Option for Maverick Boresighting

[kraszus]

Haven't bought this module yet, but just wondering will it be necessary to boresight Mavericks to TGP prior to use?

[Cupra]

No.

[beppe_goodoldrebel]

If yes please make it optional.

[Eaglewings]

If yes please make it optional.

Yeah optional like the TDC slew control.

Boresighting is quite a process with the maverick.

[Jetguy06]

I'd love for it to be implemented, even better if it's an option for those that don't want it. It's one of the few things I find missing from the A-10c, as it is a real world part of getting the mavericks ready.

[Cupra]

But if you do not have something like a TGP... you will have to work without ;)

 

But interesting question… just waiting for someone who asks if also the flying of the jet will be implemented… A look at the list and you have what will come.. first it has to fly and run stable. A well working radar code and flight model. Weapons are getting interesting if the system itself are working.

[Geraki]

But if you do not have something like a TGP... you will have to work without ;)

 

But interesting question… just waiting for someone who asks if also the flying of the jet will be implemented… A look at the list and you have what will come.. first it has to fly and run stable. A well working radar code and flight model. Weapons are getting interesting if the system itself are working.

 

Since the DCS F-16 block50 would have TGP i think it is must to boresight the MAV if we want realism .....

[Harker]

Mavericks need to be boresighted regardless if you have a TGP or not. If not, they won't work correctly with the rest of the aircraft's sensors. The HUD TD box will point to the desired spot and the MAV camera will point to another. Same deal with A/G radar designation etc.

 

I'm guessing that if you don't have a TGP to help you with boresighting, you'd use the HUD to match the TD box location with the location the MAV camera is looking.

[Harlikwin]

Given that no other module we have has to do this (and they all should). I'm pretty skeptical that we will see it on the viper.

[Swift.]

what do you guys mean by 'boresight'? Collimating it or doing like in the hornet where it re centres the display?

[razo+r]

Aligning the seeker to the plane sensors/TGP

[mvsgas]

Since the DCS F-16 block50 would have TGP i think it is must to boresight the MAV if we want realism .....

 

If realistically implemented (depending on the missile versions, software versions, TGP, aircraft OFP, etc.) the opposite is true and missile boresight is only require when other systems are used and the pod’s Missile Boresight Correlator (MBC) would attempt to line the missile if the TGP is used.

 

But changing this would affect all other modules, could introduce some problems and I do not see the benefit.

[DirtySanchez]

Maverick boresight is already implemented in A-10C, so...

 

However, since every missile rail and every Maverick GCS has "perfect" alignment by default in DCS, there's no need to boresight the missiles unless you want to have them bore sighted to 150 mils for medium-altitude work, vice low-altitude work.

 

It sounds more like the OP is talking about slaving, not boresighting.

[Zergburger]

So, in the A-10 in its current state, the mav is boresighted perfectly, however there is no "TGP Handoff" being completed when you use the "slew all sensor to spi" command.

 

 

 

If i understand correctly, the viper has the ability to point track with the TGP and cause the target to be handed off to newer mav's (D's for sure, don't know exactly which others).

If the process is successful, the mav is not only slaved to the TGP, but the missile seeker has acquired an optical lock and is ready to fire.

 

 

There are some more seperate root issues here that go back to the poor missile simulation by ED, for example:

1. Real agm-65s can experience an optical breaklock in flight; (the greatest chance of this is during the initial launch) to minimize breaklock, missiles are typically fired with the target near the middle of the seeker FOV. DCS mavs can be fired at even the very edge of the FOV and still maintain lock.

2. Real agm-65s can and do loft for shots that are longer range, this would seriously help the Rmax of mavs in game and reduce the number of people climbing to 30kft just so they can get 15 mile AGM-65E shots

3. The artificial limiting of EO/IR maverick seekers ability to lock based on range. These seekers lock based on contrast, if the target has enough contrast, you should theoretically be able to lock many (read: >7) miles away.

 

 

These types of issues are going to seriously hinder the fidelity of the F16 overall, and they can't just be fixed with changes to the module.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Zergburger

[chaos]

1. Real agm-65s can experience an optical breaklock in flight; (the greatest chance of this is during the initial launch) to minimize breaklock, missiles are typically fired with the target near the middle of the seeker FOV. DCS mavs can be fired at even the very edge of the FOV and still maintain lock.

 

That may very well be but I can hear the cries of many players now saying the MAVs are borked because they break lock upon launching. It's one of those fringe cases (pardon the pun) that I can live with.

 

3. The artificial limiting of EO/IR maverick seekers ability to lock based on range. These seekers lock based on contrast, if the target has enough contrast, you should theoretically be able to lock many (read: >7) miles away.

 

Like you're saying... 'theoretically'. The specs as mentioned in these brochures and various places on the internet (wiki?) are possibly a bit on the optimistic side. Missile behavior leaves a lot to be desired but they're working on it as can be seen from recent updates. Performance however is not too far off if I'd hazard a guess.

 

These types of issues are going to seriously hinder the fidelity of the F16 overall, and they can't just be fixed with changes to the module.

 

DCS is a work in progress and will always be... I seriously hope this will not end up like the flamewars of yore but knowing 'The Internet'...

 

People are going to compare DCS F-16 with Falcon and some bits are going to be better on one product compared to the other. Caveat being that DCS is work in progress and Falcon is more or less done. Let them (ED) do their thing and all will be golden. It may take a while but it will happen. Heck, I've been around since the Flanker 1.0 days and the improvements they've made since are nothing short of incredible. Especially considering this niche market and without any serious competition to keep them on their toes.

[Zeroskills]

I think Mavericks can be boresited on the ground.

[Mule]

If they do implement the boresight for the Maverick , please make it optional. It’s a tedious process.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Mule

[Frederf]

"These seekers lock based on contrast, if the target has enough contrast, you should theoretically be able to lock many (read: >7) miles away."

 

There is such a thing as being too small in angular size to lock. A tank far away can be too few pixels for centroid track. A larger object far away can be enough pixels.

 

In general there is the 30-30-30 rule: 30 degrees AOB, 30 degrees bank change since track, and 30 dps roll rate. And keyhole and range and contrast.

 

I believe some boresight is done on the ground at an optical target as far away as practical to minimize parallax. Airborne boresight is good for a check and longer distance for less parallax (and perhaps wing twist is different in the air).

 

MBC/ABC with TGP has two stages first a geometrical alignment which depends on geometrical calibration and then a "picture matching" second stage where it compares the two video feeds in software. It's going to have some wiggle room but how big I don't know.

 

"If i understand correctly, the viper has the ability to point track with the TGP and cause the target to be handed off to newer mav's (D's for sure, don't know exactly which others).

If the process is successful, the mav is not only slaved to the TGP, but the missile seeker has acquired an optical lock and is ready to fire."

Yes, F-16 is a fast strike airplane with a lot more automation than A-10. During the attack it's minimal pilot input. One button to command TGP point track and then second button to fire. It even picks the right EXP FOV based on TGP FOV (and polarity IIRC).

 

In fact shooting two missiles at two targets with one button press is possible by point tracking, missile step, point track again, and weapon release button. TGP is SOI the entire time.

[Harlikwin]

If they do implement the boresight for the Maverick , please make it optional. It’s a tedious process.

 

Yeah I for one wouldn't mind a tick box for "start boresighted", but for the purists I think it should be included. And thats for all modules that use Mavs.

[hreich]

Is there a boresight MAV head seeker procedure like in Falcon BMS

 

If i remember correctly, in Falcon BMS one should always had to boresight maverick seeker head before use? Will there be a similar procedure in Falcon DCS ?

[razo+r]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249927&highlight=boresight+maverick

[Delareon]

If ED implement this, please not as half assed as in BMS.

Those partially implementet procedures which only annoys the Player was one Reason why i quit BMS in favour of DCS.

 

Which means including proper Boresighting on the Ground.

[txmtb]

Don't forget about Cursor Zero, I hope it is implemented as it can really throw aiming of mav's and other weapons completely off. Makes you follow procedures to get a good target lock.

[kraszus]

Oh FFS. Havent played DCS in a while (waiting for the F-16 to firm up) and just read Chuck's latest guide which suggests that boresighting is now needed otherwise there will be a misalignment between the missile and the TGP. I'd really hoped this would be an option rather than imposed

[Florence201]

If you want a game, play BMS. 
MiG you want an attempt at realism, stick with DCS