Jump to content

Option for Maverick Boresighting


kraszus

Recommended Posts

Left%20side%20landed.jpg

 

I have a pink F18 that's invincible and has unlimited fuel and ammo. Arguments about DCS being about 100% realism are irrelevant and can be ignored in my opinion. The "Muh Hardcore Milsim Only" ship sailed, crashed on a reef, caught fire and sank a long time ago.

 

I think DCS should aim for the most realism they can, then add options to scale it back for people that want them. As long as multiplayer servers have the ability to set whatever limits they want these options will not have any effect on anyone who dosent have an intrest in them. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeroskills said:

I think DCS should aim for the most realism they can, then add options to scale it back for people that want them. 

 

Since that's what they've been doing up to now, and it is working, judging by the way they can fund increasingly more new content, it seems unlikely that they will do things any differently.

 

Having choices is good. Even if a specific player choses not to use them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zeroskills said:

Left%20side%20landed.jpg

 

I have a pink F18 that's invincible and has unlimited fuel and ammo. Arguments about DCS being about 100% realism are irrelevant and can be ignored in my opinion. The "Muh Hardcore Milsim Only" ship sailed, crashed on a reef, caught fire and sank a long time ago.

 

I think DCS should aim for the most realism they can, then add options to scale it back for people that want them. As long as multiplayer servers have the ability to set whatever limits they want these options will not have any effect on anyone who dosent have an intrest in them. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use them.

It didn't crash anywhere bro! And again, it is a Milsim! The name itself is self-explanatory! DCS is already where it is without having to scale back anything. More training and less cheats would be great! Your opinion about 100% realism became null and void the moment you admitted that you do not fly that way, with a pink Hornet! Really bro? Are we being punked here?

Being honest, that Hornet is missing a lot of testosterone but hey, if it makes you happy, I'm all for it! You either downloaded that or made it yourself. That's all great but the rest of us that appreciate DCS for what it is shouldn't have to. 

The original OP was about bore sighting the Mav. It is not difficult to learn! It takes no time to be efficient at it either. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it! Why would you get on a platform that sells itself for it authenticity and complex systems and then ask for it to change just because you are too inept or too lazy to even do it properly? And since you pointed out that "100% realism" is out of the barn, then why not either learn it and fail or learn it and succeed? You can die, respawn and die again. That's the beauty of the sim dude! Some people are full of excuses!


Edited by Jackjack171
  • Like 2

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Being honest, that Hornet is missing a lot of testosterone but hey, if it makes you happy, I'm all for it! You either downloaded that or made it yourself. That's all great but the rest of us that appreciate DCS for what it is shouldn't have to. 

I agree no one should be forced to fly that. The Hornet is a terrible plane compared to the Viper.


Edited by Zeroskills
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zeroskills said:

I agree no one should be forced to fly that. The Hornet is a terrible plane compared to the Viper.

 

That's a matter of personal opinion. I worked with the Viper for 3 years and the Hornet for 20. Both great aircraft, although none of them came in pink! Lol

  • Like 1

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

That's a matter of personal opinion. I worked with the Viper for 3 years and the Hornet for 20. Both great aircraft, although none of them came in pink! Lol

I'm part of a milsim group with a lot of trash talking between the virtual air force and virtual navy and I think I let the leak onto the DCS forum.

 

Judging by the number of people we have join, and the small number that actually stick around when they find out what even our version of milsim-lite requires, plus the popularity of the Grim Reapers on youtube, I think a majority of players have little to no intrest in absolute realism. Trying to cram it down their throats is not going to make the "get good", it will just cause them to leave. Giving options to ease them in is the best way to go in my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2021 at 3:35 PM, Zeroskills said:

Left%20side%20landed.jpg

 

I have a pink F18 that's invincible and has unlimited fuel and ammo. Arguments about DCS being about 100% realism are irrelevant and can be ignored in my opinion. The "Muh Hardcore Milsim Only" ship sailed, crashed on a reef, caught fire and sank a long time ago.

You're missing the point.

And none of what you said has any bearing whatsoever. Once again, realistic building blocks, what you do with them are up to you - there's no issue there, it's how it should be.

Ultimately painting a Hornet pink, setting it to invincible (something useful for testing) and setting infinite ammo on (useful for training missions), changes nothing about the operation of the Hornet, at all.

On 3/3/2021 at 3:53 PM, AndyJWest said:

Since that's what they've been doing up to now, and it is working, judging by the way they can fund increasingly more new content, it seems unlikely that they will do things any differently.

 

Having choices is good. Even if a specific player choses not to use them.

They fund new content by giving us aircraft that are really popular - the F-16, the F/A-18 and upcoming AH-64D all, are incredibly popular. It sounds like you're making hasty conclusions. Ultimately the F-16C increased the realism, and the options to take away realism have stayed the same since DCS' inception...

On 3/3/2021 at 5:06 PM, Zeroskills said:

Judging by the number of people we have join, and the small number that actually stick around when they find out what even our version of milsim-lite requires, plus the popularity of the Grim Reapers on youtube, I think a majority of players have little to no intrest in absolute realism.

GR is popular because they pump out new content at breakneck pace, as such YouTube plasters their videos all over the screen - they have the highest visibility, no wonder why they get more views.

Quote

Trying to cram it down their throats is not going to make the "get good", it will just cause them to leave. Giving options to ease them in is the best way to go in my opinion.

I never knew boresighting mavericks was so difficult, especially considering that 95% of the work is exactly like using the mavericks in any mode other than pre. Hell if you know how to use the Mavericks in the FC3 A-10A you should be able to boresight mavericks no problem, the only other thing you have to do is press a button. It is one of the easiest things to do.

If players are having trouble, or don't know what to do, that's absolutely fine! It's not a problem, there are plenty of us, including myself have no problems walking people through things and are perfectly happy to help them out. I had to seek help too...

I don't know but I have serious doubts that boresighting mavericks is something people genuinely struggle with or don't know how to use them; and it's more a case of convenience 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they fund new content by making it popular. By offering options for people wanting to fly with different levels of realism, same as they've always done.

 

Anyway, I'm done here, since I'm not interested in going around in circles arguing. ED will make the decision as to what options they provide - and as always, such decisions are going to be dependent on financial considerations, rather than on the vociferous opinions of a few forum members who apparently consider the way they personally use DCS to be the only valid one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments in this topic remind me of milsim airsoft players arguing vs casual airsoft players. LOL. 

 

Milsim airsofters, "THIS is how you should wear your gear! Because that's how REAL soldiers do!"

 

Casual airsofters, "I DON'T CARE! I just want to wear whatever I want and play with PINK GUNS!" 

 

Chill guys, because arguments like this will never stop. ED is the one who will make the decision, there's no point arguing endlessly and picking on each other's words. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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.

 

 

If they were options then that's completely fine, but don't act as if those options you presented are the same as adding an option to remove one aspect from maverick operation in the viper.

 

Your entire argument is based on the fact that if we let the viper have the maverick align option, then ED will abandon reason and allow anything as an option. How is that a logical conclusion unless you have no faith in ED? At the end of the day ED is the arbiter on these issues and I trust that they won't add in any of the things you proposed because they make absolutely no sense, and neither does the idea of an 'option domino effect'.

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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.

 

 

Do you honestly think that after the boresight option is introduced, someone will ask for the viper to be able to fly into space, as long as its an option and ED will allow it? Or that the phoenix will be added to the list of weapons we could load? Do you think that ED won't be able to decide where to draw the line?

 

You're right it is the exact same argument, but yours is in bad faith. You know ED wouldn't add anything like them into the game.

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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.

 

 

If they were options they wouldn't. Like I said before, your previous examples aren't equivalent to an auto bore option so trying to get me to agree and then call out hypocrisy doesn't really add up.

 

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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?

 

 

Okay. I'm not 'arbitrarily' allowing one but not another. The examples you brought up aren't anywhere near the same as an auto boresight option, and your conclusion that the addition of that option will lead to a cascading effect of ridiculous options doesn't connect. That's why one makes sense and the other doesn't. It seems that the only reason you want to leave it out is because A) you don't believe ED has the ability to decide what is a quality of life change and what isn't or..

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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?

 

 

B) You don't like the idea of a player having the ability to play your game the way they want too.

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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

 

 

As if all the examples I gave you were pretty absurd, right? (except for magic IFF, I would like to see an option to turn that off back in the game)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, coolneko said:

 

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that after the boresight option is introduced, someone will ask for the viper to be able to fly into space, as long as its an option and ED will allow it? Or that the phoenix will be added to the list of weapons we could load? Do you think that ED won't be able to decide where to draw the line?

 

 

 

 

B) You don't like the idea of a player having the ability to play your game the way they want too.

 

 

 

Give it time if you want to go down the road to never-never land! And then we will have an F-16C with "freaking laser beams" on the centerline tank! I guess after all the discussion, you still don't understand the term "Authenticity"! 

And as for Line B: You still don't get it it! It's not about telling others how to play. You already have an established baseline sandbox to do as you please. But that has been your stance since this forum started. So this may not make sense to you.

If I give you a 2021 BMW and you take it and add rims and all kind of aftermarket bull crap to it, is it the same or did the value just depreciate faster than a Thanos snap? The authentic BMW, no matter how old it is still has value as long as it hasn't been turned into some god awful street racer! I know bro, I used to be a car guy!

Convenience and instant gratification, in so many words is engrained in this conversation. I've heard it all along. 

I've never seen so many who only want to give 50% of the effort in anything and expect 100% results! 


You don't become a new homeowner in a nice neighborhood and then ask the Homeowners association to start changing things to suit you! It's that simple, sports fans! 

This has been a great discussion btw!
 

 

  • Like 1

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 4:05 AM, coolneko said:

If they were options then that's completely fine, but don't act as if those options you presented are the same as adding an option to remove one aspect from maverick operation in the viper.

So it is okay? To have those ridiculous things as option?

Quote

Your entire argument is based on the fact that if we let the viper have the maverick align option, then ED will abandon reason and allow anything as an option. How is that a logical conclusion unless you have no faith in ED? At the end of the day ED is the arbiter on these issues and I trust that they won't add in any of the things you proposed because they make absolutely no sense, and neither does the idea of an 'option domino effect'.

No it isn't, you are making stuff up plain and simple.

All I'm doing is using your argument and comparing it to other things.

Quote

Do you honestly think that after the boresight option is introduced, someone will ask for the viper to be able to fly into space, as long as its an option and ED will allow it? Or that the phoenix will be added to the list of weapons we could load? Do you think that ED won't be able to decide where to draw the line?

Well, they already added 4 HARMs, even though 4 and 6 are incompatible with them in terms of employment.

The MiG-21bis got the Kh-66 even though it's incompatible with them.

Where is the line? You tell me.

Quote

You're right it is the exact same argument, but yours is in bad faith. You know ED wouldn't add anything like them into the game.

How is it in bad faith? They're both unrealistic, especially in the case of magic INS and magic missile seekers and they all follow from your exact argument.

Quote

If they were options they wouldn't. Like I said before, your previous examples aren't equivalent to an auto bore option so trying to get me to agree and then call out hypocrisy doesn't really add up.

All you're doing is cherrypicking, that's it. You can arbitrarily decide they're not the same as much as you like - the exact same reasoning applies to them.

If you're reasoning works for one thing, but not others - even when it is the exact same argument and it holds for them just as well as any other, then what can we conclude? The reasoning probably is flawed - that's what I'm getting at.

Quote

Okay. I'm not 'arbitrarily' allowing one but not another. The examples you brought up aren't anywhere near the same as an auto boresight option, and your conclusion that the addition of that option will lead to a cascading effect of ridiculous options doesn't connect.

That wasn't my conclusion? Where are you getting this from? I only made comparisons to xyz and compared the completely identical reasoning for both of them.

Now you're doing is going, "no what I want is fine, what your saying is not" without actually providing a reason as to why. You've even admitted yourself you'd like to see at least one of the options I presented! So what's the big deal?

Quote

That's why one makes sense and the other doesn't. It seems that the only reason you want to leave it out is because A) you don't believe ED has the ability to decide what is a quality of life change and what isn't or.

This again. Boresighting the mavericks, is like using the mavericks in any other mode that isn't PRE, the only thing you have to do is press a single button - that's it, just one button press. I don't think you could make the procedure any easier apart from getting the maverick to automatically lock onto targets within its FOV, without needing to slew it yourself, maybe we should have an option for that too, oh wait that's what game avionics mode is for, and that's exactly where simplified avionics should be behind, including the optional maverick boresighting.

How is it a quality of life improvement? And how are optional magic HARM seekers and INS not?

Quote

B) You don't like the idea of a player having the ability to play your game the way they want too.

Yeah, this utter nonsense again.

So once again, you're coming to DCS, which is supposed to give you assets that accurately represent their real life counterparts (where feasible, or at least that's the goal), and then you have a problem with it actually being so. Because that makes complete sense.

Do you come to DCS and go, yeah that's realistic I'll go there, but oh, I don't like that that particularly thing in particular is realistic; even though the focal selling point of DCS is that it's trying to provide the most realistic building blocks where possible. It doesn't make sense.

It's like me going to Ace Combat and complaining it's not realistic enough, and asking the developers to make it more realistic, at least as an option; it's kinda silly, because realism isn't what they were going for in the first place, and those kind of players aren't the target audience; the exact same thing applies to DCS, just the other way around. It's not other players not catering to me, it's simply a matter of what they're going for and who their target audience is - it's really simple.

And here, I just think it's silly that people pick up a product that's explicitly stated to be x, and then have a problem with it actually being x.

Do you willingly walk into forests, knowing full well it will be full of trees, and then have a problem with there being lots of trees? Do you not think that would be silly? And that if you don't like trees, you'd be better off not walking into a forest? The only difference here is that you're asking for the option of cutting some of the trees down.

And, just to finish off, are you seeing the irony here? How does this apply to me and not to you? You've told me that some of my options are ridiculous (and I agree), but if they're optional, what's the problem? Don't you like the idea of a player having the ability to play DCS the way they want to?

Quote

As if all the examples I gave you were pretty absurd, right? (except for magic IFF, I would like to see an option to turn that off back in the game)

You missed the point of that part in particular, and it stems from misunderstanding DCS' mission statement, which is to provide you with realistic building blocks. What you do with the building blocks and what you build out of them is completely up to you, as it should be - this can be as realistic or as unrealistic as you like, I couldn't care less - ultimately 100% of my missions aren't realistic, they're certainly not historical.

It's like it can only either be 100% purity or it should be pretty much open to pretty much whatever (and yes, I have seen arguments like that, especially when it comes to adding weapons to aircraft that aren't realistic for the block/variant/timeframe), with there being nothing in between; despite the fact that DCS makes it pretty clear that the building blocks themselves are supposed to be realistic but what you make out of them is completely up to you.

Going 100% purity would mandate disabling everything you said, plus deleting the mission editor, which sounds like a fantastic idea and one that'll surely be popular (not). I think how DCS is set up now is basically perfect - you've got more or less realistic assets, the building blocks, and you're given pretty decent tools to build whatever you want out of them.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont mind the boresighting at all. I really like all the realism advances on the viper and I would appreciate if all the other modules would receive the same treatment.

- LGB Codes

- Boresighting

- HARM Scan times

- etc

 

But I'm not against options for simplifications, as long as those simplifications can be disabled on a MP Server.


Edited by Gruman
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Intel I9 10900k @5.1GHz | MSI MEG Z490 Unify | Corsair Vengeance 64GB - 3600MHz | EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3
VPC T-50 Base /w Viper & Hornet Grip | VPC Rotor TCS Pro w/ Hawk-60 Grip | TM TPR
LG C2 42" | Reverb G2 | TIR 5 | PointCtrl | OpenKneeboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Give it time if you want to go down the road to never-never land! And then we will have an F-16C with "freaking laser beams" on the centerline tank! I guess after all the discussion, you still don't understand the term "Authenticity"! 

Well actually....

F-16 with laser pod - F-16 Armament & Stores

 

Ok, granted, it's not the CLT and it's still in development and it's a blok 70(?). Too funny to pass up though....



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39406/laser-defense-pod-for-the-air-forces-fighter-jets-is-finally-taking-shape

 


Edited by Sinclair_76
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 6:46 AM, Sinclair_76 said:

Well actually....

F-16 with laser pod - F-16 Armament & Stores

 

Ok, granted, it's not the CLT and it's still in development and it's a blok 70(?). Too funny to pass up though....



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39406/laser-defense-pod-for-the-air-forces-fighter-jets-is-finally-taking-shape

 

 

Good one bro! Nice!!!

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...