Cbu 103/105 ,not WCMD in 4.33?
-
Hey Frederf thanx for info
If you actually meant that itās hard to code such errors in BMS then actually itās not so much, see for example what will happen if you release JDAMs without aligning them, there will be some error built into the target position (amount of error will depend on the amount of alignment already done, there are 2 ālevelsā of error, itās not linear to the alignment stage or anything). I guess I can easily enough built in a 30m natural error for WCMDs, maybe Iāll actually do that in sometime (although the effect will be hardly noticeable anyway :)).
Yeah do it, add the error. It doesnāt matter if no one notices - the fact we know itās there provides the immersionā¦
Speaking of CEPs / errors etc, it would be awesome if you could program some error into weapon delivery calculations. The interaction between inertial position / true position, system altitude and the various degress of accuracy between the different ranging sensors is crying out to be modeled. Now that we have realistic SPI and correct HUD indications of ranging method (B,F,T,L etc prefixes), it would be great if the ranging method had an effect of the accuracy of the solution. For example as you know, laser ranging and AGR should do a better job than pure BARO ranging. Oh and add RAD ALT ranging option as wellā¦
-
105s with their expensive and potent SFW payload suggest a slightly more frugal use. In both cases I assume the pairs as the default decision and singles requiring a convincing argument otherwise.
My AI wingie threw four of 'em on a single KS-19 during a DEAD raid. Iād have loved to hear her convincing argument.
Other than that, great weapon though. Threw mine in singles from high alt via CCRP and racked up an impressive amount of kills.
-
About the winds aloft part, are there any plans of trying to bring that back to the sim? I remember it was tried in some SP version with not very good results on the AI as Frederf was saying.
Not that it would have significant impact for the usual F-16 sim-flying (that is what the sim is about! so probably is not worth the trouble), but it just feels a little bit odd to read 5kt at 36kft on the DED when you are more used to seeing like 100
-
Thanks for the input, Guys. Frederf, what you wrote about WCMD was new and very interesting to me. My understanding of WCMD from what I had read is that they ācorrect for windā.
This question arose out of a mission I flew last night. I flew a DEAD mission where I found myself surrounded by 2 SA-2ās and a SA-3, which I hit, and a SA-6 that was rather sneaky in that it didnāt show itself until I was real close to it. (and Devs, good job on the AI on that!). Anyway, the -6 got me as I was dropping on it. It was ,to paraphrase Topgun, āthe best flying yet, right up until you got killed!ā I was using JSOW on that mission. I want to get away from that ordinance as I know our multiplayer community doesnāt use that. So, I like the IAM/non JSOW cluster bomb concept, hence the question. -
If you actually meant that itās hard to code such errors in BMS then actually itās not so much
I shouldnāt say āhard to doā but more āitās another step in complexity to modeling.ā
Funny enough JDAMs get more accurate the longer the drop since they can do multiple GPS updates. WCMD should drift more (theoretically) with longer drops since they are INS only.
I do not understand this part. So now we have wind drift or not without messing in cfg?
As far as I know it is the same winds aloft as 4.32 with the same issues.
-
Funny enough JDAMs get more accurate the longer the drop since they can do multiple GPS updates.
Do you have a source for that? I would think that as long as it falls long enough to acquire GPS it will have GPS accuracy. I donāt see how extra time will improve that.
-
Thanks for the input, Guys. Frederf, what you wrote about WCMD was new and very interesting to me. My understanding of WCMD from what I had read is that they ācorrect for windā.
This question arose out of a mission I flew last night. I flew a DEAD mission where I found myself surrounded by 2 SA-2ās and a SA-3, which I hit, and a SA-6 that was rather sneaky in that it didnāt show itself until I was real close to it. (and Devs, good job on the AI on that!). Anyway, the -6 got me as I was dropping on it. It was ,to paraphrase Topgun, āthe best flying yet, right up until you got killed!ā I was using JSOW on that mission. I want to get away from that ordinance as I know our multiplayer community doesnāt use that. So, I like the IAM/non JSOW cluster bomb concept, hence the question.Coming back from a long hiatus, Iām wondering why āour multiplayer community doesnāt useā¦ā JSOWs??? Why not?
-
Coming back from a long hiatus, Iām wondering why āour multiplayer community doesnāt useā¦ā JSOWs??? Why not?
SoBad, this question has been asked before. As with HARM, it is felt they remove some challenge from the game
-
Coming back from a long hiatus, Iām wondering why āour multiplayer community doesnāt useā¦ā JSOWs??? Why not?
They are like mini nukes, over powered, just check falcononline forums and you see why.
AI and terrain model is simple so you can get huge amounts of kills with those in one flight
-EDIT- This may not be so bad now in 4.33 than it was in 4.32 , i have to make more testing.
-
Speaking of CEPs / errors etc, it would be awesome if you could program some error into weapon delivery calculations. The interaction between inertial position / true position, system altitude and the various degress of accuracy between the different ranging sensors is crying out to be modeled. Now that we have realistic SPI and correct HUD indications of ranging method (B,F,T,L etc prefixes), it would be great if the ranging method had an effect of the accuracy of the solution. For example as you know, laser ranging and AGR should do a better job than pure BARO ranging. Oh and add RAD ALT ranging option as wellā¦
I for one would love to see this - folks needing accurate system altitude to be able to get decent bombing solutions in CCRP, implementation of A-CAL, possible long/short bomb errors due to incorrect system altitude, solution lag for CCIP over broken terrainā¦ Id like to see steerpoint elevation no longer be the intended altitude of flyover. How awesome would it be to get the CCIP pipper displayed in a plane parallel to the ground, but above or below it due to incorrect system altitude?
Im not sure you can get a radar altimeter ranging solution. something to look into I guess.
-
The payload of the āAā model JSOW is 145 BLU-97 while the CBU-87/103 is 202 BLU-97. Delivery of these submunition particulars notwithstanding, one would expect nearly equal or inferior terminal effects from the JSOW-A. Historically 4.32 JSOW-A effect was hugely more powerful than the CBU-87, rather unbelievably so. Since the JSOW-C is not available in most campaigns, the JSOW-A became the JSOW-is-an-unrealistically-overpowered-weapon categorically.
For example a 2000ā EGEA JSOW-A fired at a cluster of armored targets killed two tanks 462m apart as well as 3 others. Assuming a circular uniform distribution that is 145 munitions spread over ~167,000m^2 or ~1 munition per 1000m^2. A T-72 is about a 25m^2 target. Respective areas suggest a hit-to-kill-required hit ratio of 2.5%. Trucks, infantry, kills and tank damages are of course possible without a direct hit. The expected radius to have 50% hit-to-kill ratio for 145/202 BLUs is 48m/57m using much simplified math (basically what radius produces 1 munition/50m^2 density).
In 4.33 wide area total devastation of hard targets with JSOW-A is nearly or actually impossible. Combined with the much more accurate modeling of the system in general the stigma of using the āinstant promotion bombā should weaken.
-
4.32 JSOW-A effect was hugely more powerful than the CBU-87, rather unbelievably so. Since the JSOW-C is not available in most campaigns, the JSOW-A became the JSOW-is-an-unrealistically-overpowered-weapon categorically.
In 4.33 wide area total devastation of hard targets with JSOW-A is nearly or actually impossible. Combined with the much more accurate modeling of the system in general the stigma of using the āinstant promotion bombā should weaken.
This has become a very interesting discussion now.
-
While I agree that 4.32 JSOW were WAY overmodeled in damage effects, my understanding is that the 4.33 version of JSOWs is more realistic. Any BMS devs care to weigh in on this?
-
Assuming that JSOWs are now more realistic in 4.33, the argument that a weapon doesnāt give enough challenge is very naive. When I go into a fight, I do not care about āfairnessā, āchallengeā, or ābalanceā. Real life isnāt a rule-regulated sport. I want to utterly, immediately, and devastatingly overwhelm my opponent. If someone approaches me with a baseball bat, my response is to run them over with a Ford 150 pickup truck. F**k āchallengeā. This philosophy goes far to explain my long āreal lifeā years thus far.
-
-
I took out a whole Hart artillery site with guns, whole thing went up in flames to my surprise!, Iāll try get picture next time. Iām enjoying campaign without HAD and JSOW, I like getting up close to the fight.
-
I fired 4 JSOW As at a T-55 BN stationary in 3x2 clusters (about 1000ā across each group), DMPI was a center of individual clusters. EGEA was 500ā, 1166ā, 1833ā, 2500ā (EGEA seems to change nothing, the weapons just plow into the DMPI like they are C models and the area effect happens the same or extremely similar). Each weapon destroyed 2-3 vehicles and damaged 4-5 in this arrangement. That seems reasonable. Do the same thing with a softer BN and youāre going to really do some hurt. Armor targets demand JSOW-Bs which we donāt have; As are reasonably effective against armor especially in quantity but devastating against soft targets.
The challenge with JSOWs is terminal alignment and leading moving targets. The effect seems to be entirely circular so unless terrain, weapon formations, or shoot down is an issue, direct weapon path is just fine. For moving targets I clocked a convoy in GMTI to see how fast it passed my FCR cursors in X minutes. Combining the convoy speed, expected TOF, radar returns of road paths, and convoy direction thereās plenty of challenge in engaging moving units.
-
The Paveway II series do not correct for wind; they have an inefficient flight profile that only guides to the laser spot. The realease point can be adjusted by on-board wind data, but after release the weapon is hands off in regards to winds. The difference between a WCMD and PWII is similar to the difference between pure persuit and pro-nav.
-
This has become a very interesting discussion now.
-
While I agree that 4.32 JSOW were WAY overmodeled in damage effects, my understanding is that the 4.33 version of JSOWs is more realistic. Any BMS devs care to weigh in on this?
-
Assuming that JSOWs are now more realistic in 4.33, the argument that a weapon doesnāt give enough challenge is very naive. When I go into a fight, I do not care about āfairnessā, āchallengeā, or ābalanceā. Real life isnāt a rule-regulated sport. I want to utterly, immediately, and devastatingly overwhelm my opponent. If someone approaches me with a baseball bat, my response is to run them over with a Ford 150 pickup truck. F**k āchallengeā. This philosophy goes far to explain my long āreal lifeā years thus far.
2@ maybe my English makes me hard to understand but i try to say that even if weapon is modelled 100% to RL , rest of simulation wont be. Terrain offers zero cover to red (no real jungle etcā¦) and AI wonāt move and relocate units enough.
And this is not real life Btw ā¦
You like to beat enemy (korea) without any danger , well thats fine for you.
I like to even loose my virtual war sometimes.
-
-
I for one would love to see this - folks needing accurate system altitude to be able to get decent bombing solutions in CCRP, implementation of A-CAL, possible long/short bomb errors due to incorrect system altitude, solution lag for CCIP over broken terrainā¦ Id like to see steerpoint elevation no longer be the intended altitude of flyover. How awesome would it be to get the CCIP pipper displayed in a plane parallel to the ground, but above or below it due to incorrect system altitude?
Im not sure you can get a radar altimeter ranging solution. something to look into I guess.
Cool, I have an ally - we need to start lobbying for stuff like this. It would add so much to the pure bombing mechanics side of the sim. It is kinda āpoint and shootā without it.
Sure you can have a RAD ALT ranging sensor. It performs height above target calculations for the bombing trigonometry just like BARO ALT, in the absence of either the Radar or Laser.
-
Cool, I have an ally - we need to start lobbying for stuff like this. It would add so much to the pure bombing mechanics side of the sim. It is kinda āpoint and shootā without it.
Sure you can have a RAD ALT ranging sensor. It performs height above target calculations for the bombing trigonometry just like BARO ALT, in the absence of either the Radar or Laser.
I will be with you guys too!
-
This has become a very interesting discussion now.
-
While I agree that 4.32 JSOW were WAY overmodeled in damage effects, my understanding is that the 4.33 version of JSOWs is more realistic. Any BMS devs care to weigh in on this?
-
Assuming that JSOWs are now more realistic in 4.33, the argument that a weapon doesnāt give enough challenge is very naive. When I go into a fight, I do not care about āfairnessā, āchallengeā, or ābalanceā. Real life isnāt a rule-regulated sport. I want to utterly, immediately, and devastatingly overwhelm my opponent. If someone approaches me with a baseball bat, my response is to run them over with a Ford 150 pickup truck. F**k āchallengeā. This philosophy goes far to explain my long āreal lifeā years thus far.
This has become interesting, and it raises what to me has been the question. Which is, knowing the relative payloads of cbu-87,for example, and JSOW, how /why is/was JSOW a āmini nukeā ? Was it āartificially enhancedā in 4.32? Is it still?
Donāt get me wrong, I love BMS and am not complaining. I also get the āgreater challengeā concept. Even I donāt load up with HARMs, for example. My favorite kills are still Mav kills, though I am liking -103ās more and more. However, IMHO, I would like As Real As It Gets. If RL has x,y,z, I would like to see them. too. And, I will use them, given the tactical situation. For example, at the start of a campaign when I know Iāll be knee deep in bandits without escort and lucky to get within 20 miles of the target, I want standoff.
And btw, sign me up for what Blue and Adam are talking about. -
-
The JSOW-A produced kills of truck-like targets separated by 1,540ā (300m). The footprint from videos appears to be about 1/3 or 1/4 of the burst height. Since the highest possible dispense for the JSOW-A is 2,500ā the maximum footprint is expected no greater than 830ā (270m). This CBU-87/103 with HOF 3000ā (low spin setting) producing a 400x200m footprint at the largest. EGEA of 500ā should produce a significantly tighter ground footprint (~30m wide, probably a bit longer than wide).
The JSOW against soft targets remains overpowered strictly in terms of footprint size. A 500m wide swath of assured destruction especially at moderate EGEAs is too much. Strictly by submunition density calculation itās hard to believe. Giving a lethal radius of 202 BLU-97 at 7m, an acceptable area ratio of 2:1; the maximum area is a circle 140m in radius. To kill trucks 300m apart each of the 145 munitions must be responsible for a 12.4m kill radius at minimum with no overlap.
In BMS Iāve found that HOF or EGEA has absolutely no change of terminal effect for JSOW-A or CBU-103 or CBU-87. No wait, -87 does at least. I can even set HOF to 6000ā or 1ā or maybe even more A 300ā HOF CBU-87 will be scalpel precise (50m away truck unharmed).