Option for Maverick Boresighting

[coolneko]

On 2/23/2021 at 10:20 AM, Northstar98 said:

If you come to DCS, a platform that is intended to be "as realistic as possible", to fly an aircraft that's supposed to be very authentic for this particular aircraft, but then expect something else or take issue with it being so, then you might be in the wrong place.

 

 

I think an important part of the argument is being lost:

If an option was presented for boresighting, then your experience wouldn't be affected because you wouldn't use it. So where's the harm in allowing an option?

 

All the arguments that I've seen in this thread against optional boresighting have boiled down to 'I don't like it when you don't play the way I do, so don't play'. 

 

To be clear, in multiplayer, any options like these would obviously be up to the server, and I personally think that most wouldn't allow them. So why not allow someone who wants to run BAI in singleplayer liberation, or a custom mission or whatever, the option to play how they want?

[Jackjack171]

4 hours ago, coolneko said:

 

 

I think an important part of the argument is being lost:

If an option was presented for boresighting, then your experience wouldn't be affected because you wouldn't use it. So where's the harm in allowing an option?

 

All the arguments that I've seen in this thread against optional boresighting have boiled down to 'I don't like it when you don't play the way I do, so don't play'. 

 

To be clear, in multiplayer, any options like these would obviously be up to the server, and I personally think that most wouldn't allow them. So why not allow someone who wants to run BAI in singleplayer liberation, or a custom mission or whatever, the option to play how they want?

No! The important argument is exactly what you refuse to accept. The company mission statement is in the first line on the website. Yet, you and others try and gaslight and convince others that came here because of that mission statement to accept the lesser. That is liberal gibberish my guy!

While this is a gaming environment, real world ideals are that you do not go to another platform trying to change things to suit you! With your logic, you are lo-key saying, "To hell with ED's mission statement and authenticity, lets have options that are made for the lowest tier person on the planet or the person that doesn't want to try hard enough". 

Here's a novel idea: Why not let those coming in decide if DCS is too difficult for them or not? You have to start someplace! If they suck at say, bore sighting a Maverick then oh well; learn! That's the beauty of the sim, we can die or fail, over and over again until we get it right! If you desire Ace Combat like stuff, then that's your groove! No harm, no foul!

[Northstar98]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:05 PM, coolneko said:

I think an important part of the argument is being lost:

If an option was presented for boresighting, then your experience wouldn't be affected because you wouldn't use it. So where's the harm in allowing an option?

And if we could put AIM-54s and R-73s on the F-16, no realism would be lost if people didn't use them.

If the F-16s FDM allowed you to go hypersonic and fly into space, it wouldn't be a problem for realism if people didn't fly that fast or fly into space.

If a new bug is found and you have to do x to reproduce it, well, so long as you don't do x what's the problem?

This argument of essentially ignorance is bliss - that a problem isn't there if you ignore it, is nothing more than a cop-out IMO.

You might think I'm being hyperbolic here, but where's the line? Isn't it much better and more consistent if we just stick to what's realistic for the aircraft?

 

The question is simple: is our F-16 supposed to be accurate to its IRL counterpart? If yes, then the boresighting  should stay as it is a function of the real aircraft. It's like having an option to negate the INS alignment, and just have it magically perfect from cold and dark, despite they're already being provisions to hot-start and air-start the aircraft which should have it already aligned. The Mavericks should also be properly aligned when starting in the air.

And its not like boresighting mavericks is particularly difficult; but even if somebody doesn't know how to do it, that's absolutely fine! There's plenty of us, including myself, who are more than happy to help people out, there's no harm in asking.

Quote

All the arguments that I've seen in this thread against optional boresighting have boiled down to 'I don't like it when you don't play the way I do, so don't play'.

It isn't about gameplay at all, ultimately DCS' own mission statement is to provide a simulator where the building blocks are realistic, but what you build out of them are up to you - exactly as it should be.

There are already gameplay concessions for you such as game mode etc. Which is where perfect maverick alignment should be behind.

Quote

To be clear, in multiplayer, any options like these would obviously be up to the server, and I personally think that most wouldn't allow them. So why not allow someone who wants to run BAI in singleplayer liberation, or a custom mission or whatever, the option to play how they want?

You can, start with the aircraft in the air (the Cold Start procedure is a lot more complex and involved than boresighting AGM-65s).

Edited January 2, 2022 by Northstar98

[coolneko]

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And if we could put AIM-54s and R-73s on the F-16, no realism would be lost if people didn't use them.

 

If the F-16s FDM allowed you to go hypersonic and fly into space, it wouldn't be a problem for realism if people didn't fly that fast or fly into space.

 

If a new bug is found and you have to do x to reproduce it, well, so long as you don't do x what's the problem?

 

 

This is just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

You might think I'm being hyperbolic here, but where's the line? Isn't it much better and more consistent if we just stick to what's realistic for the aircraft?

 

 

Nothing about having a boresighting mav option would detract ED from making the F-16 as accurate as possible. Again, its an option. The end goal, and most likely what the majority of players will use is the F-16 in its most realistic state. I'm having a hard time understanding why there are people so vehemently against just having an option in the game. There's already options for invulnerability and infinite ammo along with others turning off accuracy in the sim.

 

As for consistency, you're right. Adding an option will take resources and development time, which could possibly introduce bugs into the game and delay modules getting out of EA, which are things I don't want. I honestly wish they would just integrate MAC into DCS as a single product, but at this point I'm more interested in why even the possibility of an option can elicit responses like this:

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:52 PM, Jackjack171 said:

No! The important argument is exactly what you refuse to accept. The company mission statement is in the first line on the website. Yet, you and others try and gaslight and convince others that came here because of that mission statement to accept the lesser. That is liberal gibberish my guy!

 

I don't think you know what the word gaslight means, my guy.

 

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And its not like boresighting mavericks is particularly difficult; but even if somebody doesn't know how to do it, that's absolutely fine! There's plenty of us, including myself, who are more than happy to help people out, there's no harm in asking.

 

 

Let me try to come at this from a different angle than just the unlearned player. Lets say someone wants to set up a multiplayer mission, where you take off hot from the ramp with unlimited mavs and go see who can kill the most T72s. Everyone that plays in the server already knows how to boresight the mavs, and how to operate the viper efficiently, but just want to screw around in a fun mission. What's the problem with boresighting being turned off in this scenario?

Edited March 2, 2021 by coolneko

[Jackjack171]

44 minutes ago, coolneko said:

 

 

 

 

I don't think you know what the word gaslight means, my guy.

 

 

Let me try to come at this from a different angle than just the unlearned player. Lets say someone wants to set up a multiplayer mission, where you take off hot from the ramp with unlimited mavs and go see who can kill the most T72s. Everyone that plays in the server already knows how to boresight the mavs, and how to operate the viper efficiently, but just want to screw around in a fun mission. What's the problem with boresighting being turned off in this scenario?

 

Bro, I know exactly what it means. Maybe you are the one that doesn't, or maybe you do!

 Again your argument is very weak! If they all KNOW HOW to do it, then what's the problem? It would take no time at all if they are as efficient as you claim, right? And personal time constraints (whomever you are arguing for, including yourself) are a YOU problem, not an US problem. You ever heard of time management? This is starting to get hilarious! I'm starting to get flashbacks of Bootcamp dude! You keep coming up with fictitious situations in your own head to support your argument. Sounds a lot like you are a troll or you argue for the sake of it! 

Which is it?

[Ignition]

Some people have their ego very high here in the F16 forum.

The difficult part of the boresight is finding a suitable target to do the process.

Another problem is the F16 is the only plane which needs to do this, it creates problems in multiplayer (private servers). So an option to disable it would be good, OR, making all the planes with IR/TV AGM-65 equal.
 

[Jackjack171]

2 hours ago, Ignition said:

Some people have their ego very high here in the F16 forum.

The difficult part of the boresight is finding a suitable target to do the process.

Another problem is the F16 is the only plane which needs to do this, it creates problems in multiplayer (private servers). So an option to disable it would be good, OR, making all the planes with IR/TV AGM-65 equal.
 

Welcome to the world of...Simulation (as in as close as we can get to RL)! It's supposed to be difficult.  And I'm all for every other aircraft having to bore sight the Maverick too if that is in fact, realistic. I'm sure I've read somewhere that it is going to be the standard, and I love standards!

[Northstar98]

On 3/2/2021 at 2:34 AM, coolneko said:

This is just a slippery slope fallacy.

It's actually closer to reducing to the absurdity.

But even so the exact same logic you're using equally applies to them just as much as it applies to maverick boresighting.

Spoiler

And just a tip: discrediting an argument on the sole ground that it has a fallacy in it, is also a fallacy in and of itself: it's called an argument from fallacy. 

 

Quote

Nothing about having a boresighting mav option would detract ED from making the F-16 as accurate as possible. Again, its an option. The end goal, and most likely what the majority of players will use is the F-16 in its most realistic state. I'm having a hard time understanding why there are people so vehemently against just having an option in the game. There's already options for invulnerability and infinite ammo along with others turning off accuracy in the sim.

And neither would any of the things I said, by the exact same reasoning. You're arbitrarily allowing one, but not the other.

EDIT: And just as an addendum, DCS about having realistic 'building blocks' (the modules, assets and maps), but what you build outof them and how you use them totally up to you.

Quote

As for consistency, you're right. Adding an option will take resources and development time, which could possibly introduce bugs into the game and delay modules getting out of EA, which are things I don't want. I honestly wish they would just integrate MAC into DCS as a single product, but at this point I'm more interested in why even the possibility of an option can elicit responses like this:

That wasn't my point, to avoid arbitrarily making concessions for one thing and not the other, it would be better for ED to stick to their goals i.e stick to what's realistic. If people what simplified avionics, well, that's what game avionics mode is for...

It's true that it will probably take resources, but I don't think it's that significant.

Quote

Let me try to come at this from a different angle than just the unlearned player. Lets say someone wants to set up a multiplayer mission, where you take off hot from the ramp with unlimited mavs and go see who can kill the most T72s. Everyone that plays in the server already knows how to boresight the mavs, and how to operate the viper efficiently, but just want to screw around in a fun mission. What's the problem with boresighting being turned off in this scenario?

And if we're just screwing around, what's wrong with any of the examples I provided? The reasoning follows and is exactly the same.

What's the problem with giving an optional magic INS for the Tomcat, so I don't have to update it and correct for errors? For the exact same reasons you're giving me.

And in such a scenario, what's wrong with air-starting? Where the maverick is already aligned?

What's the problem with having a HARM that can scan through each possible emitter instantly?

On 3/2/2021 at 4:51 AM, Ignition said:

Some people have their ego very high here in the F16 forum.

Uh huh.

Quote

The difficult part of the boresight is finding a suitable target to do the process.

I just find an isolated building or electricity pylon and stick a steerpoint over it. With the steerpoint selected it'll be designated as a SPI and the TGP will automatically look at it.

All you have to do is select pre mode on the maverick, adjust, TMS up when in range, hit BSGT, repeat and done. Super easy, takes me a few seconds per maverick.

Quote

Another problem is the F16 is the only plane which needs to do this, it creates problems in multiplayer (private servers). So an option to disable it would be good, OR, making all the planes with IR/TV AGM-65 equal.

The latter should be what we should be going for.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Zeroskills]

I understand needing to bore sight the Mavericks because that's what real pilots do. Nobody here does anything that's not 100% true to life. I wake up on a Saturday and decide what plane I want to fly, what mission I want to fly, what load out I want to use and what country I want to fly in just like a real military pilot does.

[Jackjack171]

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

It's actually closer to reducing to the absurdity.

 

But even so the exact same logic you're using equally applies to them just as much as it applies to maverick boresighting.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

And just a tip: discrediting an argument on the sole ground that it has a fallacy in it, is also a fallacy in and of itself: it's called an argument from fallacy. 

 

 

And neither would any of the things I said, by the exact same reasoning. You're arbitrarily allowing one, but not the other.

 

 

 

Brother you are making way too much sense. Lol. I need you to stop! JK

[Northstar98]

On 3/2/2021 at 4:07 PM, Zeroskills said:

I understand needing to bore sight the Mavericks because that's what real pilots do. Nobody here does anything that's not 100% true to life. I wake up on a Saturday and decide what plane I want to fly, what mission I want to fly, what load out I want to use and what country I want to fly in just like a real military pilot does.

Which is no excuse, we know none of it is 100% true to life, there's tonnes of stuff missing. That doesn't mean we should make x unrealistic also.

But that isn't even contradictory, DCS is a sandbox true, but its mission statement is to provide you with realistic building blocks and leaves what to build out of them up to you - exactly the way it should be. Doing otherwise would mandate deletion of the mission editor. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[AndyJWest]

Personally, I boy DCS stuff to fly it, not to complain about what other people do with it.

[Jackjack171]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Personally, I boy DCS stuff to fly it, not to complain about what other people do with it.

If you think that that is what this is about then you didn't read the thread bro! 

[AndyJWest]

22 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

If you think that that is what this is about then you didn't read the thread bro! 

 

I have read the thread. What started as a simple question about whether the DCS F-16 will replicate a specific feature has degenerated into an argument as to whether said feature should be optional, or compulsory. And the arguments against it being optional seem mostly to amount to 'it shouldn't be optional because I don't think other people should have a choice'.

 

Like it or not, DCS is sold to the gaming market, and ED's own documentation explicitly describes it as a game, in several places. It is software sold for entertainment purposes, to a mass market that may not all share the keenness for ultra-realistic simulation of every possible feature that some players do. And without the purchases of the more casual players, ED is less likely to be able to justify adding further such 'realism'. If you want accurate-in-every-possible-way simulation for yourself, you are going to have to accept that sometimes ED will elect to provide simplifying choices for others that you personally won't use, because they sell more stuff that way. That's the economics of scale for you. 

 

(And please don't call me 'bro'. I'm not your brother, and from personal experience most people who use the term tend to be from a generation that would be more likely to call me 'grandpa' if they met me in person.)

[Jackjack171]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I have read the thread. What started as a simple question about whether the DCS F-16 will replicate a specific feature has degenerated into an argument as to whether said feature should be optional, or compulsory. And the arguments against it being optional seem mostly to amount to 'it shouldn't be optional because I don't think other people should have a choice'.

 

Like it or not, DCS is sold to the gaming market, and ED's own documentation explicitly describes it as a game, in several places. It is software sold for entertainment purposes, to a mass market that may not all share the keenness for ultra-realistic simulation of every possible feature that some players do. And without the purchases of the more casual players, ED is less likely to be able to justify adding further such 'realism'. If you want accurate-in-every-possible-way simulation for yourself, you are going to have to accept that sometimes ED will elect to provide simplifying choices for others that you personally won't use, because they sell more stuff that way. That's the economics of scale for you. 

 

(And please don't call me 'bro'. I'm not your brother, and from personal experience most people who use the term tend to be from a generation that would be more likely to call me 'grandpa' if they met me in person.)

Welcome to the forums dude! I can call you that right? Or is that too much for you as well? And bro, is a brotherly term where I'm from as well as in the Military! It is used as a friendly term! I mean, men can have a healthy discussion right? That's the comradery of DCS! Funny a guy on a war-themed simulation doesn't get that, but oh well!  I would never call you granpa as I'm retired. Don't be so sensitive man! 

We can talk about this as long as the day is old. And you did not read the thread. Your entire second paragraph tells me that! Come on man!

[AndyJWest]

17 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Hang on... taking a simulator and making it's realistic features that separate it from casual games optional to get more people into the sim which do not care about realistic features is actually helping the developers to justify putting further realistic features in?

 

In which dimension actually over here the exact opposite is the case.

 

In the dimension where adding new features depends on sales volume. More sales, more opportunity to add optional features.

 

And I don't think that ED are in business to produce software in order to 'separate it from casual games', They are in business to sell stuff, for profit, using the knowledge expertise they have. There is clearly a market for 'ultra-realism' in entertainment-market flight simulation, but the flight sim market as a whole is much bigger than that, and appealing to the broader as well as the narrower makes simple economic sense. Which is why they do things the way they do. They have been quite successful so far, selling e.g. FC3 as well as the more detailed products, and all indications are that they intend to continue that way. If they were, for no obvious logical reason, to decide that from now on they were only going to appeal to the smaller 'ultta' market, they would have to accept lower sales, and less opportunity to develop new products for the 'ultra' crowd.

5 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Welcome to the forums dude! I can call you that right? Or is that too much for you as well? And bro, is a brotherly term where I'm from as well as in the Military! It is used as a friendly term! I mean, men can have a healthy discussion right? That's the comradery of DCS! Funny a guy on a war-themed simulation doesn't get that, but oh well!  I would never call you granpa as I'm retired. Don't be so sensitive man! 

We can talk about this as long as the day is old. And you did not read the thread. Your entire second paragraph tells me that! Come on man!

Whatever you say, son...

 

(P.S. thanks for the belated welcome. I joined in 2013 though. Shouldn't I be welcoming you?)

Edited March 2, 2021 by AndyJWest

[Jackjack171]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

 

Whatever you say, son...

Now where talking! I'll take it!.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how long you've been here but ED is never in any shortage of new players. The forums reflect that! I have almost every module so I read a lot of the threads and discussions to help me when I hit a snag. It's interesting what you find when you are not looking! So, please don't use the weak argument about sales. 
 

[AndyJWest]

2 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Now where talking! I'll take it!.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how long you've been here but ED is never in any shortage of new players. The forums reflect that! I have almost every module so I read a lot of the threads and discussions to help me when I hit a snag. It's interesting what you find when you are not looking! So, please don't use the weak argument about sales. 
 

 

So how exactly is pointing out that businesses (or at least, successful ones) base development plans on prospective sales a 'weak argument'?

[Northstar98]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:20 PM, AndyJWest said:

 

So how exactly is pointing out that businesses (or at least, successful ones) base development plans on prospective sales a 'weak argument'?

Because the reality is that ED has no plans to add more FC3 aircraft.

Since FC3's release, playable aircraft have been exclusively full fidelity.

Recently they've even been upping the ante on the realism; ironically the maverick boresighting procedure being one of them (previous modules didn't have it, nor did they have the more realistic HARMs that came with the F-16C), only now those very features are being complained about.

And FC3? It was basically LOMAC FC2, ported and upgraded to DCS (upgraded with interior and exterior models, and more realistic flight models). It was a less expensive way of populating DCS in the early days, back when it only had 2 full fidelity aircraft.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[AndyJWest]

Yup, true enough, ED aren't adding more FC3 aircraft. It wouldn't make sense to since they announced it's presumed successor, Modern Air Combat. Which I assume is still under development. They haven't said anything to the contrary, as far as I'm aware. Certainly, forum members still seemed to think it was going ahead a week or so ago:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/204006-mac-modern-air-combat-discussion/page/10/

[coolneko]

20 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Again your argument is very weak! If they all KNOW HOW to do it, then what's the problem? It would take no time at all if they are as efficient as you claim, right? And personal time constraints (whomever you are arguing for, including yourself) are a YOU problem, not an US problem. You ever heard of time management? This is starting to get hilarious! I'm starting to get flashbacks of Bootcamp dude! You keep coming up with fictitious situations in your own head to support your argument. Sounds a lot like you are a troll or you argue for the sake of it! 

 

You're making a lot of assumptions.

 

The point is they're having fun and not taking it seriously.

 

People play DCS for a lot of different reasons. You don't have to act as if you're participating in a milsim event every time you play the game.

 

 

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's actually closer to reducing to the absurdity.

 

And just a tip: discrediting an argument on the sole ground that it has a fallacy in it, is also a fallacy in and of itself: it's called an argument from fallacy. 

 

 

Saying that a boresighting option will lead to the F-16 being able to fly to mars or adding weapons that were never loaded is completely a slippery slope argument. Nothing fundamental is changing about mavrick operation in the viper with a boresight option, while all the examples you've given are fundamentally changing how the viper operates.

 

If I would have only responded to your post saying it was a fallacy, then you're correct, but I didn't. I also addressed the other points of your argument. The only reason I specified that particular point is because another poster did the exact same thing earlier in the thread. 

 

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And if we're just screwing around, what's wrong with any of the examples I provided? The reasoning follows and is exactly the same.

 

What's the problem with giving an optional magic INS for the Tomcat, so I don't have to update it and correct for errors? For the exact same reasons you're giving me.

 

 

If drag modeling was removed by having an air-start jet, and you were asking for an option to remove it for when you're on the ground so you could take off and fly into space, then the reasoning would follow.

 

The F-14D had GPS integrated INS (I think) so aren't you just asking for the F-14D? This is the most reasonable comparison you've had. If heatblur wanted to add an option to turn off INS drift I wouldn't argue. I also wouldn't come to the conclusion that said option would eventually lead to the tom being able to tunnel into the mantle of the earth though.

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And in such a scenario, what's wrong with air-starting? Where the maverick is already aligned?

 

 

Why arbitrarily decide that an air-start is acceptable for auto aligned mavs, but a ramp start isn't?

 

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

That wasn't my point, to avoid arbitrarily making concessions for one thing and not the other, it would be better for ED to stick to their goals i.e stick to what's realistic.

 

 

Adding a boresight option and having the viper be a hypersonic spaceship aren't equal concessions, and I don't believe ED would be making random choices along the way for them to be connected.

 

If you honestly think that having an option for boresighting is conceding the position of DCS being an accurate-as-possible flight sim, or that such an option would lead ED to be unable to tell the difference between quality of life additions or incorporating vapid ridiculousness then you should have them remove all unrealistic options in general. Invulnerability, infinite ammo, flight model and avionics easy mode, disabling G effects, less than 60 second rearm and refueling, completely repairing an aircraft in the time it takes me to make a cup of tea, magic iff etc.

 

[Jackjack171]

3 hours ago, coolneko said:

 

You're making a lot of assumptions.

 

The point is they're having fun and not taking it seriously.

 

People play DCS for a lot of different reasons. You don't have to act as if you're participating in a milsim event every time you play the game.

 

 

 

 

 

This IS a Military sim bro! It is ingrained in the name itself! Are you pulling my leg here? Lol

[AndyJWest]

Quote

DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

 

Some of us like to relax sometimes. You should try it. 

[dwm]

I'm asking myself how this is done IRL, or phrased in other words, are there procedures where the ground crew does the boresighting?
An option or comm-menu-item for boresighting would be exactly that, right? Leaving the work to the crew chief.
At least I can remember of a few videos where the boresighting was done on the ground, so basically it doesn't seem impossible.

[Northstar98]

On 3/3/2021 at 2:37 AM, coolneko said:

Saying that a boresighting option will lead to the F-16 being able to fly to mars or adding weapons that were never loaded is completely a slippery slope argument.

But I'm not saying that am I? I'm not saying this will cause another, just your exact same argument applies to them. I.e if it's optional, and you can turn it off, there's no issue - the ignorance is bliss argument.

You can apply the same argument liberally to literally anything.

Quote

Nothing fundamental is changing about mavrick operation in the viper with a boresight option, while all the examples you've given are fundamentally changing how the viper operates.

You are changing the operation of the maverick, boresighting is essentially mandatory for TGP handoff in PRE mode, it is a part of using that weapon in that mode.

It's not that far away from having an option to make the HARM seeker magic like it is in the Hornet, where it can scan through every possible emitter instantly. Or having an option that instantly aligns GPS guided weapons as soon as you select them. Where again, your exact same arguments apply.

Quote

If I would have only responded to your post saying it was a fallacy, then you're correct, but I didn't. I also addressed the other points of your argument.

Not really, you mainly told me that because it was an option, it wouldn't have an effect, because if you don't like it you can turn it off - the exact same thing applies to all of my examples, even the ones that are hyperbolic and ridiculous, it is the exact same argument.

Quote

If drag modeling was removed by having an air-start jet, and you were asking for an option to remove it for when you're on the ground so you could take off and fly into space, then the reasoning would follow.

Which is pretty much exactly what I am saying...

I'm saying if we want to make (insert unrealistic thing here), your argument goes that as long as it's made optional there's no issue, because players can turn it off.

And if that's the case, where's the line? If we can do it with one why can't we do it with another?

Quote

The F-14D had GPS integrated INS (I think) so aren't you just asking for the F-14D? This is the most reasonable comparison you've had. If heatblur wanted to add an option to turn off INS drift I wouldn't argue.

It did AFAIK, and no I'm not, there's more to an F-14D than just GPS...

Quote

I also wouldn't come to the conclusion that said option would eventually lead to the tom being able to tunnel into the mantle of the earth though.

I never did, all I asked is where's the line. Why do you think your argument only holds for a specific thing but not others, when the exact same reasoning applies.

Quote

Why arbitrarily decide that an air-start is acceptable for auto aligned mavs, but a ramp start isn't?

Because air starts are fully configured, it assumes everything has already been done, short of selecting weapons. You wouldn't have done a boresight on the ground (well, you can, but you're supposed to do it on as far away an object as possible to minimise parallax errors).

It isn't arbitrary. Ultimately if you don't want to boresight mavericks, then don't use a mode that requires you do so. Or don't do it at all and leave them unaligned - you'll just have to make corrections yourself.

Quote

Adding a boresight option and having the viper be a hypersonic spaceship aren't equal concessions, and I don't believe ED would be making random choices along the way for them to be connected.

Why not? Again, you're arbitrarily allowing one but not the other. It's fair to say they're not equal, but why is one okay and one isn't?

Quote

If you honestly think that having an option for boresighting is conceding the position of DCS being an accurate-as-possible flight sim, or that such an option would lead ED to be unable to tell the difference between quality of life additions or incorporating vapid ridiculousness then you should have them remove all unrealistic options in general.

And following your exact same argument, why would having anything I've said, as an option, be conceding DCS as being an accurate as possible sim? After all it's an option, if you don't like it, you can just turn it off. What's the problem? You're dancing around this and not actually giving me an answer.

And at the end of the day, you're coming to DCS, which has a mission goal of being as realistic as possible, buying a module that intends to be as realistic as possible (and has features that are even more realistic than previous implementations), and then having an issue with it being so. What gives? It doesn't make sense.

If you don't like the realism aspect, that's fine, but then isn't DCS a poor choice for you? Just the same as Ace Combat is a poor choice if you're after something more realistic?

Quote

Invulnerability, infinite ammo, flight model and avionics easy mode, disabling G effects, less than 60 second rearm and refueling, completely repairing an aircraft in the time it takes me to make a cup of tea.

Maybe we should ban the mission editor as well, following along the exact same lines, that sounds like a great idea (not).

Invulnerability is useful for testing - the OB build is the public testing build. Invulnerability allows testing to be done with more efficiency in certain situations, which benefits everyone.

Infinite ammo is useful in training missions, if you mess up or do something wrong, you can try again at your convenience without restarting the mission - it has utility. As all weapon usage training missions start in the air, mavericks are (or should be) already boresighted to be used in PRE mode (the only mode where boresighting applies right now AFAIK).

Realistic rearm and refuel times aren't even in. And I imagine that if it wasn't optional and the times were extended to be more realistic, players would just jump in a new aircraft - which is what they do anyway. But even so, integrated combat turns and hot rearming and refuelling are a real thing, and they can dramatically shave off the time to rearm and refuel, I take it that's what DCS is trying to do. What's the issue?

For repairing aircraft with heavy damage, players can still spawn in with another aircraft, which is probably what they do anyway. And what should happen is that ED could do something like what C:MANO does, which is simply mark that aircraft as down for maintenance, but leave ready aircraft available - which might be more useful for a dynamic campaign

As for easy avionics mode? Well isn't that exactly what magic boresighting mavericks should be behind? As I've said numerous times.

Quote

magic iff etc.

I'm all for that one going, it's about time, Deka managed to make one that's actually realistic in the JF-17, the problem is it only works with other JF-17s.

Ultimately the other F-16 orientated sim, handled IFF perfectly; if they can do it, I really don't see why we can't. They even went further and had automatic IFF policies about which mode(s) are in use during ingress/egress, and whether they're side, flight or individually specific, they also automatically defined what codes are valid for each mode at whatever time (it did it on the hour). It would even automatically assign codes for each aircraft. All integrated with the data cartridge.

If we don't know what codes should be, we should be able to make them up, ultimately making an approximation is better than nothing. The same could be said for EW.

On 3/3/2021 at 7:40 AM, dwm said:

I'm asking myself how this is done IRL, or phrased in other words, are there procedures where the ground crew does the boresighting?
An option or comm-menu-item for boresighting would be exactly that, right? Leaving the work to the crew chief.

If that is the case, then fine, have a ground crew menu to boresight the mavericks for you.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting