[CORRECT AS IS] Badly designed system integration.

[Swift.]

Wrong on both accounts.

 

Not sure why you guys feel the need to personally attack me, strange community this one, says more about you then me I guess.

 

There is definitely something wrong/missing with the current implementation on the targeting system.

 

Do you say that based on concrete evidence and personal experience? Or is that based on what you 'think' and 'feel'?

[Sting57]

Think and feel only.

 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X605F using Tapatalk

[Swift.]

Think and feel only.

 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X605F using Tapatalk

 

So then how can you say there is 'definitely something wrong'?

 

Surely you mean 'I don't understand the logic behind the systems'

[Shimmergloom667]

Wrong on both accounts.

 

Not sure why you guys feel the need to personally attack me, strange community this one, says more about you then me I guess.

 

If you have never witnessed badly designed user interfaces, software implementations and/or hardware limitations in the military, then you have served in the single one on this planet that doesn't suffer from said things :dunno:

[Sting57]

So then how can you say there is 'definitely something wrong'?

 

Surely you mean 'I don't understand the logic behind the systems'

 

 

I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way DCS has some of these systems implemented, despite the constant (Correct As Is) subject lines. And yes I have seen bad implementation of equipment in RL, but this is something else. As mentioned in other post, look at the Viper and A-10 implementation of the same pod, chalk and cheese.

 

Anyway this is all pointless I guess and a reminder to me not to post in DCS forums, as stated I am not a pilot and do not have factual information, however that does not change my belief that DCS has got this wrong. At some point in the future I will be proven correct.

 

Lovely chatting.

[Shimmergloom667]

At some point in the future I will be proven correct.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like we are scoring points for something. :dunno:

[BarTzi]

I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way DCS has some of these systems implemented, despite the constant (Correct As Is) subject lines. And yes I have seen bad implementation of equipment in RL, but this is something else. As mentioned in other post, look at the Viper and A-10 implementation of the same pod, chalk and cheese.

 

Anyway this is all pointless I guess and a reminder to me not to post in DCS forums, as stated I am not a pilot and do not have factual information, however that does not change my belief that DCS has got this wrong. At some point in the future I will be proven correct.

 

Lovely chatting.

 

Let's ignore the fact that OP is wrong here for a minute.

 

You have no sources to back it up other than the way it feels, and you never mentioned what is wrong in your opinion.

 

Don't you think different companies implement systems in different ways? Do you think its right to compare it to the A-10C, which has a HOTAS based on pilot feedback from previous aircraft (namely the F16)?

Edited August 26, 2020 by BarTzi

[Glide]

It's a bit like texting and driving. The brain just can't do both at once. Flying and operating targeting radar at the same time is the same issue. What happens when you approach the hot zone? You put the plane on AP and go heads down trying to operate the target acquisition system because you can't count on it working while you are heads up. The reason fighter jet design moved from single seat to double seat to back to single seat is because targeting automation allowed it. Maybe the Viper and the Hornet had poor implementations of targeting automation in the early days. Maybe the radars really do lock up friendly targets and you really do have to squint at an MFD before you can take the shot. I don't know. I use bore-sight mode a lot more than I did in the past.

[maxTRX]

It's a bit like texting and driving. The brain just can't do both at once. Flying and operating targeting radar at the same time is the same issue. What happens when you approach the hot zone? You put the plane on AP and go heads down trying to operate the target acquisition system because you can't count on it working while you are heads up. The reason fighter jet design moved from single seat to double seat to back to single seat is because targeting automation allowed it. Maybe the Viper and the Hornet had poor implementations of targeting automation in the early days. Maybe the radars really do lock up friendly targets and you really do have to squint at an MFD before you can take the shot. I don't know. I use bore-sight mode a lot more than I did in the past.

 

Pre plan, pre program, comms/data link way before hitting the combat area or when orbiting, talking to JTACs, yea I'd put the auto pilot on. Once the 'planned/briefed stuff is done and you have few 'rounds' left, have to get lower, look around while communicating with JTAC... helmet mounted cueing would be of great help, I'd say.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Gripes323

[hein22]

Wrong on both accounts.

 

Not sure why you guys feel the need to personally attack me, strange community this one, says more about you then me I guess.

 

There is definitely something wrong/missing with the current implementation on the targeting system.

 

Don't pay attention to those kids. This community is the most toxic one you will ever find, much has to do with how they are treated by the developers. I find your insights quite spot on in fact.

[FoxOne007]

If this is mostly about the MAV F not working nicely then don't forget that the F had improved IR Ship Tracking and was/is likely only used for anti ship missions, the MAV E (Laser) has been used almost exclusively over land due to it not being affected by ground temperatures/Heat like the MAV F

[Swift.]

If this is mostly about the MAV F not working nicely then don't forget that the F had improved IR Ship Tracking and was/is likely only used for anti ship missions, the MAV E (Laser) has been used almost exclusively over land due to it not being affected by ground temperatures/Heat like the MAV F

 

Yeah I was going to say, AGM65F seemed to be an afterthought compared to AGM65E. Consider their SMS codes,

65E = MAV

65F = MAVF

It's clear the 65E came first, I would think.

[drPhibes]

I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong (...)

 

 

ED should definitely include more SMBs, subject matter believers, in their team....

[Sting57]

ED should definitely include more SMBs, subject matter believers, in their team....

That's pretty funny!!!

 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X605F using Tapatalk

[=4c=Nikola]

Let's ignore the fact that OP is wrong here for a minute.

 

You have no sources to back it up other than the way it feels, and you never mentioned what is wrong in your opinion.

 

Don't you think different companies implement systems in different ways? Do you think its right to compare it to the A-10C, which has a HOTAS based on pilot feedback from previous aircraft (namely the F16)?

 

How's OP wrong?

 

Btw, this is not bug report, why they've appended [CORRECT AS IS] tag?

[GrEaSeLiTeNiN]

I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way DCS has some of these systems implemented, despite the constant (Correct As Is) subject lines. And yes I have seen bad implementation of equipment in RL, but this is something else. As mentioned in other post, look at the Viper and A-10 implementation of the same pod, chalk and cheese.

 

Anyway this is all pointless I guess and a reminder to me not to post in DCS forums, as stated I am not a pilot and do not have factual information, however that does not change my belief that DCS has got this wrong. At some point in the future I will be proven correct.

 

Lovely chatting.

 

I tend to agree given the simple fact a game developer is trying to simulate real life workings of a modern fighter jet. Even the designers and manufacturers of real planes are not gods; they get it wrong every now and then and some planes just turn out better and more intuitive than others. It's all a complex process. That's just life and reality. A RL fighter pilot friend of mine who flew the F-16 and went on to the F-15E told me how easy it was for him to refresh his memory on the F-16 Hotas logic, compared to the F-15 (Boeing's logic). I think some "Correct As Is" might just get updated. SMBs exists in both camps - consumer and ED - until corrected through clarification and better info. Neither is to blame, it's just how it is when we are enthusiasts eager to have and to learn.

[BarTzi]

How's OP wrong?

 

Btw, this is not bug report, why they've appended [CORRECT AS IS] tag?

 

Because the F model will try to lock every new target designated by the TGP. You don't have to undesignate anything. Also keep in mind we don't have markpoints and some hotas shortcuts that will help in this case.

Edited August 28, 2020 by BarTzi

[=4c=Nikola]

Because the F model will try to lock every new target designated by the TGP. You don't have to undesignate anything. Also keep in mind we don't have markpoints and some hotas shortcuts that will help in this case.

 

Yea, right:

mavs.trk

[Sandman1330]

Back to the point of the thread, I think one key element has been overlooked: the lightning pod was only used by the USMC, and from what I understand, only in training (could be wrong). On deployment (and for sure on the carrier), all US Navy and USMC Hornets used the ATFLIR pod. We got the lightning first in DCS because it was already in game on other airframes and the early hornet was limited by not having a pod. ED was actually asked by the community to delay the ATFLIR and focus on the lightning as a stop gap measure.

 

I think it’s entirely plausible that the lightning implementation is accurate, and is a little wonky because the aircraft is designed for the ATFLIR. One example from another thread (don’t ask me to find it) is that the ATFLIR does not have wide/narrow FOV, just progressive zoom. This would explain the logic behind locking FOV control to the mav. This is only one example, I am sure there are many more.

 

In short, I think we should wait until we see how the ATFLIR integrates before we get too upset.

[G B]

Back to the point of the thread, I think one key element has been overlooked: the lightning pod was only used by the USMC, and from what I understand, only in training (could be wrong). On deployment (and for sure on the carrier), all US Navy and USMC Hornets used the ATFLIR pod. We got the lightning first in DCS because it was already in game on other airframes and the early hornet was limited by not having a pod. ED was actually asked by the community to delay the ATFLIR and focus on the lightning as a stop gap measure.

 

I think it’s entirely plausible that the lightning implementation is accurate, and is a little wonky because the aircraft is designed for the ATFLIR. One example from another thread (don’t ask me to find it) is that the ATFLIR does not have wide/narrow FOV, just progressive zoom. This would explain the logic behind locking FOV control to the mav. This is only one example, I am sure there are many more.

 

In short, I think we should wait until we see how the ATFLIR integrates before we get too upset.

 

 

The ATFLIR does have different FOVs, and does not have progressive zoom.

[BarTzi]

Yea, right:

 

Yeah - right. I was able to take control while replying this track and hit every target I wanted.

[Swift.]

The ATFLIR does have different FOVs, and does not have progressive zoom.

 

Three FOVs if I'm remembering correctly?

[hornblower793]

This community is the most toxic one you will ever find

You obviously haven't joined some of the communities I have seen....:music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Don't pay attention to those kids. This community is the most toxic one you will ever find, much has to do with how they are treated by the developers. I find your insights quite spot on in fact.

 

If this is the most toxic community you've ever found, stay off the internet, save your sanity.

 

Guy says things feel wrong, is asked to back it up with evidence, has none, hasn't even touched the stuff.

What sort of basis is there to change anything, compared to documentation ED has at hand, even if misinterpreted?

How is this toxic, as opposed to your attitude?

[=4c=Nikola]

Yeah - right. I was able to take control while replying this track and hit every target I wanted.

 

Good for you. I wasn't. Mav head doesn't really follow TGP designation, it constantly drifts away without any kind of ground stabilization. and then snaps at completely irrelevant objects despite TGP being centered at vehicle. Useless.