[ NOT A BUG- USER ERROR] Snakeyes land long

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

I had the same accuracy issues in a dive. Everything from 20-45deg. But I have no data to support it. There has been reports on the M2000C CCIP before, so It might be worth investigating.

 

@ escaner maybe you should record a video with release in a dive?

If there is evidence to support it I might but as it stands, the Mirage was not designed to make level ccip attacks with snake's in a precision bombing role. Using it in a +20° dive I get within a 3m accuracy enough to heavily damage or kill a T72.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Schmidtfire]

So the current assesment is that

 

*The manual is wrong. CCIP bombing can be performed both at level and dive from M2000C.

 

*The [NOT A BUG- USER ERROR] should be re-opened for investigation, as it is not user error.

 

 

Dive or level flight, the CCIP symbol is valid and over target. Accuracy should be better in a dive, but has been reported as somewhat inaccurate in both level and dive attacks. CCIP accuracy is something that has been brought up before so might be worth doing a proper test.

 

If this current CCIP inaccuracy is realistic or not, I don't know. It is not an ARBS system or anything like that. But comparing to Hornet, Viper, Tomcat and other modules with CCIP systems it might be a little bit off. Again, worth investigating.

 

@ RABAM_ELMO I will do some testing in a dive and see if I can get some useful data and a track.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Schmidtfire

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

So the current assesment is that

 

*The manual is wrong. CCIP bombing can be performed both at level and dive from M2000C.

 

*The [NOT A BUG- USER ERROR] should be re-opened for investigation, as it is not user error.

 

 

Dive or level flight, the CCIP symbol is valid and over target. Accuracy should be better in a dive, but has been reported as somewhat inaccurate in both level and dive attacks. CCIP accuracy is something that has been brought up before so might be worth doing a proper test.

 

If this current CCIP inaccuracy is realistic or not, I don't know. It is not an ARBS system or anything like that. But comparing to Hornet, Viper, Tomcat and other modules with CCIP systems it might be a little bit off. Again, worth investigating.

 

@ RABAM_ELMO I will do some testing in a dive and see if I can get some useful data and a track.

 

Let me know what you find but it needs evidence in the form of a trk.

 

Your "assessment" is incorrect. Yes the Mirage can use CCIP from both level and dive, just the idea that people are using Snakeyes as a precision munitions in a low level attack is incorrect and should not expect to get pin-point accuracy using that method.

 

So no the manual is not wrong.

 

The CCIP pipper is not wrong.

 

I have a 50/50 split of people saying its inaccurate vs those who say its correct and its simply a matter of practice and method leading to inaccuracy. Therefore that is what guided my decision to label it as user error. The only other explanation is that the FM for the MK.82SE is wrong.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[jojo]

*sigh* Well the manual is based on the actual manual and the actual tactics used. So while you are entitled to your opinion, youre idea of what happens in game vs. what happens in real life is incorrect so forcing the opinion onto others is not right.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

I suggest you check back with the team.

If my memory serves me right, the manual was mainly written by Baltic Dragon and before EC 2/5 got involved in the project.

And high drag bombs lost AdA favours after Al Jabber strike raid in 1991.

 

20° to 30° dive are perfect for CCPL, not so much for CCIP with high drag bomb.

 

There is in this topic a video in game showing the delay between trigger press and bomb release.

And the bombs impact roughly were the pipper is at release moment, not at trigger press.

 

You also have Ergo, who worked on Mirage 2000 weapon system coding IRL who explain to you that this delay should be taken into account in the targeting system.

And I know him personally, so I’m sure he isn’t a mythomaniac.

 

What he explains means that when the pipper is over the target, the pilot presses the trigger and hold still until bomb release.

0.5s at 500kt is 128m.

 

Sure we can train to press the trigger 0.5s in advance, but this hazardous.

Edited October 14, 2020 by jojo

[El Chapo]

I guarantee you 100% from first hand experience that Dassault's manual and FAF tactical guides never consider using high drag bombs in a dive. Therefore official DCS's M2000 guide is wrong on that aspect.

Among other considerations, vertical position error is one of the main factor of final precision error. When you are in a dive, vertical position uncertainty increases largely due to Vz, thus badly impacting overall precision.

[Ergo]

I have a 50/50 split of people saying its inaccurate vs those who say its correct and its simply a matter of practice and method leading to inaccuracy. Therefore that is what guided my decision to label it as user error. The only other explanation is that the FM for the MK.82SE is wrong.

 

To have good precision with mk82SE, i must aim backward the target in the game ... it's not realistic !!

 

IRL we have a voluntary lag between BRM pressure and bomb release, due to :

- CCPI piper aim forward the real point of impact

- SNA need time to received information "BRM pressed"

- SNA compute the date of release taking into account the aimed point with CCPI piper

- SNA wait "date of release" (lag is here principally)

- SNA send fire-order to BIA

 

M2000 have a very good precision with no-guided bombe at low altitude with this system. (precision is ... classified, but very lower than 100m ...)

[Ergo]

I guarantee you 100% from first hand experience that Dassault's manual and FAF tactical guides never consider using high drag bombs in a dive. Therefore official DCS's M2000 guide is wrong on that aspect.

Among other considerations, vertical position error is one of the main factor of final precision error. When you are in a dive, vertical position uncertainty increases largely due to Vz, thus badly impacting overall precision.

 

100% agree !

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Alright. So i dont know who Ergo is, and while it is entirely possible he worked on the systems, I have no evidence supporting that.

 

I hear alot of they wouldn't or I guarantee in the manual it says this or I don't think the AdA would ever do that. Again, EVIDENCE I see none of it so I'm inclined to believe the guy who we work with who flies them on a daily basis over someone on a forum speculating.

 

Again, you guys are suggesting using them, in a precision one bomb, one target. So I did a little testing on my own. To show why this is not proper procedure and should be avoided. Attached are the track file so you can have a look.

 

Lets start with the Parameters. Little wind, good temps, FAT jet. Awesome. I have multiple targets set up but the ones I'm going after are T-72s. x2 MK82Ses per drop, set to instantaneous. TAS and RS selected because level terrain for greater accuracy.

 

First attack is done in a dive greater than -20 degrees. Release point is the center of the pipper. Right on top kill T-72

 

Second attack done from a low and level approach, compensating for the drop delay by releasing at the top of the aiming pipper. Within 1-2m according to my eye. No kill

 

Third attack run matches Second only this time release point is center of pipper. Bombs fly long, missing target.

 

Fourth run demonstrates proper use of CCIP in a low level attack on material targets. Beside the T-72s are some mean BMPs. Bombs now set to release 4 with a 10m spacing. Same parameters as above three runs. Roughly lining up with the row of BMPs I neutralize the first 1/4 of the convoy but dont kill every single one.

 

This leaves us with our lesson learned. If we want to start dropping single bombs on single targets, we get a friendly A/C to lase for us or have a JTAC paint a target to drop a GBU-12 on MF'rs. We dont try using a snakeye dropped from low and level expecting to hit right at the turret ring and making roasted Ivan. If we want to use that method, we use it against a large group of light targets, infantry in the open, or a building. And if we want a concentrated pattern we come in low level, pop up, and make a dive into target dropping a large amount of munition to compensate for the fact that were using unguided munitions.

 

Pilotas, I like when things are challenged and we start asking questions, but what you guys need to start doing is not just saying things but proving what you say is correct and providing evidence to your claims otherwise its just an opinion and not a fact. I deal with facts and absolutes. I dont deal in theories, possibilities or guesses. I'm trying to get more done for you guys and make sure that you guys get your voice, but what i wont do is bring I thinks and what ifs to the dev team and waste their time. We've already stopped development on projects to put more man power on crushing out the bugs left on whats been released and announced so lets work constructively so we can get these all done and move onto Mudhens and fly in the Falklands.

MirageSnakeyeTest.trk

Edited October 14, 2020 by RAZBAM_ELMO

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

The kind of video Jojo is talking about : https://dai.ly/xfpcsf

Those are M2000D/N aircraft, designed and optimized for ground attack whereas the M2000 is a dedicated Air to Air platform and has the ability to do A2G but not in the same as a D/N is.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[El Chapo]

Nobody will give you a proof of the absence of something.

The reason is, since it does not exist, there is no proof.

If you say something exist, you have to produce the evidence.

This is a well known logical truth.

 

So when we tell you FAF and Dassault never published anything regarding CCIP dive bombing with high drag bombs, we can not prove it, because we pretend it has not been published.

 

I love this plane and the module you built, but hey, dealing with Razbam's representatives is a pain in the a**.

[Steph21]

How can we get contradictory infos if they all come from official sources of Mirage 2000C pilots/engineers?

Any chance SNA would differ from 2000 variants, from N to C for example, that could explain it (I guess 2000D can be put apart)?

 

Mirage 2000 put apart, still wonder the point of high angle dive bombing with high drag bombs. Official notebook from USAF for the f-16 gives max angle of 15° for bombing with high drag bombs for example. Low drag bombs are use for higher angle deliveries.

So I find surprising that AdA would use such tactics, but that's just me.

 

At least Elmo is here talking with us, so you could at least watch your langage.

[jojo]

Those are M2000D/N aircraft, designed and optimized for ground attack whereas the M2000 is a dedicated Air to Air platform and has the ability to do A2G but not in the same as a D/N is.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

Maybe you can ask your SME to produce a HUD video of high drag bomb (BF) attack run in 20° dive, even the “official” simulator will do.

 

Just something like “ok, let me check with the guys at Orange AB and I’ll come back” would suit me.

 

Because so far, you are assuming that Baltic Dragon wrote Razbam M-2000C manual under EC 2/5 supervision. But it isn’t the case.

And while overall he did a great job, there are some places where it could be improved.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

We could ask that, but we can't release that footage under contract. The devs get ALOT of information from our SMEs on functions and when the SMEs play the game to test things out trust me when I say there is not a single case where they don't find a tweak that needs to be made. I would love to take people at their word but because I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the information they are providing then RAZBAM cannot trust that this information is correct. Im not trying to come off as rude or stark but I'm just trying to be a matter of fact with things. Just because something should be a certain way or someone thinks it needs to be for ease of use does not mean that is how it works or how it is. The general thought and employment for some weapons is taken from some open sources but even the SMEs can't divulge tactics to us despite the NDAs and military contracts. We try to limit interpreting and guesstimating as much info as possible and work with 1st hand knowledge and feedback from verified sources.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

I guarantee you 100% from first hand experience that Dassault's manual and FAF tactical guides never consider using high drag bombs in a dive. Therefore official DCS's M2000 guide is wrong on that aspect.

Among other considerations, vertical position error is one of the main factor of final precision error. When you are in a dive, vertical position uncertainty increases largely due to Vz, thus badly impacting overall precision.

 

 

 

But how am I to know that you're guarantee is 100%? How am I to know that you know all of this to be fact? See what I mean by why I can't simply draw information from unverified sources and expect it to be true.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

I suggest you check back with the team.

 

There is in this topic a video in game showing the delay between trigger press and bomb release.

And the bombs impact roughly were the pipper is at release moment, not at trigger press.

 

What he explains means that when the pipper is over the target, the pilot presses the trigger and hold still until bomb release.

0.5s at 500kt is 128m.

 

Sure we can train to press the trigger 0.5s in advance, but this hazardous.

 

All of that is correct and makes perfect sense because of that eg. .5s delay where the relative distance the aircraft travels in the sky compared to if it were diving the distance covered would be shorter. Taking that into account and releasing at an earlier point would logically make sense because its a predicted impact point on a 2D landscape not accounting for a 3D object like a tank par example.

 

How that is hazardous is confusing to me though and would require some explaining because the only difference is that you have to think a bit before your attack run and just note mentally that on a level flight path between 0 and -10 degrees that you release at the top of a pipper and not the center like you would do in a taller, steeper dive.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[jojo]

We could ask that, but we can't release that footage under contract. The devs get ALOT of information from our SMEs on functions and when the SMEs play the game to test things out trust me when I say there is not a single case where they don't find a tweak that needs to be made. I would love to take people at their word but because I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the information they are providing then RAZBAM cannot trust that this information is correct. Im not trying to come off as rude or stark but I'm just trying to be a matter of fact with things. Just because something should be a certain way or someone thinks it needs to be for ease of use does not mean that is how it works or how it is. The general thought and employment for some weapons is taken from some open sources but even the SMEs can't divulge tactics to us despite the NDAs and military contracts. We try to limit interpreting and guesstimating as much info as possible and work with 1st hand knowledge and feedback from verified sources.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

There are people here with background in the industry or the Air Force. And like Razbam they may not be allowed to release evidence on the open just to make a point.

And there are a bunch of Dassault fighters from the 80'-90' that are using the same system.

 

Like I said: since EC 2/5 involvement, they tweaked some systems, but not everything, far from it.

CCPI and high drag bombs are a thing of the past. It's fun for us to play with, but the last time they used it in action was probably 1991, and the video of 1999 was just for the show.

Back then, the Mirage 2000-5F just got declared operational, and Mirage 2000C was still mainly into the AA business.

 

When Mirage 2000C was re-focused to "gun slinger" in AG alongside Mirage 2000D, we saw them with Mk-82 and GBU-12 = CCPL to avoid small arm arms fire.

So I would totally understand that "BF" bomb mode was not high on the priority list for AdA.

 

You are dismissing the case on the the assumption that it's according to specs as it is.

We are just asking you to check with your SME. :book:

You don't have to take all that we say for granted, just note into the things to check with the guys of EC 2/5 please.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

There are people here with background in the industry or the Air Force. And like Razbam they may not be allowed to release evidence on the open just to make a point.

 

And there are a bunch of Dassault fighters from the 80'-90' that are using the same system.

 

 

 

Like I said: since EC 2/5 involvement, they tweaked some systems, but not everything, far from it.

 

CCPI and high drag bombs are a thing of the past. It's fun for us to play with, but the last time they used it in action was probably 1991, and the video of 1999 was just for the show.

 

Back then, the Mirage 2000-5F just got declared operational, and Mirage 2000C was still mainly into the AA business.

 

 

 

When Mirage 2000C was re-focused to "gun slinger" in AG alongside Mirage 2000D, we saw them with Mk-82 and GBU-12 = CCPL to avoid small arm arms fire.

 

So I would totally understand that "BF" bomb mode was not high on the priority list for AdA.

 

 

 

You are dismissing the case on the the assumption that it's according to specs as it is.

 

We are just asking you to check with your SME. :book:

 

You don't have to take all that we say for granted, just note into the things to check with the guys of EC 2/5 please.

 

I am by no means dismissing the case nor am I ignoring it. I did ask the SME and am awaiting his response. However at this time with the information available and provided it cannot be considered a major or gamebreaking bug requiring the attention of the dev team, more like a side note to be addressed at a later time. I'm in the process of testing the theory that computing a point of impact in 3D space using a 2D logic in level flight will produce the long misses described using various aircraft from A10s to F18s and F16s. So far its all showing the same results, relative movement of the aircraft on the ground is greater than that in a dive therefore trying to aim at target always produces a miss because the impact point in 2D space is past or beyond the target due to the delay in releasing the munition.

 

This is mater of fact and a CCIP drop with the HUD cannot compensate for the presence of a 3D target. Given the results I've seen, that is what prompted me to move this to resolved and labeling it as user error. During the tests we had individuals use the center of the pipper to get the long shots then compensating on successive runs by aiming in front of the target space which produced wither a hit or within a 5m radius of accuracy depending on individuals. In a dive it was the center and everyone hit within 5m.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Flagrum]

So far its all showing the same results, relative movement of the aircraft on the ground is greater than that in a dive therefore trying to aim at target always produces a miss because the impact point in 2D space is past or beyond the target due to the delay in releasing the munition.

I think, I understand your explanation, but I am not convinced that this is unavoidable. The different speeds over ground - isn't that something the CCIP logic should take into account? I mean, isn't exactly that what the C for Computing stands for in CCIP?

 

(...) trying to aim at target always produces a miss because the impact point in 2D space is past or beyond the target due to the delay in releasing the munition.

This seems a bit more plausible to me, but still, the delay between pressing weapon release and the actual separation of the weapon from the airframe - these are known parameters that CCIP should be able to take into account as well.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Just so there no confusion or thinking this is a Mirage issue, testing this over other airframes like the A10, F18, F-16, JF-17 and Harrier, the behaviour is the same across all the platforms.

 

So that means that it is down to the user to practice and follow bombing tables. If you are curious to know what these may look like then you can have a look at the declassified bombing tables for the F-5 which should give you a rough estimation for what speed, and altitude you should be bombing at.

[jojo]

Just so there no confusion or thinking this is a Mirage issue, testing this over other airframes like the A10, F18, F-16, JF-17 and Harrier, the behaviour is the same across all the platforms.

 

So that means that it is down to the user to practice and follow bombing tables. If you are curious to know what these may look like then you can have a look at the declassified bombing tables for the F-5 which should give you a rough estimation for what speed, and altitude you should be bombing at.

 

No, that just means that none of this module cared to include release delay in the CCIP targeting.

So far, trying to aim with the centre of the CCIP cue, at 500kt and around 300ft I get consistently around 200ft miss distance. Since it's repeatable, it's accurate.

 

F-5E doesn't have CCIP.

 

I will try to make a proper testing video in the coming days.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

No, that just means that none of this module cared to include release delay in the CCIP targeting.

 

So far, trying to aim with the centre of the CCIP cue, at 500kt and around 300ft I get consistently around 200ft miss distance. Since it's repeatable, it's accurate.

 

 

 

F-5E doesn't have CCIP.

 

 

 

I will try to make a proper testing video in the coming days.

I explore you to review the F5 bombing tables for the Snakeyes. It does not have a CCIP "mode" because its all dropped by referencing bombing tables.

 

You can do your tests to confirm for yourself but I spent the better part of the night before, the day yesterday and last night trying this out with modules I own and having testers use those which I dont. Its the same results between all aircraft and bringing this evidence to the dev team.

 

The SME's input from the Harrier and the Mirage on use of snakeeyes at level low altitudes is why use a single or pair of bombs to hit a single target. That is not what the attack method is designed for. Its for large area targets and columns of vehicles or a strip of road. So this will remain a USER ERROR.

 

Adjusting the pipper would make other forms of bombing inaccurate. Decreasing the time from button press to weapon release would be inaccurate. Therefore it will remain as is.

 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk