LGB's SHOULD be SO easy!
-
question?
How do you differenciate a PavewayII from a Paveway III in the Ui arming screen?IMHO, this is far from obvious. So how many ppl do we expect to know the difference between all the GBU denomination in the arming screen?
-
@Red:
question?
How do you differenciate a PavewayII from a Paveway III in the Ui arming screen?IMHO, this is far from obvious. So how many ppl do we expect to know the difference between all the GBU denomination in the arming screen?
That’s a good point. I think the someone added /AP /HE sometime after 4.33? and I think that is really helpful. I suppose some will argue that you should know the ordinance you are going to use inside and out before committing and that’s a valid point if you think of Falcon BMS as the ultimate study sim. I can go either way, but I lean towards convenience in this case because you still have to know what’s different about a Paveway II or III to become a master at the sim. So that clue/reminder during arming would be welcome IMO.
I made this munitions guide back in 4.33 days to learn the different munitions and what to use them for.
-
why you wouldn’t lase all the way down every time but I don’t think that was answered.
Long story short: If you search on the Web what are the diff between you will see that PIII (GBU-2x) are gliding bombs with proportional guidance. PIII is rather susceptible to fall long (or even very long) if loosing guidance.
PII (GBU-1x) are falling bombs with bang-bang guidance which lake the munition bleeding energy during guidance.
PII has tendencies to fall short and if you are dropping at max range, early lasing will makes the bomb to bleed energy a lot. Dropping later could make it not able to point the nose to the laser spot on ground since seeker stay on relative wind vector. -
Long story short: If you search on the Web what are the diff between you will see that PIII (GBU-2x) are gliding bombs with proportional guidance. PIII is rather susceptible to fall long (or even very long) if loosing guidance.
PII (GBU-1x) are falling bombs with bang-bang guidance which lake the munition bleeding energy during guidance.
PII has tendencies to fall short and if you are dropping at max range, early lasing will makes the bomb to bleed energy a lot. Dropping later could make it not able to point the nose to the laser spot on ground since seeker stay on relative wind vector.IMO this is a darn good place to for internet intel along with one’s cup of tea considering all enthusiasts and combat pilots here.
Based on what you are saying then I’m inclined to think the Paveway III modeling is better than the Paveway II at the moment (when it comes to 2,000 lbers anyway). Because I am lasing from Angels 30 for 45 seconds because both GBU 10s and 24s hit every time and I always drop within a spit second of max range (just after the bomb cue starts climbing back up the drop line).
-
DJ speaks truth. The reason you do not lase at release is because by making the weapon guide immediately you make is waste energy by making far too many “corrections”. This is worst with a bang-bang CCU, and a bit better with a proportional CCU, but the cause and effect still holds. BTW - the CCU probably isn’t even going to see the spot outside of a given slant range…resulting in another huge correction.
What really matters is how well you place your laser…you can nail it every time IF you can see the target and keep the spot on it. Barring environmentals.
-
DJ speaks truth. The reason you do not lase at release is because by making the weapon guide immediately you make is waste energy by making far too many “corrections”. This is worst with a bang-bang CCU, and a bit better with a proportional CCU, but the cause and effect still holds. BTW - the CCU probably isn’t even going to see the spot outside of a given slant range…resulting in another huge correction.
What really matters is how well you place your laser…you can nail it every time IF you can see the target and keep the spot on it. Barring environmentals.
Critical distinction is between P2 vs P3 and in the thread I referenced above I was working with P3s and not knowing there was a difference especially as to lasing requirments. Also, this was not explained in the manual IIRC. I tested both before I made my original recommendation here in this thread and I am quite confident it is valid – set your lasing code for 45 seconds and you’ll hit almost every time. However, I concede the point that P2s SHOULD miss if you lase them all the way down from 30k. However, I am confident that they don’t miss in BMS due to lasing them all the way down.
I am not confident that I know how the guidance system on the bomb works from these discussions and reading the wikipedia article DJ referenced. It sounds like that the guidance system on the P2 zeros the fins for a straight path to the reflective beam rather than calculating the most efficient glide path and adjusting the fins accordingly. It sounds like P3 does a much better job of knowing it’s altitude and distance to target etc and therefore makes an adjustment for a more efficient glide path? I think that’s what you have been trying to tell me in this thread and the last?
-
-
Critical distinction is between P2 vs P3 and in the thread I referenced above I was working with P3s and not knowing there was a difference especially as to lasing requirments. Also, this was not explained in the manual IIRC. I tested both before I made my original recommendation here in this thread and I am quite confident it is valid – set your lasing code for 45 seconds and you’ll hit almost every time. However, I concede the point that P2s SHOULD miss if you lase them all the way down from 30k. However, I am confident that they don’t miss in BMS due to lasing them all the way down.
I am not confident that I know how the guidance system on the bomb works from these discussions and reading the wikipedia article DJ referenced. It sounds like that the guidance system on the P2 zeros the fins for a straight path to the reflective beam rather than calculating the most efficient glide path and adjusting the fins accordingly. It sounds like P3 does a much better job of knowing it’s altitude and distance to target etc and therefore makes an adjustment for a more efficient glide path? I think that’s what you have been trying to tell me in this thread and the last?
…45 sec is WAY too long compared with RL, so if that’s what it takes I’d prefer to see that fixed.
-
@Alienslayer:
BMS Trainning Manual Pag.96
CheersYes, I am aware of that passage (see here) and IMO it is more of a comment than an explanation. See Red Dog’s response in that thread as well and you will see that likely something got missed. I am not trying to blame anyone or anything like that, I’m just pointing out that the information in the manual is not robust and in part may be leading to LGB frustrations and threads.
…45 sec is WAY too long compared with RL, so if that’s what it takes I’d prefer to see that fixed.
Yeah give it a try, I think you’ll find Paveway IIs hit every time. Bear in mind though I just picked 45 seconds as a somewhat arbitrary number, a number that get’s you a lase all the way down from 30k anywhere from mach .7 to mach .94ish. I’m convinced at this point the P2 model needs tweaking and the manual needs more information in it as to P3s. But open to new information of course.
-
and IMO it is more of a comment than an explanation. See Red Dog’s response in that thread as well and you will see that likely something got missed
Nope,
It is input from other team people but as said above the training missions are specific and obviously they use GBU-12, which are PavewayII.
Training chapters must be precise and relevant to what they document. Hence why the line about Paveway III is more of a general comment and not an important input for this training mission. If the training mission would use Paveway III then I would have stated something much more precise than that:as the code has been much improved in 4.34. For Paveway III bombs you can manually lase earlier, especially for moving targets.
If the training flight would use Paveway III then you can be sure that I would come up with a specific time to lase, because I would have tested it until being successful.
But in the absence of reasons to do these tests, then I had to rely on the vague information given to me. and that’s what you find in the manualTo solve your problem, you need a training mission for Paveway II and another for Paveway III. IMHO you find the information in the manual confusing because you try to read that information and apply it for both type of bombs.
And I can’t blame you as it was written for that initially as in the 4.33 time (when that chapter was written) there was no real distinction between PII and PIII and the chapter was relevant for both.
4.34 kinda changed that but I failed to detect the minor changes that would have triggered me to make an extra chapter (but let’s face it, I would not have had the time to write it anyway).
The reason being is that as I said above, in our flights, we use mostly the GBU-12 and stay away from the others.
It’s a typical case of missing the consequence a change may have if not documented properlySo I could say that in such case where I found information about a weapon not used in the training missions, I would revert to the Dash-34 for guidance. but that one even doesn’t mention the difference between PII and PIII…
It treats GBU as part of the Sniper pod, but guess what takes GBU-12 as example because again when written, Paveway III difference were not implemented, yet.
Matter of fact it doesn’t even have a dedocated chapter about plain laser guided bomb.and that probably is the first thing to address
-
@Red:
It’s a typical case of missing the consequence a change may have if not documented properly
There is no consequences. All the fuss just because one guy has “little problem of understandings” and makes a big story about it.
Considering that is not always possible to give the right information on due time (simply because some stuff are noticed far later and are unknown, even by the designer himself) , maybe stopping any kind of development or enhancements could be a solution (?)
Personally I don’t think so. I would rather think that updating progressively the documents along the time is certainly better and the way to go.
But you guys are not the prostitutes of users either. If some ppl are unhappy, maybe they can makes the due researches, write something and propose it to the doc team for correction, implementation, update. One must not forget that BMS is a collaborative community.Documents are support of the software. Not the opposite.
-
remember back in the days there were no document at all …
my philosophy is if you try to do something, try hard. if you plan to hide behind big sentences like Documents are support of the software. Not the opposite, then don’t even start.BMS release its work, hence we care about the community. If we do and provide them docs, then these docs are the first contact between a user asking himself a question and the software
If we are unable to give that answer through the docs, we’re not doing a great job and hiding behind excusesTo each his own I guess err I know
-
A training TE for PIIIs and maybe also for moving targets with LJDAM would be appreciated. They both have their own nuances as to how they are deployed.
-
@Red:
my philosophy is if you try to do something, try hard.
And you are doing it quite well … I would even say, admirably well.
You are perfectionist, that is a real beautiful quality, but not give too much credit to all and every comments (constructive or not).
If you can … take it in account. If not … it is already very good.@Red:
remember back in the days there were no document at all …
^ This.
Precisely.@Red:
if you plan to hide behind big sentences like Documents are support of the software. Not the opposite, then don’t even start.
If we are unable to give that answer through the docs, we’re not doing a great job and hiding behind excusesDon’t blame the others for their lack of time to provide all the relevant information … nor for your lack of time to follow the Dev forum, SVN change-log or be on Dev comm’s channels.
If users can’t understand that we are all doing our best (while most of them are just sitting and waiting for the fruit of other ppl’s work) … I don’t think if we should blame ourselves in any ways and I don’t know what we cant do to make it better without a fair cost on development process.@Red:
If we are unable to give that answer through the docs, we’re not doing a great job and hiding behind excuses
Keep in mind that some other are providing less good and complete documentation for what their are selling at a fairly high price.
You are doing it for free. -
If some ppl are unhappy, maybe they can makes the due researches, write something and propose it to the doc team for correction, implementation, update. One must not forget that BMS is a collaborative community.
I don’t know who this unhappy person is that you are speaking about? I haven’t seen him or her. I, and others, have been trying to research the issue, give constructive feedback to the documentation and development folks. And strangely, the very same people that ask us to bring issues to their attention in a collaborative manner at the very same time seem to be taking pot shots at people for inquiring about and reporting potential issues? I honestly don’t understand it.
For the record, for myself, I am not unhappy about the state of BMS or it’s documentation. I felt like I was contributing by pointing out a shortcoming. I felt like I was contributing when sharing my recommendation to help the OP. I like coming to forums and chatting with folks. Everything is making me feel good. So if you are talking about me, you’re mistaken. I’m happy look at the size of this grin.
And when I go through the threads, I don’t see anyone not happy other than maybe some team members who may feel attacked or think the players are attacking one of their own? I don’t know, maybe I’m naive but I don’t see it.
All I am insisting on is that I’m not crazy. There is some shortcoming in either the model of P2 and-or P3 and-or the documentation and trying to figure out what it is and then sharing my testing and theory regarding the same. If that’s not collaboration then I don’t the meaning of the word.
I hope everyone has a good day. I’m having a good one. Great weather here in Idaho. I watched Bridge over the River Kwai last night. That’s got me in a good mood. Babysat my granddaughter this morning. Yak’d at some UOAF folks about Dangerous Waters – God that’s a fun sim. Peace.
-
I don’t know who this unhappy person is that you are speaking about?
Generally speaking.
You are not “the only one” making comments. Criticisms are always good and welcome.
But at some point, development must not be the salve of documents elaboration. Documentary corpus not always 100% accurate nor fully complete, and they will probably never be as long as the software is going forward. The discussion was rather toward Red Dog.I hope everyone has a good day. I’m having a good one. Great weather here in Idaho. I watched Bridge over the River Kwai last night. That’s got me in a good mood. Babysat my granddaughter this morning. Yak’d at some UOAF folks about Dangerous Waters – God that’s a fun sim. Peace.
Same here. This is relaxing.
-
You all do know that laser warning receivers exist and if that somebody you are dropping the bomb on might be knowing of you? Why should you even lase 45s and give that man a chance to deploy smoke screens, aerosols or something when you can strike out of the blue? Lasing to early warns the bad guys, and they could even use a lazer dazzler within half the minute they’ve got.
It is a simulation, and it’s up to you if you want to keep it real or exploit all the glitches. -
LWRs aren’t all that common, not to mention half the time you’ll be lasing a building, which isn’t going anywhere (well, not until the bombs hit, anyway ). Modern tanks have them, but the ones that are modeled in BMS don’t.
-
In my opinion lasing too early prevents the bomb to follow its computed ballistic trajectory, as when the laser is detected it points directly to the target, flattening the trajectory and risking to fall short.
-
In my opinion lasing too early prevents the bomb to follow its computed ballistic trajectory, as when the laser is detected it points directly to the target, flattening the trajectory and risking to fall short.
This is truth…and what I mean when I say you end up wasting the weapon’s energy and end up with a miss. Continuous lasing or 45 sec of lasing just plain isn’t what’s done in RL…at least, not with the GBU 10/12/16s that I’ve ever played with. LGTRs either.