INS Alignment implementation

[TomCatMucDe]

How is that contradicting? I was referring to the different precision classes of the normal ALN in the first quote and the ALCM alignment in the second quote. That doesn't contradict at all.

And I think I can state my opionion here like you can state yours. We don't have to agree with each other, but that doesn't mean we have to insult each other.

 

@dapits: I have no problem with it being an option IF it can be forced by the server in MP. So everybody can have it as he likes. You can freely choose what kind of alignement (realistic/unrealistic) you want when you play SP, but in the MP environment it should be forced by the server. So people who don't care that much about realism can play on their own servers and people who do care about it can play on their own servers. But mixing both would just be unfair, because not having to wait for proper alignment while others have to is a big advantage, especially with events like Blue Flag in mind.

 

realistic servers? they must be 2 or 3. It can't be a realistic server when you have FC3 toys starting up in 30 seconds and

[QuiGon]

realistic servers? they must be 2 or 3. It can't be a realistic server when you have FC3 toys starting up in 30 seconds and

 

That's right, but they're kind of necessary, since there is no modern DCS-level fighter so far, with the Mirage 2000 beeing the first one. So I hope that with more and more DCS-level fighter modules the FC3 birds will vanish.

[Azrayen]

IMO FC3-level aircraft are great tools for new guys coming to simulation.

It's not arcade, rather mid-level sim.

 

Don't be so harsh, people...

[statrekmike]

If I were RAZBAM, I would just implement the full INS alignment time first and foremost, get the whole thing where it needs to be in order to be realistic and then start thinking about some sort of option for those that don't want to wait the full eight minutes. I would prefer that DCS modules continue doing what Eagle Dynamics started with the A-10C and try to keep everything as realistic as possible.

 

To be blunt, I find that getting upset at long alignment times is a choice. I find that the alignment time gives me a chance to jot down any notes I need, make sure I am clear on the mission objectives and perhaps even brief other players on what is to come. I choose to not even really be bothered by the alignment time because I can always find something to fill that time with.

 

let RAZBAM do it correctly and then start thinking about a option for those who can't live without it.

[PiedDroit]

If I were RAZBAM, I would just implement the full INS alignment time first and foremost, get the whole thing where it needs to be in order to be realistic and then start thinking about some sort of option for those that don't want to wait the full eight minutes. I would prefer that DCS modules continue doing what Eagle Dynamics started with the A-10C and try to keep everything as realistic as possible.

 

To be blunt, I find that getting upset at long alignment times is a choice. I find that the alignment time gives me a chance to jot down any notes I need, make sure I am clear on the mission objectives and perhaps even brief other players on what is to come. I choose to not even really be bothered by the alignment time because I can always find something to fill that time with.

 

let RAZBAM do it correctly and then start thinking about a option for those who can't live without it.

Given the info provided in this thread, we could have it both realistic and quick.

In coop/solo missions (as in your example), one will most likely spend more than 8 minutes in the cockpit on the ground anyway.

In MP environment, the 4 minutes minimal alignement is good enough to get in the air.

Finally, if we ever get memory alignment available, the time will be reduced even more (in a realistic way).

In summary, everything looks good to me :thumbup:

[wolf5]

Guys, you can also start INS Cal first then manage to start everything else, engine, avionics, prepare your flight plan.

So 8mn is pretty short.

[Fishbed-21]

Everyone whish the module to be tailored to his own requirements. If devs listen to everyone nothing of the real aircraft will be left.

 

So the easier is to stick to what we know of the real one.

 

Yeah! I completley agree with you! Some people want IFF some not, some people want ins some not. C'mon guys this is a shame.

[Durnox]

IMO FC3-level aircraft are great tools for new guys coming to simulation.

It's not arcade, rather mid-level sim.

 

Don't be so harsh, people...

 

Well, you are right - to some degree.

But the "new guys" argument gets smaller and smaller - for them trainers like the L39 or the Hawk would be better: easy enough but a good degree of simulation depth.

 

I would prefer to see the FC3 planes get more realistic instead of reducing realism from really good simulated planes. ("crappy" was too harsh - sorry for that)

[T_A]

Well, you are right - to some degree.

But the "new guys" argument gets smaller and smaller - for them trainers like the L39 or the Hawk would be better: easy enough but a good degree of simulation depth.

 

I would prefer to see the FC3 planes get more realistic instead of reducing realism from really good simulated planes. ("crappy" was too harsh - sorry for that)

 

Problem is that FC3 planes make tons of cash and bring new people to the sim.

i would love to see more DCS level aircraft that can completely replace all roles the FC3 planes do , and then have servers stop hosting FC3 slots all together , maybe 3-5 years from now.

[Nirvi]

Did anyone here listen to Dojo's podcast with Razbam? They discussed INS alignment quite lenghty...

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2612387&postcount=189

[Azrayen]

Well, you are right - to some degree.

But the "new guys" argument gets smaller and smaller - for them trainers like the L39 or the Hawk would be better: easy enough but a good degree of simulation depth.

IMO trainers are less interesting, less appealling, to people who have not already been strongly interested in aviation matters.

 

I would prefer to see the FC3 planes get more realistic instead of reducing realism from really good simulated planes. ("crappy" was too harsh - sorry for that)

But FC3 aircraft are getting more realistic too: new external models, new cockpit+6DOF models, new flight models.

Rest assured I don't see FC3 aircraft as an "argument" to tweak-down DCS aircraft; AFAIK it didn't happen :)

And no harm done (to me anyway).

 

Problem is that FC3 planes make tons of cash and bring new people to the sim.

I see this as a fact, not a problem.

 

i would love to see more DCS level aircraft that can completely replace all roles the FC3 planes do , and then have servers stop hosting FC3 slots all together , maybe 3-5 years from now.

Yeah, DCS level requires a lot of work. In the meantime... :)

[T_A]

I see this as a fact, not a problem.

 

Yes, i stand corrected , not a problem , just a fact.

[jojo]

Yes, if FC3 aircrafts have simplified avionic, some like F-15C and Su-27 have interesting FM.

 

But if one buy DCS plane, he shouldn't expect to have simplified procedures like FC3 fighters. :smilewink:

[QuiGon]

Did anyone here listen to Dojo's podcast with Razbam? They discussed INS alignment quite lenghty...

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2612387&postcount=189

 

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that :thumbup:

 

Doesn't sound too promising though :/

[King_Hrothgar]

Sounds very promising to me though.

[dotChuckles]

I don't understand why it can't be a server realism setting... Problem solved. Everyone happy. Don't want to wait, play on a different server. Want to wait, enable the option.

 

I listened to the podcast, and I got the feeling, as excellent as RAZBAM are, it seems to me that they don't fully get the level of fanaticism in the DCS community, and are trying to be a little too FSX about the whole thing.

 

I get their point. I understand what they are saying, waiting that time isn't fun. But for some it is, through having that realism. If they try and force it, I think they will find themselves on the receiving end of an excrement storm of "VEAO hawk cockpit texture" proportions. And it won't endear them to the more extreme and vocal end of the community.

 

While this might not be their target market, or the market that makes them the most money, it's the end of the community that is the loudest, responds least proactively to "gameplay considerations" but most importantly shapes opinions through reviews, online comment, and videos.

 

So it's simple. Make it an option/server setting. Done. And. Dusted. Everyone wins, insert bacon, step 6... profit.

[chev255]

I don't understand why it can't be a server realism setting... Problem solved. Everyone happy. Don't want to wait, play on a different server. Want to wait, enable the option.

I don't understand why we need an option when we can just keep it real as per below post from Azrayen?

This should satisfy everyone, if in a hurry just need to use the ALCM mode.

 

Timings (from RL manual):

ALN (Normal Alignment)

- 4'20" for minimal required precision (classe 4) (ALN light gets off, PRET light blinks)

- 5'40" for classe 3 precision

- 7' for classe 2 precision

- 8' for full alignment (classe 1) (PRET light is on, no blinking)

when switching from ALN to NAV, PRET light comes off.

 

ALCM (quick alignment with pre-memorized heading)

- requires that the aircraft has not been moved since last time UNI (INS) was operational

- 1'30" needed for alignment (ALN light gets off, PRET light comes on, no blinking)

when switching from ALCM to NAV, PRET light comes off.

 

In both ALN and ALCN, if using STS (Status) on the PSM, the status in % of remaining time to full alignment is displayed in the top right numeric display of the PCN.

STS 76% is needed before putting the aircraft in alert/standby (réseau d'alerte) when doing QRA duties.

 

= = = = = =

 

I see no valable reason to change those timings in the simulator.

[dotChuckles]

I don't understand why we need an option when we can just keep it real as per below post from Azrayen?

This should satisfy everyone, if in a hurry just need to use the ALCM mode.

 

Because there are people griping that they don't want to wait more then 20 seconds. I know, right! :lol:

[Azrayen]

Because there are people griping that they don't want to wait more then 20 seconds.

Where?

[dotChuckles]

Where?

 

In this thread from the admittedly small number that don't see the point of it at all. Personal as in, not online discussion, with other simmers.

 

So yeah, there are people that just want to jump in and go pew pew.

 

So give them that option, let the admin set it on the server and the rest can have full real or mem-align.

 

No on has to be unhappy, all markets catered for.

[Azrayen]

Haven't seen them.

For those, hot start already exists.

Less time to code a strange option. More time to fix important bugs, or make new aircraft.

[dotChuckles]

Less time to code a strange option. More time to fix important bugs, or make new aircraft.

Ok, sure. :megalol:

 

I guess we'll see when it comes out of beta.

[QuiGon]

I don't understand why it can't be a server realism setting... Problem solved. Everyone happy. Don't want to wait, play on a different server. Want to wait, enable the option.

 

Technical reasons. There are two different types of realism settings in DCS. The general realism settings and the place specific realism settings.

You can find the general settings in the gameplay-tab of the DCS settings menue and these options can be set/enforced by the server in MP. The plane specific settings are to be found in the special-tab of the settings menie and these options can't be set by the server.

 

The option for a reduced alignment time for the M2k would be a plane specific menue which can't be set by the server in the MP environment.

 

At least that's how I understand it.

[Home Fries]

No reason this can't be set in the mission editor, similar to the settings that allow hardpoints for the UH-1 and armor plating for the Mi-8. Ideally, all the mission builder would have to do is uncheck the box for ALCM alignment. Server issue solved.

[QuiGon]

I don't understand why we need an option when we can just keep it real as per below post from Azrayen?

This should satisfy everyone, if in a hurry just need to use the ALCM mode.

 

That would imply that, when you start a new mission (or spawn in MP), the plane hasn't been moved since it's last flight. That is an assumption one can make of course. Personally, I would not assume that.

 

I see it that way: If you start a new mission (or spawn in MP) then I would assume, that the plane has been moved since the last flight (e.g. from parking position to hangar and back). In that case the ALCM mode wouldn't be available, so you have to use the normal alignment. I would only make the ALCM alignment available for restarts (when you came back from a flight and rearm/refuel or repair before the next flight).

 

But we still have the different precision classes of the normal alignment process available. So if you don't want to wait the entire 8 minutes, you can use the class 4 (4 minutes) or class 3 (5 minutes) precision. That is especially useful for fighters since they usally don't need very precise navigation.