LGB's SHOULD be SO easy!
-
So in the spirit of assisting each other I’ve put together a video that shows what most of the issues are in regards to the Sim.
30:51 1st Drop - Paveway III GBU-24 10 Second Lasing.
35:57 2nd Drop - Paveway III GBU-24 10 Second Lasing.
41:02 3rd Drop - Paveway III GBU-24 45 Second Lasing.
46:15 4th Drop - Paveway II GBU-10 10 Second Lasing.
50:54 5th Drop - Paveway II GBU-10 10 Second Lasing.
55:02 6th Drop - Paveway II GBU-10 45 Second Lasing.
1:00:51 7th Drop - Paveway II GBU-10 45 Second Lasing.Drops 4 and 5 show that Red Dog is dead on when it comes to Paveway IIs.
Drops 6 and 7 should demonstrate to Stevie and Mav-JP that currently there is no energy lasing Paveway IIs all the way down from Angels 30.
Drops 1 and 2 show that, contrary to many opinions, that 10 seconds of terminal lasing does not work for Paveway IIIs.
Drop 3 (together with 1 and 2) shows that 45 seconds of lasing backs up what Dee-Jay was saying and what Oakdesign reported from his RL Viper contact. Lase them all the way down. So the sim seems to be fine as is with regards to Paveway IIIs.
First issue is the code is not right as to Paveway IIs. Which Mav-JP has already acknowledged.
Second issue is the manual is lacking when it comes to Paveway IIIs. Which Red Dog has already acknowledged.
And if I may say so, just to tie this up in a bow, I’d like to add just a few more points.
1. I am in favor of realism. I’d love Paveway IIs to behave as they do in RL, and implementing countermeasures for appropriate vehicles would also be awesome. I think that would make it a much better cat and mouse game when you are dropping on moving targets. Especially, once you gain air superiority, it will make taking out the enemy more challenging and interesting. But for now, if someone is dropping Paveway IIs for 45 seconds it does not appear that they are exploiting the system. There is no gain for them to do so over a 10 second timer that I can see. Granted, they aren’t getting punished by the sim as they should, but without a tangible benefit over doing it right I think its a bit unfair to think of someone doing that as being a cheat. Also, for those advocating for the 10 second lase for Paveway IIs, it makes a ton of sense to practice what is done in RL and also be in the habit for the update when it comes 3-4 weeks from now. That’s what I’ll be doing from now on.
2. I am not an aerospace engineer or mathematics wiz but I don’t think it’s right that simply adjusting the FCC release parameter is going to make the Paveway IIs behave as Stevie and many more have pointed out. I’m also concerned that it may cue the pilot to fly the aircraft in a way that is unsound and unrealistic. If you care I explain in my rambly way in the video why I think that may be wrong. I’m not mad about it. I’m not disappointed in the sim or anyone on the development team. I am just saying that I believe caution when tweaking the code is in order and there is more to making these Paveway IIs behave realistically to post-launch lasing. If the devs have the time and inclination it would be sweet to take a bit more time looking into this. With all that being said, I’m happy with the sim without changing the code or the manual.
My goal was to assist other simmers and the team with these issues, not to argue for the sake of arguing.
-
The code issue for all of those are the same The problem is the FCC release point
I already said this has been identified and fixed
Same issue for GPS and Wcmd weapons
-
Aditionnal, there was a problem for some Lgbs where Lift was calculated while not guiding, whereas when not guiding , the bomb is a dumb bomb.
if you release from very high and not guiding and that the LGbs generate lift, it will goo too far and will nto be able to correct when lasing at the end
this is all fixed
-
1. I am in favor of realism. I’d love Paveway IIs to behave as they do in RL, and implementing countermeasures for appropriate vehicles would also be awesome. .
Ths first and major thing to consider if you wish more realism in laser guided bomb, is the laser trap, diffraction, masking/podium effects which makes the use of LGBs completely different story than in game.
A tree, a terrain ridge, a building, a laser spot on a target wall passing from one wall to another while a/c is advancing/turning while the bomb is still i flight on initial launch axis … for the bomb the laser spot become masked.
This makes your attacks planning and conduct a whole different story. Same about laser spot on a bright reflecting on the bridge span, but also on the water … below making the attack of bridges very complex and sensible …Some info here on page 10 : https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jp3_09_1.pdf
So far … clouds masking are already implement and distance refraction also. Which is already nice.
-
Aditionnal, there was a problem for some Lgbs where Lift was calculated while not guiding, whereas when not guiding , the bomb is a dumb bomb.
if you release from very high and not guiding and that the LGbs generate lift, it will goo too far and will nto be able to correct when lasing at the end
this is all fixed
I have to confess I don’t understand what is wrong, what is right and what is fixed, from your last post.
-
Aditionnal, there was a problem for some Lgbs where Lift was calculated while not guiding, whereas when not guiding , the bomb is a dumb bomb.
if you release from very high and not guiding and that the LGbs generate lift, it will goo too far and will nto be able to correct when lasing at the end
this is all fixed
You should be calculating lift at all times - guiding or not, and independent of altitude.
-
Ths first and major thing to consider if you wish more realism in laser guided bomb, is the laser trap, diffraction, masking/podium effects which makes the use of LGBs completely different story than in game.
A tree, a terrain ridge, a building, a laser spot on a target wall passing from one wall to another while a/c is advancing/turning while the bomb is still i flight on initial launch axis … for the bomb the laser spot become masked.
This makes your attacks planning and conduct a whole different story. Same about laser spot on a bright reflecting on the bridge span, but also on the water … below making the attack of bridges very complex and sensible …Some info here on page 10 : https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jp3_09_1.pdf
So far … clouds masking are already implement and distance refraction also. Which is already nice.
After a quick skim, saved the pdf to disk and every word here is like candy! Yum yum more please! Now you are making me wish I had stuck to coding and software development. :thumb:
-
Anyone else think that LGB are incredibly easy in BMS? Point and shoot, lase however long you want, hit every time.
-
…I think they are incredibly mis-understood.
Firstly, I’d personally prefer that the sim emulate RL. That’s what differentiates a simulation from a game. Secondly, the lasing time doesn’t affect the guidance ability outside of depletion of weapon energy by having early lasing cause additional weapon maneuvering - what that impacts the envelope for performing a valid release; and even so, this is still mostly determined by weapon ballistics.
As for Paveway II vs III - what we’re really talking about is a difference in CCU sensitivity which results in a difference in CEP between the two types; this impact should also be reflected in the envelope for a valid release - not in the laser operation time.
In RL for systems I’m familiar with, in all cases (GBU 10/12/16/LGTR; 24 is a special case), lasing time is the same - Paveway II or III. What constitutes a valid release varies with each weapon.
-
Anyone else think that LGB are incredibly easy in BMS? Point and shoot, lase however long you want, hit every time.
Easy yes. Lase however long you want, yes as to P2s, not so as to P3s.
With Paveway IIIs it’s easy only after you figure out you should lase them all the way down. A rough rule of thumb of 1.5 seconds per 1000’ of altitude I think will work if you want to automatically give guidance all the way down, else manually lase until your terminal guidance time setting.
Once I got that pointed out to me and dialed in, I think I missed in the last 100 bombs maybe four times. The first two times due to brain lapse (once for not even ground stabilizing TGP and the other for forgetting to configure the DED laser page) LOL. The last two times I did it on purpose to show if you lase only for 10 seconds with a GBU-24 you will miss at 30k.
On the other hand, I am not a coder or math guy or aerospace engineer etc. So if you don’t have all three of those things as your wheelhouse it’s going to be incredibly hard to model under perfect conditions. Then to have code calculate all the other variables that Dee-Jay brings up. God, I’m getting exhausted just thinking of what a monumental task that stuff could be to implement correctly – but if it could be – that would be sweeter than honey covered sugar cane. :thumb:
-
You should be calculating lift at all times - guiding or not, and independent of altitude.
Oh yeah I am so stupid I forgot that
i also forgot volumetric mass of atmoshere is constant with altitude, i’m so dumb !!
-
My goal was to assist other simmers and the team with these issues, not to argue for the sake of arguing.
Vandal that video was epic. The original questioned was aimed at understating how BMS is currently implementing the lasing system, and the parameters associated with dropping LGB’s. While we all certainly enjoy the realism of the game (this is a game after all), understanding what is and what is not modeled helps us understand how to employ the weapons properly to fit the simulation world. Taking what is done in a real F-16 is not the same and is not necessarily recreated in BMS… For one, I don’t use a piddle pack - i hit P and then go pee (wash my hands in respect to corona virus pandemic) and then return to having fun. So the question of what and how things are modeled is never an attack on the great guys that keep BMS alive (did I mention I have my original manual still somewhere?) - but a chance to learn what we should consider (or skip) when employing weapons… because I really don’t want to run a whole campaign dropping JDMAS.
Thanks for the excellent video and all the discussion
- bruzzer
-
In RL for systems I’m familiar with, in all cases (GBU 10/12/16/LGTR; 24 is a special case), lasing time is the same - Paveway II or III. What constitutes a valid release varies with each weapon.
As it happens, all the systems you listed are P-IIs… except the “special case” 24, which is a P-III. Paveway IIIs are GBU-24, -27 and -28 (and -22, but I don’t think that one was ever used).
Of course the valid release parameters will vary, because they are different weapons with different ballistics. Lasing techniques, however, will only vary between weapon families.
-
As it happens, all the systems you listed are P-IIs… except the “special case” 24, which is a P-III. Paveway IIIs are GBU-24, -27 and -28 (and -22, but I don’t think that one was ever used).
Of course the valid release parameters will vary, because they are different weapons with different ballistics. Lasing techniques, however, will only vary between weapon families.
USN doesn’t use -27, -28, or -22 (which may have been exported?)…but looking at pictures of them they all seem to use the same CCU - so that makes sense.
In my world, no…lasing techniques for all of GBU 10/12/16/LGTR are identical. GBU-24 does do some different things…but it’s been so long since I’ve played with one I sort of forget just what those are - only remember they are different…but not radically.
-
In my world, no…lasing techniques for all of GBU 10/12/16/LGTR are identical
Yes but they are all P2s.
-
Yes but they are all P2s.
But they are different weapons…and the CCU and tail kits are all different parts.
-
But they are different weapons…and the CCU and tail kits are all different parts.
Different weapons from the same family. The seeker electronics are likely similar if not identical, and the guidance method that they use is the same. That’s what matters for lasing technique. The guidance logic is the same across all P2s, but P3s use a more advanced seeker, with a wider FOV, proportional guidance and large fins to extend glide time.
-
Different weapons from the same family. The seeker electronics are likely similar if not identical, and the guidance method that they use is the same. That’s what matters for lasing technique. The guidance logic is the same across all P2s, but P3s use a more advanced seeker, with a wider FOV, proportional guidance and large fins to extend glide time.
More than that for the P-IIIs as I recall…was a long time ago for me. The P-IIs still don’t all share the same CEP, even if they do guide the same and use identical laser employment.
-
Differences in CEP are probably accounted for by different fin sizes and shapes. I’d expect a smaller bomb to be more precise, because the fins have less inertia and less aerodynamic force acting on them, so the actuators can move them faster. “Bang-bang” guidance assumes instant control surface response, and any deviation from that (inevitable in a physical system) will increase CEP.
-
From the testing I’ve conducted sometimes you get “good” CCUs and sometimes not…then there are the guys that just plain have great control placing the spot. There’s a number of factors.
I’ve been doing a lot of coaching in the Trainers for new engineers of late - generally people that have never even flown an airplane before - and I’ve gotten pretty good at placing the spot to put a pair of GBU-16s on a tank in the open. Also helps when one flies and one runs the sensor/designator. I know I’ve managed to save a few drops. Managed to lose a few as well - gotta watch those wings…if you mask, you lose the pass.