FCS for helicopters.

[5LEvEN 11]

P.S: whats with the Poll question?

I don't think I would....

Heres you answer from SUBS17 when I posted the same... I don't think anyone knows, but the OP... :)

I believe that requires the marksmanship principles in order to get a good grouping.

[*LK1* 10]

how would you like to shoot your dildos

P.S: whats with the Poll question?

I don't think I would....

LOL. i reveal you a secret. i used the word "dildo" as a synonimus of missiles.

[subs17 9]

Heres you answer from SUBS17 when I posted the same... I don't think anyone knows, but the OP... :)

I used the Marksmanship principles as a way of showing that it is very similar in nature to firing a rifle. You have to do things the right way and not just place the thingy on the thingy and blow the target up. For marksmanship principles that I posted I believe it was as a joke but heres the real one for those interested.

Possibly the most succinct version of the principals of marksmanship is that used by the Australian Army:

1.The position and hold must be firm enough to support the firearm.

2.The firearm must point naturally at the target without physical effort.

3.Sight alignment must be correct.

4.The shot must be released and followed through without disturbance to the position.

I've actually played an FPS that has this modeled, very boring compared to Arma2.

Right CCIP has a similar set of rules as per the USAF manual.

Use a smooth roll in and roll out, compensating for the wind and turn radius. Disregard the bomb fall

line (BFL) and CCIP pipper during the roll in. Concentrate on rolling out with the gun cross close to your

aim-off point (no wind), for crosswind conditions, aim slightly upwind of the aim-off point. After roll-out

and HUD symbology settles, set the aim-off distance (AOD) by the target-to-BFL relationship. This will

pay off in the tactical environment. Once the initial pipper placement/aim-off point has been set, hold the

FPM on that spot and allow the CCIP pipper to approach the target as you steer out any azimuth errors.

Don't pull the FPM up in an effort to rush the pass. This “banana pass†will result in a higher than

planned release, and degrades delivery accuracy.

Remember, 3 to 5 seconds on final is fast enough, don't rush it any more than that by "pulling" the

pipper up to the target (Figure 5.3). If you find the pipper will not get to the target prior to minimum

release altitude, decrease the dive angle by raising the AOD to ensure pickle by the minimum release

altitude. Once established wings level with the FPM at twelve o'clock to the target, the BFL should be

near the target. Fly the aircraft to put the target under the BFL. Correct as necessary to keep the BFL

through the target and allow the CCIP pipper to smoothly track up to the target. Avoid the common error

of allowing the nose to rise and thus move the FPM beyond the desired aim-off point.

I teach this stuff to new pilots prior to testing them when they join my Virtual Squadron although I use a much less technical version for that.

Why bombs miss in CCIP one reason is the FPM is off the Bomb fall line, another is not having the wings level when bomb is released. Another reason is when the pilot applys sudden correction upon release of the bomb or applys G which throws the bomb on the wrong trajectory.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf

Page 128

Aside my Squadrons own Tacmanual this is the best for teaching accurate CCIP delivery.

Heres some footage of a popup attack using CCIP delivery method against a nuclear reactor in Baghdad in 1981.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNmZPtPOed8

We have a Popup planner as well which is handy thats the beauty of F4AF/OF as it supports those features of the real aircraft.

---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

That reminds me, How much detail do you think BIS will put into the manuals for FCS in ARMA III if it is implemented?

P.S: whats with the Poll question?

I don't think I would....

Based on Arma2s trainning missions I hope for something better. The Arma2 JSF trainning mission was less realistic than ACECombat for the PS2. The mission required A/G using LGBs with no tgting pod or CCIP/CCRP sight. No way of designating the tgt. In the end I had to use sidewinder missiles to take out both tgts before using guns on the pair of SU25s.(LGBs were useless) The OA trg missions however involving the ULB involved much more detailed and realistic employment of the hellfire missile which impressed me. If the devs were to apply the same approach in A3s trg mission for aircraft they will make a far better and more usable aircraft. BTW the UAV was useless in how it is setup, too low and too fast and should sit high enough to see everything.

Edited July 26, 2011 by SUBS17

[subs17 9]

Heres a video of basic features you would want for straffing both guns and rockets for A3.

The HUD requires basic information for the A-10

1/ Altimeter in feet

2/ Airspeed in knots

3/ Climbing ladder

4/ Waypoint information

5/ Gun/rocket pipper

6/ Range indicator for pipper

I've used FC2 instead of DCS A-10C because it does not require complexity in order to be usable in CAS but instead the basics. The closeness to tgt is just as an example done properly you engage much further away so object draw distance has to match that.

[5LEvEN 11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87H2ynPGaDw&feature=channel_video_title

I was thinking long range engangement. In your video it seemed a little close :)

[subs17 9]

Yeah I'm greedy I like to nail them all in one pass. I see there is a new HEI pipper for DCS A-10C even more fun to remember while straffing.

[5LEvEN 11]

Yeah I'm greedy I like to nail them all in one pass. I see there is a new HEI pipper for DCS A-10C even more fun to remember while straffing.

Yeah, they changed it in the lastest patch... Now you put your target basically in between the two dots... They always seem to be changing just the small things in this game.

[subs17 9]

Attention to detail thats the good thing about ED. I'm going to post some more clips of weapons employment with just the basics listed hopefully the devs can get some inspiration for A3. In a perfect world DCS would be in A3 as both are very detailed sims.

[*LK1* 10]

Attention to detail thats the good thing about ED. I'm going to post some more clips of weapons employment with just the basics listed hopefully the devs can get some inspiration for A3.

waiting for more clips ;):)

[lugiahua 26]

The only problem I have for current system is that I have no control over the laser targeting on aircraft, which means I can't lock anything other than ground vehicle

In reality I should be able to lock on anything as long as I can paint it with laser, either from my own aircraft or from other sources.

[BobcatBob 10]

The only problem I have for current system is that I have no control over the laser targeting on aircraft, which means I can't lock anything other than ground vehicle

In reality I should be able to lock on anything as long as I can paint it with laser, either from my own aircraft or from other sources.

"3...TARGET-THAT RABBIT!":p

[nodunit 397]

Hey you never know, that rabbit could be the beast that once guarded the Cave of Caerbannog, waiting for your squad to move up before closing in.

[max power 21]

Hey you never know, that rabbit could be the beast that once guarded the Cave of Caerbannog, waiting for your squad to move up before closing in.

All you need is a hand grenade to take one of those out. It's no problem.

[An-225 0]

All you need is a hand grenade to take one of those out. It's no problem.

The Holy M67...I like the sound of that. :p

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Haaaallelujah!

[Leon86 13]

as long as locking isnt instant and you have to shoot the missile in roughly the right direction I'll be happy. And they shouldnt always hit, a vhikr vs fast air should be useless unless the plane is flying really slowly and semi parallel to the launcher.

[subs17 9]

Some CCIP video from FC2.

A-10A Maverick use.

As you see very simple and requires TDC left, right, up and down, zoom and just a lock and fire button. 1st you slew the TDC in the HUD, then lock once to Stabilise then slew TDC in the maverick display, zoom and lock. Then fire, its simple in LO FC2 for A-10A and thats the sort of fire control procedure you want. Mav seeker is very similar to the UAV display in OA except the ground stabilise which locks the seeker in the image from there its quite easy to slew the TDC to exactly where you want it.

Edited August 16, 2011 by SUBS17

[SFJackBauer 10]

Oh such a large thread... Probably my point will be drowned on it but anyways.

First, the Tablock problem is pervasive across all weapon systems - be it choppers, tanks, or hand-held ATGMs. It is awful because it implies that the weapon system knows instantaneously where every enemy are, leaving you the job of just pulling the trigger. Compare to the small arms system for the infantry, where you have to take into account the ballistics and recoil of the weapon you firing, and then see the massive difference in complexity between the two.

Second, the system could be improved by applying simple mechanisms. Its not the intention of ARMA to be a full-fledged SAM simulation. But it is also the intention of ARMA to be the "console-kind-of-push-button-and-things-go-boom-game"? So a middle ground must be found.

We don't need all the cockpit buttons and dials and radar modes you have in the aircrafts. We just need to model the interactions between:

- The firing platform acquisition and fire control systems;

- The weapon;

- The target.

For example, an AH-1Z pops up behind a hill to survey the area. What the pilot could use to find its targets?

- From onboard equipment: CCD/IR cameras only. The human pilot (or the human gunner) would have to acquire the target visually in an MFD.

- From outside: static target position relayed by laser designators (a simplified JTAC), a moving target could be provided by continuous laser designation.

The AH-1Z then fires its own laser to paint the target (which should have a maximum ON timer and a cooldown timer). The target in this case is a T-90, which has laser detectors. The tank commander fires a smoke screen to interrupt the designation, while trying to also maneuver to cover.

The chopper is now unable to engage, but it has coordinates close to the tank position. It, however, cannot move closer to fire its rockets since the pilot sees in its RWR the presence of a Tunguska system painting it with its search radar. The RWR only displays an imprecise bearing of where the threat is, and knowing how the Tunguska outranges its own missiles, the pilot asks the special forces on the ground to find and destroy it so it could prosecute the armored targets.

Isn't this description much more fun, with more teamwork involved, than the simply absolute superiority choppers have currently? And you don't need to delve deep into the small details of the equipment involved - just keep it abstracted, but do not abstract the necessary interactions between the platform the weapon and the target. Doing so dumbs down too much to be acceptable.

[5LEvEN 11]

Some CCIP video from FC2.

A-10A Maverick use.

As you see very simple and requires TDC left, right, up and down, zoom and just a lock and fire button. 1st you slew the TDC in the HUD, then lock once to Stabilise then slew TDC in the maverick display, zoom and lock. Then fire, its simple in LO FC2 for A-10A and thats the sort of fire control procedure you want. Mav seeker is very similar to the UAV display in OA except the ground stabilise which locks the seeker in the image from there its quite easy to slew the TDC to exactly where you want it.

Is the A-10A capable of CCRP bombing? I never learned to use the A-10A, I just learned the A-10C...

---------- Post added at 04:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 AM ----------

Oh such a large thread... Probably my point will be drowned on it but anyways.

First, the Tablock problem is pervasive across all weapon systems - be it choppers, tanks, or hand-held ATGMs. It is awful because it implies that the weapon system knows instantaneously where every enemy are, leaving you the job of just pulling the trigger. Compare to the small arms system for the infantry, where you have to take into account the ballistics and recoil of the weapon you firing, and then see the massive difference in complexity between the two.

Second, the system could be improved by applying simple mechanisms. Its not the intention of ARMA to be a full-fledged SAM simulation. But it is also the intention of ARMA to be the "console-kind-of-push-button-and-things-go-boom-game"? So a middle ground must be found.

We don't need all the cockpit buttons and dials and radar modes you have in the aircrafts. We just need to model the interactions between:

- The firing platform acquisition and fire control systems;

- The weapon;

- The target.

For example, an AH-1Z pops up behind a hill to survey the area. What the pilot could use to find its targets?

- From onboard equipment: CCD/IR cameras only. The human pilot (or the human gunner) would have to acquire the target visually in an MFD.

- From outside: static target position relayed by laser designators (a simplified JTAC), a moving target could be provided by continuous laser designation.

The AH-1Z then fires its own laser to paint the target (which should have a maximum ON timer and a cooldown timer). The target in this case is a T-90, which has laser detectors. The tank commander fires a smoke screen to interrupt the designation, while trying to also maneuver to cover.

The chopper is now unable to engage, but it has coordinates close to the tank position. It, however, cannot move closer to fire its rockets since the pilot sees in its RWR the presence of a Tunguska system painting it with its search radar. The RWR only displays an imprecise bearing of where the threat is, and knowing how the Tunguska outranges its own missiles, the pilot asks the special forces on the ground to find and destroy it so it could prosecute the armored targets.

Isn't this description much more fun, with more teamwork involved, than the simply absolute superiority choppers have currently? And you don't need to delve deep into the small details of the equipment involved - just keep it abstracted, but do not abstract the necessary interactions between the platform the weapon and the target. Doing so dumbs down too much to be acceptable.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I would LOVE arma 3 to have realistic vehicle simulation, not this current arcade crap :)

[SFJackBauer 10]

I absolutely agree. Which is why I would LOVE arma 3 to have realistic vehicle simulation, not this current arcade crap :)

Yeah, but note that I propose a middle ground. As SUBS17, I have played an indecent amount of hours in all kinds of flight simulators available to the consumer market, from FSX and its add-ons to DCS and all in-between. (just a "little" bragging, but I know from memory the startup procedures for a 747-400, F-16, A-10C, F/A-18C and a Kamov KA-50 :D). But ARMA is a different kind of thing. For instance the map size. You take off in Krasnostav in a jet aircraft, and 1 minute later reach the enemy base in Balota - not time to even warmup the systems on some aircraft. Even in the claustrophobic Georgia theater of DCS, you can have flights of 1 hour legs. So I think some concessions should be made from the simulation side so that those features are accomodated in the space ARMA offer. As long as those concessions don't violate the platform-sensor-target relationships.

For example, you would not need to remember to turn the RWR on. But the RWR should work for its purpose: if a guy paints you, he appears on RWR, if not, he don't, but then he can't fire at you.

[subs17 9]

Is the A-10A capable of CCRP bombing? I never learned to use the A-10A, I just learned the A-10C...

Yes using HUD you can lock tgts and CCRP them in FC2 but IRL I think yes also I know the C definately can IRL. The SU25T has about the best setup as the pilot can lock ground tgts using the Shival then engage auto pilot and CCRP.

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

Yeah, but note that I propose a middle ground. As SUBS17, I have played an indecent amount of hours in all kinds of flight simulators available to the consumer market, from FSX and its add-ons to DCS and all in-between. (just a "little" bragging, but I know from memory the startup procedures for a 747-400, F-16, A-10C, F/A-18C and a Kamov KA-50 :D). But ARMA is a different kind of thing. For instance the map size. You take off in Krasnostav in a jet aircraft, and 1 minute later reach the enemy base in Balota - not time to even warmup the systems on some aircraft. Even in the claustrophobic Georgia theater of DCS, you can have flights of 1 hour legs. So I think some concessions should be made from the simulation side so that those features are accomodated in the space ARMA offer. As long as those concessions don't violate the platform-sensor-target relationships.

For example, you would not need to remember to turn the RWR on. But the RWR should work for its purpose: if a guy paints you, he appears on RWR, if not, he don't, but then he can't fire at you.

IRL he can fire a missile at you without you knowing by using an optical lock from for example a Helmet mounted sight on an SU27 with radar off. Firing R73s off boresight (up to 73 degrees) and you would not know unless you were in an aircraft with DAS or MWS(like A-10C). The MWS or DAS would detect the launch of the missile and automatically engage counter measures if its set to auto.;).

BTW A3 1000kmx1000km no problem with short hops.:D

[cychou 11]

the simpliest and most effective solution would be to implement the ACE sys_missileguidance.pbo directly into Arma 3.

laser/wire/radio guidances = manual aiming until impact

radar/auto tracking/IR guidances = autolock (current tablock/mouse 2) fire and forget style.