 and ONLY the F16. 

Edit: I also want to mention that I am pretty sure the only mode they seem to have implemented for the JDAM currently is Relative Targeting. What sucks is there is no real way to know as they didn't model the RT under the range carot on the HUD. Almost forgot to mention that.

nullnull

Edited October 30, 2024 by SpecterDC13

[Nedum]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:38 PM, SpecterDC13 said:

Did you miss the part where ED has already come out and said that the GPS in the 38s, for the F-16 or any other modern jet, is not fully completed? Or are you choosing to ignore that and gloss over that?  You mention other weapon systems but what other weapon systems are affected by this? If you say something give an example don't just make a generalization. Because from my experience I have had no issues whatsoever using any other weapon system to include the JDAM. Just the other night I tested the 38s alone, and once this update drops, I will test them again and include the 31s as well. You can see in the picture it was a good 30 minutes of straight dropping on a single point. Over those 30 minutes I had INS drift on me. 27 out of 47 JDAMs landed on or near the target. Nothing dropped outside of the box as you can see. The next time I test I will do an hour-long session of dropping if needed. This instance was with the TGP. In my next testing runs I will do it with the TGP again AND with preplanned stpts. I'm also not one that just gets into a jet and goes running into an AO nullall willy nilly. I play as close to the realism side as possible as I am an actual F-16 weapons troop, and I like to see how real I can make things. I'm not just getting my info off the internet from a -34 that has nothing to do with our specific model/year of the F-16. I have searched the internet far and wide and the only "-34" is from the other F-16 sim. Granted that does have some things that are shockingly identical to certain things but I won't get into that, it still does not tell you everything you need to know about how a FIX works or when you should do a FIX. 

Back to the main point though. The 38 we currently have on the F16 is not fully "equipped" with the full GPS package so no, it will not update as it should once it is released from the aircraft. So, without it you are going to see some weird behaviors which yes, is normal, but as you can see in the picture it is still accurate.

Also, not every jet has or works with the same set of systems as far as DCS goes. For instance, since you want to bring the F18 into this, the F-18 in DCS is from 2002 and uses EGI, whereas the F16 is from 2007 and uses only INS/GPS and you can tell this by the fact that the NAV knob says INS above it. I promise you the systems between that five-year gap is going to be quite large. 

But to shed some more light on FIX taking here you go. In order to perform a FIX/update certain factors must be met, and they can include: SYS ACCUR, GPS ACCUR, and GPS TRK/NOTRK. Now assuming normal GPS values of <50 feet and GPS in track, the Blended KF will have more confidence in GPS-aiding than a 300ft fix/update. But once the SHE exceeds 300ft for whatever reason, then a fix/update on a known stpt may be recommended. The position delta is estimated from the coords of the stpt. That delta is displayed to you on the FIX page. 

And talking to actual pilots who have flown older block 50s which had only INS, yes doing fixes was a pretty common thing, especially under certain scenarios. The newer jets with the EGI it is much less common for them to do so. Which is why you don't see it in the F18 I'm guessing. But I'm not going to speak on the F18 because I have never actually worked on it or talked to those pilots so to compare it with the F16 is just useless really. 

But I think the biggest problem with all this is everyone is complaining about something that ED has made very clear that it is all a WIP. Which sure gets tiring to hear but it is what it is at the end of the day. The GPS in the 38 and other JDAMs will come I'm sure it is just a matter of waiting. But to sit there and complain and not provide any proof of what you are experiencing only hinders advances in making things better. 

How about instead of complaining, go fly the jet, save the track of the problems you are facing and make a bug report about it in order to make it noticed. And if a bug report already exists then add to it if you can. The more evidence/proof you provide that something is off or seems broken could only help make it better. 

But from my experience, again, I haven't really noticed anything too off. There is only one thing I noticed, and it is dealing with an Air Start F16. And guess what, I am saving tracks in order to make an actual bug report in order to bring light to that particular problem. I'm not going to make a report making a claim and provide no evidence. ED has made it pretty clear that without a track file or even a video they can't see or know exactly what is going on. Most of the time it can just be a small value that needs to be changed in a Lua. 

And yeah, me saying go watch a video or go read something can only help the person especially when most of the time it is just user error. Not saying this particular case is, but you never know so to discredit me doing that is pretty crappy of you. But you can't say something doesn't work like it should and provide no proof or evidence that it should work XYZ way. 

 

But I will end with this. This JDAM issue isn't so much the F16. It is the JDAM and the lack of GPS on the bomb itself. And so far, I haven't noticed it on any other weapon, but that is mostly due to me dealing with GBU-12s and AGM-65s recently because people seem to be confused with certain things with those. I.e. the popup cue for the 12 still gets people.

I am going to do more testing and longer to see if I notice anything out of the norm with the JDAMs. But as of today there is going to be an update I am going to wait and see if there is any changes dealing with that issue. If not I will still run the 38s again but I will also run 31s and JSOWs for the F16 and ONLY the F16. 

Edit: I also want to mention that I am pretty sure the only mode they seem to have implemented for the JDAM currently is Relative Targeting. What sucks is there is no real way to know as they didn't model the RT under the range carot on the HUD. Almost forgot to mention that.

nullnull

 

The only part I've missed, is the one where you stop telling me what I have to think. I read exactly what ED have written. Who are you, asking me such an insulting question? Are you a Mod or something else?

Stop hitting always on people finding things not working anymore as before, and stop pointing to documents or Vids NOT explaining at all the changes ED have made.

With every new patch, we find more and more things working not like they did before. And we are waiting since 2 Years for a new document which can explain why things have changed, in what way and the most important part, what we have to do to make all the stuff working like it should.

Links to outdated documents, outdated Forum Post or Vids not hitting the issues I am looking for, are no fun. Especially if we have to know what part of the document is not outdated.

Instead, we are running into trouble after spending an hour or more of flying a mission, because things are not working anymore like before after each new patch. And if we complain, people like you coming in, and I don't know why, telling us to read stuff within outdated documents or looking Vids, not even touching the problem we were running in.

So what's up with YOU? Who are YOU that YOU are thinking YOU are allowed telling people they should learn to read and understand? Stop insulting people for getting upset if they spent hours, days, weeks, months to find issues, sort them, compare them and try to figure out is this a new feature or a new bug, because there is no fitting documentation, and their findings are perhaps not right.

STOP to make it look like that all the people, the customers, are the problem and not all the bugs, bugs, bugs and the missing adapted documentation of all the new stuff!

We have learned for years the wrong way to do things, because ED told us, that's the right way. And now we have to learn it in a completely different way WITHOUT any adapted documentation. We have to guess if this can be a new bug or a new behavior. And we have to figure out on our own how things should work and to let them work in the right way and how to set up the systems the new way, if it's not a bug.

And If we become upset, after such a long time without any good documentation of all the new behaviors and new doings, people like you hitting on us? Are you for real?

What many of us want is not the "in 2 weeks" excuses without any ETA. We want that ED start to fix the bugs WITHOUT adding new ones and give us the adapted documentation of the new features and the doings to let them work the right way.

Only for understanding:

With this patch they added a new bug, again, without fixing the old one, again. Not only TMS long right is not storing the TWS to the Mastermodes (AA or NAV), no, now TMS long right is emulating the OSB Button press, switching through the VIS Mode also. A new bug, without any reason, and the old one is still there. It's like this is becoming a tradition for the F16.

If ED is still doing "bug fixing" in this strange way, who can believe they can do it later the right way? I've really lost all of my hope on that. The F16 is dead meat right now for me!

I don't know what ED and you are thinking, but if you really think I am, a costumer, is the problem and not all the bugs, the missing communication and the missing documentation, then there is something wrong with both of you!

All the problems coming from the massive amount of bugs, and how ED treats its customers. I can trust you, it's not me who is adding bugs or doesn't allow ED to deliver adapted documents for all the new features.

 

If you were a costumer, buying a car from me. And I am explaining to you, you can have the unfinished product cheaper, but I have to add all the missing stuff later to the car, and you can help me with the bug fixing, and you are happy with it and buy the cheaper car.

Would you are still happy with the following situation?

You do all the bug fixing and spend hours of time, unpaid time. After a year, you drive hours into a vacation, and the car strikes. You spend hours to find the issue. You can't find a fix and call me. I am telling you your documentation is outdated, and you run into the issue, because the doings are new, and you have done them the wrong way. The new handbook will be sent to you "soon". 2 Years later you have the same old outdated handbook, but I've added more features to the car, added many new doings and not explained functionalities. Now you run into many problems, because you don't know that there are new steps added to make the car work like before. You become frustrated.

So, after those 2 years, you're asking me for the still missing adapted documentation, but I say:  "Look at the old one. It makes no sense to spend so much time into a new documentation if I have to change so many things again and again." So you have to live with it, and at the same time I will give you penalties if you are hitting me too often with YOUR "little" problems.

Would you be happy with this situation? I don't think so.

If I would have a free question about the DCS F16, I would really like to know why is ED not fixing the F16 bugs and why they are putting more and more bugs into the module without any visible reason? It's out of my mind, how one can always hitting the bullseye if it's about adding bugs.

To make it short, you try to hit the wrong person. Without any fitting and adapted documentation, I have to guess what's right or wrong, and if my guessing is wrong, it's a problem installed by ED because of the old, not adapted documentation.

But lesson learned. I have stopped supporting ED the same way they have stopped supporting me. I think it's not a "Win Win" situation, but the last thing I am able to do.

And well-intentioned advice at the end: step down from your high horse. You try to wear clothes which are a way too big for you.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Nedum

[Nealius]

9 hours ago, Nedum said:

With every new patch, we find more and more things working not like they did before. And we are waiting since 2 Years for a new document which can explain why things have changed, in what way and the most important part, what we have to do to make all the stuff working like it should.

Links to outdated documents, outdated Forum Post or Vids not hitting the issues I am looking for, are no fun. Especially if we have to know what part of the document is not outdated.

This, 1000x this. The total lack of updated DCS documentation over the last year or so, perhaps even two years, has been straining my patience with ED modules. For a while we got by with Chuck’s Guides and searching the deep net for real manuals, but now more advanced features are added or changed with zero DCS-specific documentation, and the relevant real world documentation isn’t publicly available so we’re completely in the dark. 

[SpecterDC13]

11 hours ago, Nedum said:

The only part I've missed, is the one where you stop telling me what I have to think. I read exactly what ED have written. Who are you, asking me such an insulting question? Are you a Mod or something else?

Stop hitting always on people finding things not working anymore as before, and stop pointing to documents or Vids NOT explaining at all the changes ED have made.

With every new patch, we find more and more things working not like they did before. And we are waiting since 2 Years for a new document which can explain why things have changed, in what way and the most important part, what we have to do to make all the stuff working like it should.

Links to outdated documents, outdated Forum Post or Vids not hitting the issues I am looking for, are no fun. Especially if we have to know what part of the document is not outdated.

Instead, we are running into trouble after spending an hour or more of flying a mission, because things are not working anymore like before after each new patch. And if we complain, people like you coming in, and I don't know why, telling us to read stuff within outdated documents or looking Vids, not even touching the problem we were running in.

So what's up with YOU? Who are YOU that YOU are thinking YOU are allowed telling people they should learn to read and understand? Stop insulting people for getting upset if they spent hours, days, weeks, months to find issues, sort them, compare them and try to figure out is this a new feature or a new bug, because there is no fitting documentation, and their findings are perhaps not right.

STOP to make it look like that all the people, the customers, are the problem and not all the bugs, bugs, bugs and the missing adapted documentation of all the new stuff!

We have learned for years the wrong way to do things, because ED told us, that's the right way. And now we have to learn it in a completely different way WITHOUT any adapted documentation. We have to guess if this can be a new bug or a new behavior. And we have to figure out on our own how things should work and to let them work in the right way and how to set up the systems the new way, if it's not a bug.

And If we become upset, after such a long time without any good documentation of all the new behaviors and new doings, people like you hitting on us? Are you for real?

What many of us want is not the "in 2 weeks" excuses without any ETA. We want that ED start to fix the bugs WITHOUT adding new ones and give us the adapted documentation of the new features and the doings to let them work the right way.

Only for understanding:

With this patch they added a new bug, again, without fixing the old one, again. Not only TMS long right is not storing the TWS to the Mastermodes (AA or NAV), no, now TMS long right is emulating the OSB Button press, switching through the VIS Mode also. A new bug, without any reason, and the old one is still there. It's like this is becoming a tradition for the F16.

If ED is still doing "bug fixing" in this strange way, who can believe they can do it later the right way? I've really lost all of my hope on that. The F16 is dead meat right now for me!

I don't know what ED and you are thinking, but if you really think I am, a costumer, is the problem and not all the bugs, the missing communication and the missing documentation, then there is something wrong with both of you!

All the problems coming from the massive amount of bugs, and how ED treats its customers. I can trust you, it's not me who is adding bugs or doesn't allow ED to deliver adapted documents for all the new features.

 

If you were a costumer, buying a car from me. And I am explaining to you, you can have the unfinished product cheaper, but I have to add all the missing stuff later to the car, and you can help me with the bug fixing, and you are happy with it and buy the cheaper car.

Would you are still happy with the following situation?

You do all the bug fixing and spend hours of time, unpaid time. After a year, you drive hours into a vacation, and the car strikes. You spend hours to find the issue. You can't find a fix and call me. I am telling you your documentation is outdated, and you run into the issue, because the doings are new, and you have done them the wrong way. The new handbook will be sent to you "soon". 2 Years later you have the same old outdated handbook, but I've added more features to the car, added many new doings and not explained functionalities. Now you run into many problems, because you don't know that there are new steps added to make the car work like before. You become frustrated.

So, after those 2 years, you're asking me for the still missing adapted documentation, but I say:  "Look at the old one. It makes no sense to spend so much time into a new documentation if I have to change so many things again and again." So you have to live with it, and at the same time I will give you penalties if you are hitting me too often with YOUR "little" problems.

Would you be happy with this situation? I don't think so.

If I would have a free question about the DCS F16, I would really like to know why is ED not fixing the F16 bugs and why they are putting more and more bugs into the module without any visible reason? It's out of my mind, how one can always hitting the bullseye if it's about adding bugs.

To make it short, you try to hit the wrong person. Without any fitting and adapted documentation, I have to guess what's right or wrong, and if my guessing is wrong, it's a problem installed by ED because of the old, not adapted documentation.

But lesson learned. I have stopped supporting ED the same way they have stopped supporting me. I think it's not a "Win Win" situation, but the last thing I am able to do.

And well-intentioned advice at the end: step down from your high horse. You try to wear clothes which are a way too big for you.

 

When and where did I tell you what to think? Why are you so upset? Didn't think I had to be a mod to help someone out. Is that not what this community is about, helping each other?
You say you read what ED wrote but you seem to be not understanding what they are saying. Again, I have ran these tests multiple times and have shown everyone the results. Simple answer, the bomb is acting accordingly as it should without the GPS implemented on the bomb itself as of right now. I am not done testing.
I asked that question to not be insulting. I am genuinely asking so I can understand where you are coming from and how it connects to this problem. Again, this problem is with the JDAM and not the INS/GPS in the jet.
I only tell people to read and watch things as that is typically the best way to learn how to understand something. So how is it wrong to tell someone to do that? So, it is wrong to tell someone how they can better understand something?
If there are lack of videos out there explaining things, why don't you make some videos? I have videos out there teaching and helping people understand things. I haven't gotten around to JDAMs yet as they are still being worked on in DCS. If you want, I can make a video explaining how things are currently if that is what you are wanting. I am totally down to do that.
The links to other forum posts are not that old they are from this year. And we all know things with ED take time. It is what it is. But there is no reason to get all bent out of shape about it. I agree that the F16 manual is a bit dated and could really use an update. I have personally asked to help with that as I can do that with my down time. Sadly, I've been told that they have someone already working on updating it. 
And yeah, I agree that with every patch they fix one thing and then break another. That is just how the development goes. Show me another community though that gets to be privy to as much information as we get from the Dev. I can only think of one other, and it isn't a flight sim community. 
I understand the frustration of flying for an hour or more and having something go wrong. I think everyone in DCS has had that happen at some point.
I only tell people to read/watch stuff, because on the small chance of it was just a miss click, or they missed a step then that is an easy fix. Before you claim something is bugged you need to make sure to look at what the person was doing or did. That's just basic stuff. I'm not trying to belittle anyone or their intelligence, but mistakes happen. I have helped a lot of people in DCS figure things out and almost every time it was just because they missed something as small as flipping the master arm switch. 
But we don't need people coming into forums like what you have been doing and blowing it up because you are angry at ED for breaking things. That isn't how things get fixed. And if you feel that I've insulted you or someone else in some way then I apologize as that wasn't my intent.
Ever since they mentioned the work being done on the JDAM I have been waiting to see "GPS implemented" in the patch notes. But just like when they mentioned fuzes they only worked on the WWII aircraft weapon fuzes and then what like a year or almost two years later we finally got them on the modern jets. So, if something works one way on one jet and that same weapon doesn't work the same on another then I just assume they are only trying to test it on one jet before pushing it out to others. Which makes sense to me. Just like maverick boresighting I feel every jet should have to do so it is uniform across all aircraft. But I don't work on those other aircraft, so I try to avoid mentioning or talking about them.
But you ask who I am and so I will tell you. I am a weapons team chief in the USAF. I run a load crew to load and maintain the weapon systems on the F-16. I have worked on the HH-60G and F-22 as well. I also run a YouTube channel dedicated to the F-16 where I make in-depth tutorials. I even put out a video for the history of the JDAM. I run The Viper Crew discord as well where we are over 600 members with a good amount of current and ex-military who have worked on the F-16 in real life. A few of us test things out all the time with some of us making forum posts about those things. I would like to think I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to my job, and I try to help where I can inside this community. I even got ED to change the Aspect Angle readout on the FCR page to change every 10 degrees instead of every 27.5 degrees. I provided them with publicly available documents and a track file showing what was wrong and it was fixed a few months later. Now I'm just waiting on the AA readout on the HUD to be same. So, I'm no one special, but I do have a lot of knowledge on these systems and how they should work. The only thing preventing me from being a SME for them is that I am still currently active in the USAF.
And trust me I totally get it when they change something, and you have to relearn how to do something. It is annoying but DCS is ever changing, and I don't think that will ever stop. When something changes, I try to learn it as quickly as possible in order to help people. It's really all any of us could do.
And what have I hit anyone on? All my posts have been trying to explain and help people to understand why it is working the way it is currently. Literally in my post to the guy in here I gave him a suggestion to try and see if it works. He didn't post a track or give much info as to what the situation was. Things like how many Gs were pulled and how often, how long was the flight, what year was the mission set for, are all things, me personally, would like to know in order to help out more. Now if he came back with more info then we could've taken things further, but you came in here not really adding anything. That tends to turn people away from the forums sadly.
And I have taken the time to run tests. If there are any more tests that you would like me to run, please tell me the scenario and I will do it. But currently I am testing every aspect of the JDAM in every way possible. I am trying out distance when released, Altitude for release, speed when released, GPS and no GPS, sensors and no sensors, I am trying it all.

I'm not going to talk about the TWS thing in here as this isn't what this forum is originally about. Not shying away from it but there is a forum for it already and if you would like you can PM me on here and we can talk about it as I have already tested it and found some things that may be interesting. If you would like to know what they are please PM me. I don't want this forum straying too far as it already has.
Not once did I say you or anyone else was the problem. I have no clue where you are getting that from or why you feel like I am blaming you?
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your reply as it seems to just to be a bunch of rambling and quite frankly insulting to say the least. But it is what it is. 

Again, if you would like to talk more about things and maybe get a better understanding of things, since as you have pointed out multiple times now the documentation is lacking, we can do that. I've said what I needed to say about the JDAM issue so there really isn't any need for the rest of the conversation you are trying to provoke here. Now if you have anything dealing with the JDAM you would like to discuss then fine, but other than that this is a good way to get this post either locked or deleted by the mods.

[Dragon1-1]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:38 PM, SpecterDC13 said:

Also, not every jet has or works with the same set of systems as far as DCS goes. For instance, since you want to bring the F18 into this, the F-18 in DCS is from 2002 and uses EGI, whereas the F16 is from 2007 and uses only INS/GPS and you can tell this by the fact that the NAV knob says INS above it. I promise you the systems between that five-year gap is going to be quite large. 

Worth noting that EGI is the newer system, despite the Hornet being technically an older jet. Vipers did get the EGI, too, it's just that the ANG ones (and ED has modeled an ANG jet) got it after 2007. EGI would have been able to spool up in half the time it takes INS to do so, for instance. So our Viper is still stuck with equipment not far removed from that on Gulf War era Block 30, while the Hornet has what would have been the most advanced navigation system available in 2002.

The problem with INS is that it predates GPS. As such, when the GPS unit was added to the Viper, it had to be wired into the INS system somehow, and that was accomplished by coopting the "fix" procedure. While it would automatically take GPS fixes and generally try to keep its position accurate to within 200ft or so, it's not the same close coupling with GPS you see in the Hornet. The jet navigates using the INS, and it uses the GPS to keep it reasonably accurate, but you do not get the pinpoint accuracy you get with EGI.

It's always a good idea to get your target on TGP so that you're sure that you're dropping on what you think you're dropping on, anyway. One mistake in data entry and you could drop on a hospital across the street instead of a terrorist hideout.

[SpecterDC13]

11 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Worth noting that EGI is the newer system, despite the Hornet being technically an older jet. Vipers did get the EGI, too, it's just that the ANG ones (and ED has modeled an ANG jet) got it after 2007. EGI would have been able to spool up in half the time it takes INS to do so, for instance. So our Viper is still stuck with equipment not far removed from that on Gulf War era Block 30, while the Hornet has what would have been the most advanced navigation system available in 2002.

The problem with INS is that it predates GPS. As such, when the GPS unit was added to the Viper, it had to be wired into the INS system somehow, and that was accomplished by coopting the "fix" procedure. While it would automatically take GPS fixes and generally try to keep its position accurate to within 200ft or so, it's not the same close coupling with GPS you see in the Hornet. The jet navigates using the INS, and it uses the GPS to keep it reasonably accurate, but you do not get the pinpoint accuracy you get with EGI.

It's always a good idea to get your target on TGP so that you're sure that you're dropping on what you think you're dropping on, anyway. One mistake in data entry and you could drop on a hospital across the street instead of a terrorist hideout.

Pretty much the point that was being made, the whole difference between EGI and the INS between the two despite the F16 being "newer" in terms of the year. Different branches different things. But better said. Thank you.

[verana_ss]

It gotta be a GPS related bug as this current drift does not seem to be corrected nor errored overtime at least visually meaning the drift doesn’t get better nor worse at all.

It is easy to prove this by keeping manually corrected delta and go through TGT steerpoints, it gives you dead accurate drop solution “forever”.

200ft drift flying between in the mountain ridge for XX minutes is kind of understandable due to lower satellite signals and accumulated INS errors but under ideal condition? I dunno.

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by verana_ss

[PawlaczGMD]

Let's cut the yappersville over here

[Phantom711]

Hi…

Coming from the Hornet side, I just read this here out of curiosity.

Question: If you want to do a preplanned attack with a JDAM, why don‘t you program the target coordinate into the JDAM instead of using a steerpoint for it? (In the Hornet this wouldn’t even be considered pre-planned but TOO). Even if the jet‘s position is slightly off, the JDAMs GPS guidance shouldn‘t be effected…it should not inherit that error from the jet.

[RandomPilot]

3 hours ago, Phantom711 said:

Hi…

Coming from the Hornet side, I just read this here out of curiosity.

Question: If you want to do a preplanned attack with a JDAM, why don‘t you program the target coordinate into the JDAM instead of using a steerpoint for it? (In the Hornet this wouldn’t even be considered pre-planned but TOO). Even if the jet‘s position is slightly off, the JDAMs GPS guidance shouldn‘t be effected…it should not inherit that error from the jet.

Because we can't. 
JDAMs own gps guidance is still WIP on the F16

[Phantom711]

@RandomPilot

Understood. I also read through another thread here, that elaborates a bit further on how the JDAM interacts with the jet‘s INS.

[Sinclair_76]

On 11/8/2024 at 1:32 PM, Phantom711 said:

Hi…

Coming from the Hornet side, I just read this here out of curiosity.

Question: If you want to do a preplanned attack with a JDAM, why don‘t you program the target coordinate into the JDAM instead of using a steerpoint for it? (In the Hornet this wouldn’t even be considered pre-planned but TOO). Even if the jet‘s position is slightly off, the JDAMs GPS guidance shouldn‘t be effected…it should not inherit that error from the jet.

Beside the JDAM absolute mode not being simulated at this time. The tape number ED is simulating within DCS has no other means then the steerpoint to pass coordinates to the JDAM as a preplanned mode. Basically the engineers decided to stick with the logic of the early models while upgrading. 

In combination with lack of blast/shrapnel damage. Preplanned JDAM are useless in DCS F-16. You can trick you're way around by forcing JDAM relative mode by using the TGP and updating the target coordinates. The DCS F-16 is therefore useless in cloudy conditions. Especially compared to other aircraft the viper feels handicapped.

In general I am happy with the realistic behaviour of TGP and INS. But the way they implemented the absolute mode but not the relative mode for just the F-16 I think they screwed up. Either implement it together for every aircraft or not.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Sinclair_76

[gonvise]

This problem is also with JSOW or only with JDAM?

[Sinclair_76]

8 hours ago, gonvise said:

This problem is also with JSOW or only with JDAM?

JSOW as well but not the CBU-103/205 since those don't have gps.

[Furiz]

On 10/20/2024 at 8:51 AM, SpecterDC13 said:

Also, you should try to verify your target with either the FCR in GM mode or through your TGP. If using the TGP make sure you TMS UP long to essentially transfer that data to the bomb. 

Where did you find this? never heard of this method.

As far as I know for better accuracy you can lase 3-5 sec before weapon release, aircraft and bomb then get updated info on the target.

[NineLine]

If any of you feel there is an issue here, make sure to make a proper bug report with track(s). Thanks.

[LastRifleRound]

On 1/25/2025 at 12:56 PM, NineLine said:

If any of you feel there is an issue here, make sure to make a proper bug report with track(s). Thanks.

There are 4 tracks in the thread linked above, and posts indicating hours of work @Nealius put in to demonstrate this. Other users also posted videos and images demonstrating it. Anyone else replicating this work would do nothing but confuse the issue and that thread dead-ended back in November with no real official response. I see no reason to re-create the hours of work that would take if the initial input wasn't taken seriously to begin with.