check procedures FA18GPS the issue of the coordinates of the guided bomb

[Qazplm]

Why are the coordinates specified on the DDI pod page on the right inconsistent with the coordinates of the TOO mode on the DDI bomb page on the left? That is to say, after pressing the specified button, the coordinates are not correctly copied into the TOO mode coordinates of the bomb, I don't know if I didn't set it correctly or the game is a bug。

Manually enter the coordinates in PP mode, and illuminate the laser after specifying the target with the pod, both of which can accurately hit the specified coordinate point. Only the TOO mode of the bomb specified a target with a pod, the coordinates were inconsistent and the deviation was too large

[Tholozor]

The MSN page for IAMs (JDAM, JSOW, SLAM, etc) currently only displays Degree-Minute-Seconds (DMS) format, whereas the aircraft starts in Degree-Decimal-Minutes (DDM) format.

You can switch the aircraft's coordinate format from the HSI → DATA → A/C submenu using the LATLN option in the bottom right corner to switch between LATLN DCML to LATLN SEC to make the formats match. This will change the coordinate format display in the targeting pod as well.

[Qazplm]

7小时前，Tholozor说：

The MSN page for IAMs (JDAM, JSOW, SLAM, etc) currently only displays Degree-Minute-Seconds (DMS) format, whereas the aircraft starts in Degree-Decimal-Minutes (DDM) format.

You can switch the aircraft's coordinate format from the HSI → DATA → A/C submenu using the LATLN option in the bottom right corner to switch between LATLN DCML to LATLN SEC to make the formats match. This will change the coordinate format display in the targeting pod as well.

I can understand what you mean, I also tried the method you said, however, after specifying the location coordinates on the pod page, after pressing the specified button down, the coordinates of the bomb TOO page are not consistent with the coordinates specified just now. For example, the specified coordinates are, N45.05.05E38.56.85 but this is not shown on the TOO page, and the height is not correct. It doesn't correctly transcribe the coordinates to the TOO page

[Tholozor]

Also ensure the PRECISE option is selected on the bottom row of the waypoint DATA page to enable decimal seconds. If using a targeting pod, ensure to use TDC Depress (I assume this is what you meant by "specified button") to write the coordinates to the TOO mission memory.

If all else, post a track we can look at.

Edited March 10 by Tholozor

[Qazplm]

2025/3/10 PM11点58分，Tholozor说：

Also ensure the PRECISE option is selected on the bottom row of the waypoint DATA page to enable decimal seconds. If using a targeting pod, ensure to use TDC Depress (I assume this is what you meant by "specified button") to write the coordinates to the TOO mission memory.

If all else, post a track we can look at.

Thank you, the problem of coordinate display is solved perfectly. But GBU38 can't hit the specified coordinate point every time, is this closer to reality。

Also, when TDC is depressed, it automatically converts coordinates internally, right?

[Qazplm]

How do you use two altitude units on an airplane? One is a foot and the other is a meter, is it true？

Edited March 13 by Qazplm

[Muchocracker]

you don't. It's defaulted to feet. 

[rob10]

16 hours ago, Qazplm said:

Thank you, the problem of coordinate display is solved perfectly. But GBU38 can't hit the specified coordinate point every time, is this closer to reality。

Also, when TDC is depressed, it automatically converts coordinates internally, right?

From your other post, you're flying the F-18 as a RED COALITION member.  Unless you have Unrestricted SATNAV selected you're going to have a degraded GPS so no wonder it's not hitting accurately.

This is a prime example of why we ask for a track file when trying to help people.  It's usually the little details that they don't think to mention because it doesn't seem important to them that are the root of the problem.

[Qazplm]

1小时前，rob10说：

From your other post, you're flying the F-18 as a RED COALITION member.  Unless you have Unrestricted SATNAV selected you're going to have a degraded GPS so no wonder it's not hitting accurately.

This is a prime example of why we ask for a track file when trying to help people.  It's usually the little details that they don't think to mention because it doesn't seem important to them that are the root of the problem.

Thank you, I opened Unrestricted SATNAV, and the accuracy has really improved, and the error is about 2 meters

[Qazplm]

15小时前，Muchocracker说：

you don't. It's defaulted to feet. 

I just don't quite understand why these two values are not the same, although it doesn't affect bombing right now

[Wroblowaty]

They are the same. In JDAM MSN page you have elevation in meters (30m), on ATFLIR elevation is in feet (98ft) which is basically around 30 meters.

[Qazplm]

38分钟前，Wroblowaty说：

They are the same. In JDAM MSN page you have elevation in meters (30m), on ATFLIR elevation is in feet (98ft) which is basically around 30 meters.

Well, it's just that I'm wondering, how can two units be used on an airplane, and besides, the United States doesn't use meters as a unit, right

[Tholozor]

4 hours ago, Qazplm said:

Well, it's just that I'm wondering, how can two units be used on an airplane, and besides, the United States doesn't use meters as a unit, right

We use meters quite often in fact. Our ground forces use meters almost exclusively for calling out range. This is also why the yardstick readout on targeting pods is typically in meters, so that information can be relayed to troops if needed. Army Aviation also primarily utilizes distances in meters AFAIK.

Edited March 19 by Tholozor

[Qazplm]

3小时前，Tholozor说：

We use meters quite often in fact. Our ground forces use meters almost exclusively for calling out range. This is also why the yardstick readout on targeting pods is typically in meters, so that information can be relaying to troops if needed. Army Aviation also primarily utilizes distances in meters AFAIK.

Thanks, I understand

[Qazplm]

Anyway, it's not a minor mistake, is it? Only one of the four bombs can hit the target.

I opened Unrestricted SATNAV.

Blue side aircraft

[Qazplm]

JDAM TOO targeting currently is not recommended for the F/A-18 aircraft due to inherent sensor/system inaccuracies, unless mission failure or collateral damage due to wide misses can be tolerated.

[Muchocracker]

the F-16's INS overhaul hasnt been moved over, so the relative vs absolute targetting modelling isn't relevant to the hornet yet. The JDAM should always be hitting to the spec'd 5 meter CEP. If There is excessive missing it's either caused by aircraft INS error (from not having GPS or not turning on IFA) or error in the coordinates being handed off to it. To diagnose why there is a disparity in these images you'll need to post the trackfile.

[Wroblowaty]

When designating target via targeting pod, make sure to designate place where wheels/tracks meet the ground. Otherwise if you point at the "center of mass"  you will in reality provide the aircraft with coordinates of a place behind the target itself. If its done from a shallow angle and from a distance, error can be pretty big.

[Qazplm]

2025/3/27 PM7点44分，Wroblowaty说：

When designating target via targeting pod, make sure to designate place where wheels/tracks meet the ground. Otherwise if you point at the "center of mass"  you will in reality provide the aircraft with coordinates of a place behind the target itself. If its done from a shallow angle and from a distance, error can be pretty big.

You look at this picture of mine, I just aimed at a point on the ground, but all four GBU38s avoided this target point. The error is about 5 meters

 

2025/3/27 PM7点41分，Muchocracker说：

the F-16's INS overhaul hasnt been moved over, so the relative vs absolute targetting modelling isn't relevant to the hornet yet. The JDAM should always be hitting to the spec'd 5 meter CEP. If There is excessive missing it's either caused by aircraft INS error (from not having GPS or not turning on IFA) or error in the coordinates being handed off to it. To diagnose why there is a disparity in these images you'll need to post the trackfile.

……JDAM TOO targeting currently is not recommended for the F/A-18 aircraft due to inherent sensor/system inaccuracies, unless mission failure or collateral damage due to wide misses can be tolerated.……

This is what I saw on a PDF, which should be the reason. Only PP mode can be used, and TOO mode cannot be used to specify targets for small targets

[Muchocracker]

1 hour ago, Qazplm said:

……JDAM TOO targeting currently is not recommended for the F/A-18 aircraft due to inherent sensor/system inaccuracies, unless mission failure or collateral damage due to wide misses can be tolerated.……

This is what I saw on a PDF, which should be the reason. Only PP mode can be used, and TOO mode cannot be used to specify targets for small targets

Not relevant. The current state of both the weapon and the f-18 module in DCS is as i've described above. 

and FYI, you are violating forum rules for posting documents. That one especially is marked secret (literally in bold letters on the top of the page). Delete it

[BIGNEWY]

folks please do not post from real world manuals here on the forum. 

thank you