INS Alignment implementation

[QuiGon]

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.

 

You're right, I haven't thought about the possibility to set those settings for each plane in the editor :thumbup:

[Redglyph]

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.

 

More fifty-fifty if you count them, and it's not "jump in and go pew pew", it's about a lower time and reasons were explained and IMHO are not unreasonable (nothing to do with pew pew crash rince repeat). Some parts are interesting to experience, some others less. If you want to simulate a transatlantic flight, will you really do the whole of it, in real-time? ;)

 

Realistically the developers have their own priorites anyway, and 8 minutes isn't the same as 30, so it's still bearable - maybe time acceleration will even be a simpler solution to this after all :)

[nomdeplume]

I love that we have an 11 page thread on how long we want the game to force us to wait while it pretends to "align" the "INS".

 

Personally, I think the timings Azrayen posted should be implemented as faithfully as possible, and ALCM should always be available for ramp-start. This still allows people who want to do a "full alignment" for the sake of "immersion" to do so if it pleases them - nothing lost, but minimises the dead time for the majority of players. For that really don't wait to wait at all, there's always the hot start option.

 

I think adding an "alignment time" option would be ridiculous, but there might be some value in a more generic option along the lines of allowing mission designers to decide if a ramp-start aircraft has been "preflighted" or not. This could be a new startup type to complement "Start from parking" and "Start from parking hot", or maybe a "Pre-flighted" checkbox that appears if you select "Start from parking".

 

The exact meaning of this could then be determined on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis, but for the M2000C could mean you have a ground power cart attached, INS is fully aligned and ready to be switched to NAV mode, and the radar is in standby and warm-up is complete. All you need to do is start the engine, d/c ground power, and off you go.

 

This would give some useful and meaningful flexibility, but I'm not sure it's really sufficiently different from the "hot start" option already availble to make it worth implementing.

[cameleon33]

I agree with Az', there is already an option for those that don't want to spend too much time starting up the aircraft. It's the 'start from parking hot' option in the ME.

 

Honestly, the Mirage 2000C needs only a few switches to use to start up. So either you want full realism and you wait for the 4 minutes aligment time (or use ALCM for a quick start) or you don't want to wait on the parking and just use the start hot option. Difference is just 3 buttons and 3 switches.

 

IMHO, there are more important things to work on than adding an option into the ME (which will probably need help from ED to implement).

[domini99]

I can't listen to the cast because of poor internet, but what did they say?

If I read the topic like this it sounds like they said they're gonna cut down the time one should wait?

Can someone tell me in short what they said?

 

 

If time is going to be cut down... Well, that's disappointing. I like full realism.

[snowsniper]

 

 

If time is going to be cut down... Well, that's disappointing. I like full realism.

 

+10

I'm only on DCS and buying and owning modules for THEIR FULL REALISM ( or the most as possible to, and the possibility to use real manual and procedure).

everyone who want something else and an arcadish sim can go on other games.

[iborg]

+10

I'm only on DCS and buying and owning modules for THEIR FULL REALISM ( or the most as possible to, and the possibility to use real manual and procedure).

everyone who want something else and an arcadish sim can go on other games.

 

Same here. Especially as, in this case, the real settings can already address all the community's needs.

[Bob Denny]

INS Alignment implementation

 

+10

I'm only on DCS and buying and owning modules for THEIR FULL REALISM ( or the most as possible to, and the possibility to use real manual and procedure).

everyone who want something else and an arcadish sim can go on other games.

 

 

Yes yes yes. We can only hope that the developers do not let themselves get into the Product Death Cycle. This is where you pay too much attention to users without understanding that features aren't everything. Vision is more important, as is innovation and customer service.

 

Please do not add "dumb down" features!! It was already SO CONFUSING to have the A-10C "sim" vs "game" mode. What the hell? As a new user this was a real source of confusion. What "mode" was I in? What should I be in? How do I change it? Yes I found this eventually but it was really weird.

 

[TomCatMucDe]

+10

I'm only on DCS and buying and owning modules for THEIR FULL REALISM ( or the most as possible to, and the possibility to use real manual and procedure).

everyone who want something else and an arcadish sim can go on other games.

 

There are a lot of people wanting arcadish aircrafts. Some fly with 4 AIM9 + 2 Super 530D over here. And they will trash you if you say the word arcade.

 

I hope the devs wont be dragged to the arcade style. I want DCS to remain with full fidelity modules.

[QuiGon]

I can't listen to the cast because of poor internet, but what did they say?

If I read the topic like this it sounds like they said they're gonna cut down the time one should wait?

Can someone tell me in short what they said?

 

 

If time is going to be cut down... Well, that's disappointing. I like full realism.

 

No, they're thinking about what to do with it, but they also said they also think it's like a waste of time. That doesn't sound too promising.

 

 

There are a lot of people wanting arcadish aircrafts. Some fly with 4 AIM9 + 2 Super 530D over here. And they will trash you if you say the word arcade.

 

I hope the devs wont be dragged to the arcade style. I want DCS to remain with full fidelity modules.

 

I've seen that AIM9-thread and I just thought :doh:

[jojo]

In fact we often confuse INS and PCN (including myself).

 

Roughly the INS already work.

 

What is missing is data insertion in PCN.

 

It's not a waste of time, even more for AG missions.

This is what will allow you to do "on call CAS" by inserting target's coordinates into the system.

This is what will allie you to easily divert on another airfield, in poor weather.

 

Of course the whole thing is next to useless if you only make dogfights.

But you can do much more with M-2000C.

[Deezle]

 

Personally, I think the timings Azrayen posted should be implemented as faithfully as possible, and ALCM should always be available for ramp-start.

I'm pretty confident this is what they'll do. It makes the most sense. Not sure why this is still being discussed.

[OxideMako]

I'm pretty confident this is what they'll do. It makes the most sense. Not sure why this is still being discussed.

 

Exactly this, If you want faster alignment use ALCM. You want 8 min, use the full alignment.

[nomdeplume]

In fact we often confuse INS and PCN (including myself).

 

Roughly the INS already work.

Well, not really. This thread is entirely about the alignment time - which is not even superficially represented in the sim at the moment. The other details that people want to see is a) innacuracy if it's not fully aligned, and b) drift over time even if it is. Part (a) is obviously dependent on some kind of alignment time being implemented, and part (b) will probably benefit from the code written for (a).

 

At the moment the INS is a magical always-perfect position keeper that allows any waypoints set in the mission editor to be precisely marked on the HUD (and navigated to). While being able to add/adjust them on the fly is important and will add a lot to the aircraft's capabilities, without the alignment/drift simulation it's still going to be more "magic" than "simulation".

 

The A-10C module can kind of get away with being perfect because the INS is supported by a GPS that continually corrects for errors. The Mirage module can't do this and still call itself a simulation. The INS should be able to get close to the designated position, and that's an incredibly powerful tool, but it shouldn't be laser-accurate especially after an hour or two of flight.

 

While this discussion is almost entirely about "how long should we have to sit around doing anything before the INS provides accurate positioning" it's really ancilliary to the value-add of having innacuracy and drift modeling.

 

On that subject, I wonder what the different precision classes are defined as, i.e. what's the margin of error for 'classe 4' vs 'classe 1', or any in-between. Anyone come across any documentation on this?

[QuiGon]

Well, not really. This thread is entirely about the alignment time - which is not even superficially represented in the sim at the moment. The other details that people want to see is a) innacuracy if it's not fully aligned, and b) drift over time even if it is. Part (a) is obviously dependent on some kind of alignment time being implemented, and part (b) will probably benefit from the code written for (a).

 

At the moment the INS is a magical always-perfect position keeper that allows any waypoints set in the mission editor to be precisely marked on the HUD (and navigated to). While being able to add/adjust them on the fly is important and will add a lot to the aircraft's capabilities, without the alignment/drift simulation it's still going to be more "magic" than "simulation".

 

The A-10C module can kind of get away with being perfect because the INS is supported by a GPS that continually corrects for errors. The Mirage module can't do this and still call itself a simulation. The INS should be able to get close to the designated position, and that's an incredibly powerful tool, but it shouldn't be laser-accurate especially after an hour or two of flight.

 

While this discussion is almost entirely about "how long should we have to sit around doing anything before the INS provides accurate positioning" it's really ancilliary to the value-add of having innacuracy and drift modeling.

 

On that subject, I wonder what the different precision classes are defined as, i.e. what's the margin of error for 'classe 4' vs 'classe 1', or any in-between. Anyone come across any documentation on this?

 

Indeed!

 

Imprecision is really needed for the M2K INS!

[iborg]

Well, not really. This thread is entirely about the alignment time - which is not even superficially represented in the sim at the moment. The other details that people want to see is a) innacuracy if it's not fully aligned, and b) drift over time even if it is. Part (a) is obviously dependent on some kind of alignment time being implemented, and part (b) will probably benefit from the code written for (a).

 

At the moment the INS is a magical always-perfect position keeper that allows any waypoints set in the mission editor to be precisely marked on the HUD (and navigated to). While being able to add/adjust them on the fly is important and will add a lot to the aircraft's capabilities, without the alignment/drift simulation it's still going to be more "magic" than "simulation".

 

The A-10C module can kind of get away with being perfect because the INS is supported by a GPS that continually corrects for errors. The Mirage module can't do this and still call itself a simulation. The INS should be able to get close to the designated position, and that's an incredibly powerful tool, but it shouldn't be laser-accurate especially after an hour or two of flight.

 

While this discussion is almost entirely about "how long should we have to sit around doing anything before the INS provides accurate positioning" it's really ancilliary to the value-add of having innacuracy and drift modeling.

 

On that subject, I wonder what the different precision classes are defined as, i.e. what's the margin of error for 'classe 4' vs 'classe 1', or any in-between. Anyone come across any documentation on this?

 

Yes! It would give more richness to missions. Allow better planning, for, say, setting up a waypoint dedicated to INS drift correction before going on a ground strike. More stuff to do in the simulation.

[Manuel_108]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

[atonium83]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

 

Well, INS are always align by the pilot himself, there are few situation where the crew align the INS before the flight, the first case is the "Permanence Opérationnelle" (QRA in english) and the NATO procedure require that the plane have to be in flight in 7 minutes, so he can't wait the alignment. Other cases where the INS are align by crew is by an order of the Squadron Commander, espacially during hard mission, like important training mission or other....

 

Sorry for my poor english.

Edited January 8, 2016 by atonium83

[statrekmike]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

 

 

If that is indeed the case, I hope they don't make a habit of that kind of thing.

[iborg]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

 

Well, this is a bad decision. It's not a case where data isn't available and they have to "fudge" numbers. It's not even a case where playability would really be compromised (like the Ka-50's 30 minutes alignment time) by keeping the real numbers.

Offline, you can use time acceleration. Online, use ALCM or hot start.

Really Razbam should reconsider. It is setting a bad precedent and carrying doubt on their willingness to provide an accurate model. This is DCS not War Thunder. :noexpression:

[streakeagle]

A great solution is a check box option. By default, it could use a realistic time, but with the special option checked, the time cheat is enabled, justified or not. There is no reason DCS can't be both the most realistic air combat flight simulator and a fun casual game with just a few player selected options. The game is already doing this for several aircraft, why not utilize it more to please everyone involved rather than choose a rigid solution that decides what everyone should or should not do?

 

But on almost any subject that can come up, if it can only be one way, I generally want the more realistic one. But I see no need to be rigid/inflexible if it is not necessary.

Edited January 9, 2016 by streakeagle

[Darkwolf]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

The game is crowded by assistance option. But everyday DCS realism is taken away.

 

Now we have huge freaking blobs in the sky and land, while people calling for more visilibity could have used "labels".

 

They are air start, runway start, and even autostart for those who aren't willing to rampstart. Nope, let's cut the INS.

 

Lot of people are just not assuming the simulation side of DCS. If you are afraid doing regular rampstarts, just go freaking deathmatch server or don't die.

 

a few minutes is nothing. just prepare your flight plan, if you really want realism.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Darkwolf

[spiddx]

Guys, the RAZBAM devs already said in the podcast that they will use the unrealistic INS alignment times because IRL the ground crew aligns it befor the pilot is even sitting in the cockpit, that's their argument for the decision.

 

Guys calm down, they never said they would definitly do it that way. All they said was that they discussed it internally but nothing was set in stone. So please leave your pitchforks in the corner until the INS is actually implemented. ;)

[Voodooflies]

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

The game is crowded by assistance option. But everyday DCS realism is taken away.

 

Now we have huge freaking blobs in the sky and land, while people calling for more visilibity could have used "labels".

 

They are air start, runway start, and even autostart for those who aren't willing to rampstart. Nope, let's cut the INS.

 

Lot of people are just not assuming the simulation side of DCS. If you are afraid doing regular rampstarts, just go freaking deathmatch server or don't die.

 

a few minutes is nothing. just prepare your flight plan, if you really want realism.

 

+1.

[King_Hrothgar]

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

The game is crowded by assistance option. But everyday DCS realism is taken away.

 

Now we have huge freaking blobs in the sky and land, while people calling for more visilibity could have used "labels".

 

They are air start, runway start, and even autostart for those who aren't willing to rampstart. Nope, let's cut the INS.

 

Lot of people are just not assuming the simulation side of DCS. If you are afraid doing regular rampstarts, just go freaking deathmatch server or don't die.

 

a few minutes is nothing. just prepare your flight plan, if you really want realism.

 

The very first DCS module has 1/10th the real world align time with no option to set it to realistic. The A-10C's systems are heavily faked (allegedly), half the Mi-8's systems didn't work for a full 2 years after release and it's been confirmed that some will never be implemented (such as the bomb sight). The UH-1H doesn't model a single fuse out of the 5 million or so it has and the MiG-21Bis has options for invincible engine + fake gunsight/HUD in the misc menu. But no, it's adding an additional icon option in the realism panel (server enforced) and maybe shortening a simple timer for a completely uninteresting and mundane thing from 8 minutes to something else that will ruin DCS's realism and turn it into an arcade shooter.:doh:

 

This whole thread has gotten rather silly with posters whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing.