Jump to content

[REPORTED] Inconsistent accuracy between GP bomb types


vctpil

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

 

Is someone can confirm the AUTO bomb mode still inaccurate with the stable version ?

 

After selecting correctly the target altitude and dropping at 10000ft, the mk-82 is still far before the target (See screenshot)

 

I have made a research on the forum, but didn't find the related subject.

 

Thanks,

Vincent

Image1.png.b4fccb79ae8bfc6427e4cdaef8d6c09d.png

IAMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12x 3.7 to 4.8Ghz - 32Go DDR4 3600Mhz - GeForce RTX 3080 - Samsung Odyssey G7 QLED - AIMXY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After selecting correctly the target altitude and dropping at 10000ft, the mk-82 is still far before the target

 

Auto-Bombing has never been pinpoint accurate.

The system works by generating a drop point from the target and aircraft altitude, the aircraft attitude and possibly wind data from the aircraft(probably not the last on the 18 )

 

this means that, once the bomb leaves the rail, it is perfectly on target.

Now, with any deviation in wind, slight miscalculation in drag or airspeed, the bomb will now miss the target.

dropping from 10,000ft gives a good long fall time, thus a good long while for any slight deviation to have a greater effect on the final impact zone.

Thus i feel like it is still inaccurate, as it was never supposed to be 100% accurate under the conditions you state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that there is a lot of parameters that influence the accuracy, mainly a mk-82.

 

I will made some more test, without wind this time, but the AUTO mode seem still quite inaccurate.

IAMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12x 3.7 to 4.8Ghz - 32Go DDR4 3600Mhz - GeForce RTX 3080 - Samsung Odyssey G7 QLED - AIMXY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent some time duplicating your bombing conditions, @vctpil, and I've come to the same conclusions. To eliminate, or reduce the effect the variables might have, I attacked the target from differing directions, and with one pass at a higher indicated airspeed. In every case, the Mk-82 bombs fell approximately 100m to 200m short of the target. I set up a mission with zero wind, and repeated the test, with the same results.

 

TeamMaximus

Hardware: MSI MPG Z790 EDGE WiFi MB, i9-13900K @ 4.3GHz, 64GB DDR5, NVidia RTX 4090 24GB DDR6X, 2TB M.2 970 EVO Plus, 1TB SSD 850 EVO, Windows 11 Pro, HP Reverb G2, Tobii Head Tracker, TM Warthog HOTAS, TM F/A-18C Grip, TM Viper TQS Mission Pack, CH Pro Pedals.

Modules: A-10A, A-10C, F/A-18C, P-51D-50, Fw 190 A-8, Fw 190 D-9, Bf 109 K-4, Spitfire IX, Mosquito FB VI, AJS-37 Viggen, M-2000C, F-86F, F-15C, F-15E, F-5E, F-14A/B, L-39C, MiG-21bis, MiG-19P, MiG-29, SU-27, SU-33, AV-8B, Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D, Ka-50, UH-1H, SA342, A-4E-C, NTTR, PG, CA, Normandy, Channel, Syria, Marianas, South Atlantic, WWII Assets Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even sight oscillations in the stick and how closely you stay on the fall line have a huge effect on accuracy, at 10k ft I wouldn't expect a whole lot more from auto mode with dumb bombs then what your seeing.

 

Also without precise terrain elevation data, the computer is just not going to be able to get a great solution for auto to begin with. The GPS/INS is good but not that good. That's why in practice you wouldn't really see auto mode used for that kind attack. CCIP is always going to be a much better option for unguided weapons.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even sight oscillations in the stick and how closely you stay on the fall line have a huge effect on accuracy, at 10k ft I wouldn't expect a whole lot more from auto mode with dumb bombs then what your seeing.

 

Also without precise terrain elevation data, the computer is just not going to be able to get a great solution for auto to begin with. The GPS/INS is good but not that good. That's why in practice you wouldn't really see auto mode used for that kind attack. CCIP is always going to be a much better option for unguided weapons.

 

Well not really, there’s no reason CCIP should be more accurate. CCIP is using the exact same inputs and calculations as AUTO. Auto should be more accurate when given a precise aim point, generated by the TGP or WP designate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not really, there’s no reason CCIP should be more accurate. CCIP is using the exact same inputs and calculations as AUTO. Auto should be more accurate when given a precise aim point, generated by the TGP or WP designate.

 

 

There's a couple reasons its better CCIP typically requires a larger dive angle, which means higher velocity on the bombs, making them less susceptible to wind and decreasing the slant factor. Lower altitude employment allows for radar altimeter usage in the solution and therefore more accurate slant range, rather then pure INS calculations. You also can typically see the target better and make adjustments.

 

The human factor makes it more accurate, because your using the plane to help aim, not pure math which is highly dependent on the quality of the data you have to begin with. In a perfect world AUTO would probably be just as accurate, but IRL its less then desirable for dumb bombs, because they're so many variables that come into play.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that dropping unguided ordinance from that height is just not reasonable. You are using the wrong tool for the job. If you need to be at that elevation or higher to avoid surface threats then if you want to hit a target you need to use guided munitions. We have GBU’s, JDAMS, JSOW’s, and Mavericks for a reason. They are stand-off weapons. Dumb bombs are not standoff weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple reasons its better CCIP typically requires a larger dive angle, which means higher velocity on the bombs, making them less susceptible to wind and decreasing the slant factor. Lower altitude employment allows for radar altimeter usage in the solution and therefore more accurate slant range, rather then pure INS calculations. You also can typically see the target better and make adjustments.

 

The human factor makes it more accurate, because your using the plane to help aim, not pure math which is highly dependent on the quality of the data you have to begin with. In a perfect world AUTO would probably be just as accurate, but IRL its less then desirable for dumb bombs, because they're so many variables that come into play.

 

The common misconception is that AUTO is for level delivery. AUTO is perfectly capable of diving delivery, I use it 99% of the time. Combined with a radar slant range, or TGP laser range (ok, both not available yet), it’s preferable, takes away the human reaction factor when you mash the pickle during CCIP.

 

If you’ve got an accurate waypoint elevation BARO ranging may be more accurate than RAD ALT, depending on terrain under release point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test was in level flight, QNH set, and with the correct target elevation (3033ft).

 

I have tried with no wind, and have the same inaccuracy.

 

The question was is it still inacurrate, without entering in debate about is it the correct weapon, etc.

 

Apparently, yes, it is still bugged.

IAMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12x 3.7 to 4.8Ghz - 32Go DDR4 3600Mhz - GeForce RTX 3080 - Samsung Odyssey G7 QLED - AIMXY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test was in level flight, QNH set, and with the correct target elevation (3033ft).

 

I have tried with no wind, and have the same inaccuracy.

 

The question was is it still inacurrate, without entering in debate about is it the correct weapon, etc.

 

Apparently, yes, it is still bugged.

 

That’s what we are saying. No, not bugged. Modeled correctly. Inaccurate when used outside of practical parameters. When using the MK 82 at lower elevations they are accurate for me in CCIP and Auto modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modeled correctly ?

 

3000ft AGL

No wind

Standard QNH

First pass to confirm the diamond is right on the target

Second pass drop in level flight

 

Mk-82 definitely far from the target!

IAMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12x 3.7 to 4.8Ghz - 32Go DDR4 3600Mhz - GeForce RTX 3080 - Samsung Odyssey G7 QLED - AIMXY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modeled correctly ?

 

3000ft AGL

No wind

Standard QNH

First pass to confirm the diamond is right on the target

Second pass drop in level flight

 

Mk-82 definitely far from the target!

 

Certainly not my experience. But maybe since the update on Wednesday? I’ll test it here in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The common misconception is that AUTO is for level delivery. AUTO is perfectly capable of diving delivery, I use it 99% of the time. Combined with a radar slant range, or TGP laser range (ok, both not available yet), it’s preferable, takes away the human reaction factor when you mash the pickle during CCIP.

 

If you’ve got an accurate waypoint elevation BARO ranging may be more accurate than RAD ALT, depending on terrain under release point.

 

Most times it’s used in a dive/loft. Again, it’s about the quality of the coordinate data, (which can definitely be improved with a TGP/FAC ) and the fact that it’s difficult to make last minute fine adjustments close to the RP like you can in CCIP. But if your coordinates are perfect and the targets not moving then yeah it works fine. But the reality is they often aren’t. The OPs situation is definitely is going to introduce errors in the solution, which should be expected.

 

The problem with CCIP is it requires a step dive angle which is not preferable in heavily defended skies, and you have to actually see the target.


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tested it. You have to constantly check during your run in that the target designator on the hud is over the target. As you get closer the diamond moves because either it is calculating more and more precise as you get closer or because it’s just not perfect when you are far out. As you get closer the deviation is observable. If you release and miss don’t touch the tdc slew. When you roll back in you will see that the tdc is perfectly centered in the missed impact crater. Sweeten the tdc and you will hit the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the claims that this is just realistically inaccurate don’t address what the OP and TeamMaximus are reporting:

 

Namely, they dropped the bomb from different directions and it ALWAYS falls short.

 

A) If it was related to wind, the deviation would not be the same from the opposite direction.

B) Incorrect altitude data would explain it always being short, but it sounds like they have double checked that as well.

C) Any random error or inaccuracy would not result in the weapon ALWAYS falling short, regardless of direction, but rather scatter around the target randomly as you repeat the test.

 

I think it is incorrect to close this as being “correct as is.” The responses missed critical pieces of information in the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the claims that this is just realistically inaccurate don’t address what the OP and TeamMaximus are reporting:

 

Namely, they dropped the bomb from different directions and it ALWAYS falls short.

 

A) If it was related to wind, the deviation would not be the same from the opposite direction.

B) Incorrect altitude data would explain it always being short, but it sounds like they have double checked that as well.

C) Any random error or inaccuracy would not result in the weapon ALWAYS falling short, regardless of direction, but rather scatter around the target randomly as you repeat the test.

 

I think it is incorrect to close this as being “correct as is.” The responses missed critical pieces of information in the report.

 

It has to do with placement of the designator which moves as it recalculated as you get closer to the target. You have to sweeten the sensor as you run in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s see if the OP can replicate and confirm that this is the reason for what they are seeing. I didn’t address your new information because I was typing at the same time as you :).

 

I still stand by my claim that all the previous (before yours) responses don’t explain what is going on and therefore this shouldn’t be marked as resolved.

 

Awesome work on the explanation, btw. Hope that’s what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't fall short for me, I can get AUTO deliveries right on target consistently. Just not while level at 10k ft and eyeballing it with the ball and chain method. lol You shouldn't expect that to be accurate, AUTO mode isn't magical.

 

You've got to make sure the TD is right on the target and you have good elevation data, then be very smooth and stable during release while staying on the fall line as close as possible. All that aside from the fact that it's not a great choice for dumb bomb delivery to begin with, but its certainly possible to get a direct hit.


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb bombs are not pinpoint accurate of course, but that doesn't explain the OPs observations of MK-82 falling consistently short, while Mk-83s are right on target! That can't be right, as there is no reason why one type of dumb bombs is precise and the other is not, especially if the other is falling short consistently.

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

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bombing accuracy with dumb bombs in DCS is way too high. The literally is no reason to use guided munitions because you can nail pin on the ground work dumb bombs.

 

According to Raytheon's fact sheet for the Paveway 2, 99 deliveries of guided munitions will yield a circular error probable (CEP) of only 3.6 feet (1.1 metres), versus a CEP of 310 feet (94.49 metres) for 99 unguided bombs dropped under similar conditions.

 

I would like to know what was those conditions, like 4000m and 2-3 m/s wind or what?

 

But at least on similar conditions the guided is far more effective.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bombing accuracy with dumb bombs in DCS is way too high. The literally is no reason to use guided munitions because you can nail pin on the ground work dumb bombs.

 

 

 

I would like to know what was those conditions, like 4000m and 2-3 m/s wind or what?

 

But at least on similar conditions the guided is far more effective.

 

On the other hand blast damage is simulated so poorly (if at all) that you could miss a tank by 1 inch and cause no damage. It kinda evens out, however I fully agree that they should fix both the blast damage bug and make the bombs accuracy realistically a bit less accurate.

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb bombs are not pinpoint accurate of course, but that doesn't explain the OPs observations of MK-82 falling consistently short, while Mk-83s are right on target! That can't be right, as there is no reason why one type of dumb bombs is precise and the other is not, especially if the other is falling short consistently.

 

++1

 

and Mk-84 too long ...

too much ...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bombing accuracy with dumb bombs in DCS is way too high. The literally is no reason to use guided munitions because you can nail pin on the ground work dumb bombs.

What is 'way too high'? I have zero knowledge about how precise dumb bombs actually should be nowadays, but the Norden M bombsight demonstrated a CEP of 75ft, and that was back in WWII.

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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