What do people thinking of having to align the Mavs?

[Dragon1-1]

I don't mind aligning the Mavs, and I think all other planes that have something like TGP handoff should have to do this, too. It's one of those imperfections that real pilots have to deal with, but simulators have a tendency to skip out on. We need more of this kind of thing, I think people will get used to it actually working like IRL.

[Jester2138]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Sorry, not all are cut to be a fighter pilots.

 

LMAO, really, dude? I agree the boresighting process should be simulated, but don't pretend you are OK with it because you're "cut to be a fighter pilot" 

All Maverick-carrying modules should have their relevant processes fully simulated. I'll admit it does feel a bit silly having to boresight Mavs while my Hornet friends don't...

[MarvK]

Simple option on the “special” tab for realistic boresight maverick.  Like the realistic TGP slew option for the Hornet.

 

Then everyone is happy.

Edited January 10, 2021 by MarvK

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't mind aligning the Mavs, and I think all other planes that have something like TGP handoff should have to do this, too. It's one of those imperfections that real pilots have to deal with, but simulators have a tendency to skip out on. We need more of this kind of thing, I think people will get used to it actually working like IRL.

 

We totally need more of these features that are drawbacks for many. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have things like unlimited fuel and weapons and such.

If not for those who don't want to learn even to do those procedures properly, then for those who does repeating tests as it gets very annoying soon to do 15 steps just so you can do 1 step.

 

The OP idea is not to eliminate or remove anything, just to add new capabilities for those who would need or benefit from it.

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

LMAO, really, dude? I agree the boresighting process should be simulated, but don't pretend you are OK with it because you're "cut to be a fighter pilot" 

 

You are understanding totally wrong. I am not against this idea, I am supporting it.

And if you think that it is OK for demanding everything from a 8-15 year old playing this game as you would demand from a 50 year old, then you are wrong.

Other might want to have great looking fighter pilot game to learn things in limits of their skills by age etc. Other might enjoy reading manuals and all before trying out.

There are those who are fully capable mentally and skills to do all proper manner, but just want to do all kind tests or make missions that are possible be completed in 15 minutes like one single attack run, because their time might not be more than enough to do it once or twice for training reasons.

 

3 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

All Maverick-carrying modules should have their relevant processes fully simulated. I'll admit it does feel a bit silly having to boresight Mavs while my Hornet friends don't...

 

DCS is getting there. It is always some module that brings new features first and then it is ED and all other studios to implement what others have done. It is not like everyone is working on the same DCS code and together work for everyones benefit, but everyone are competitors and when someone does something, it doesn't get to others automatically.

 

We have unrealistic features like adjusting laser codes for various bombs like GBU-12 or even AGR-20 laser guided rockets in the cockpit, while they should only be changed by the ground crew before arming.

The ED went through time to program these unrealistic systems only because some people doesn't want to land, shut down their aircrafts, get the ground crews detach weapons from pylons and swap to other ones with changed laser codes etc.

 

Instead those are handled like they would be a more modern digital connected weapons like GBU-48 that actually does have the laser code change capability from cockpit as there is digital connection to the bomb from storage management system.

 

How far would everyone want to go in these reality things? As lots of things are currently unrealistic, not required or simply dismissed, because they would take away the fun part of the game.

 

So maybe everyone should step down and think about what could be done to help other people learn, to have easier time to test things, have fun etc without always requiring the ultimate realism.

[Dragon1-1]

I think that the A-10's problem is that it came before adjusting these things in ME was the norm. For instance, it has no option to adjust radio presets (a major omission, all new modules have it). I suspect they didn't do it to account for some people not wanting to have to rearm in order to change the codes. They did it because at the time, it was the only way to change the laser code. Even with the updates, the new A-10 appears to have kept most of the stuff from the old one, so AGR-20 probably reuses the old GBU code.

 

Note that, IIRC, newer planes such as the Viper and Hornet can't set the GBU code. That functionality is only in the A-10.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Do you ever ask yourself why no one is taking you serious?

Seriously.

I really start to see a pattern, here.

 

argumentum ad populum

 

If you are suggesting that 8-15 year old ones can't play DCS, then I can't take you seriously. As I would know then that you have limited understanding of childrens capability, interest and skills, as well what DCS can offer for all kind people, and not all are so capable or even interested jump all the loops to get airborne, fly, navigate, even shoot things.

It is called learning curve.

 

But go ahead, keep doing personal attacks.

[Machalot]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Note that, IIRC, newer planes such as the Viper and Hornet can't set the GBU code.

The Viper can't. But the Hornet can, in fact it's required. 

[llOPPOTATOll]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

argumentum ad populum

 

If you are suggesting that 8-15 year old ones can't play DCS, then I can't take you seriously. As I would know then that you have limited understanding of childrens capability, interest and skills, as well what DCS can offer for all kind people, and not all are so capable or even interested jump all the loops to get airborne, fly, navigate, even shoot things.

It is called learning curve.

 

But go ahead, keep doing personal attacks.

Your severely underestimating the ability of 15 year olds my guy. I have plenty of "capacity" to fly in DCS and other combat simulators that are more complex. I learned the A-10C when i was like 11 years old.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

Your severely underestimating the ability of 15 year olds my guy. I have plenty of "capacity" to fly in DCS and other combat simulators that are more complex. I learned the A-10C when i was like 11 years old.

 

No, I don't. As I already explained, "Sorry, not all are cut to be a fighter pilots. Not everyone are ready to read a hundreds of pages of manual to get a basic gasp about topic and then start to apply it in practice.".

 

If you do not understand that I have explained that there are all kind people, those who are very interested and are willing to learn all at once, spend lots of time etc. And there the opposite side of the spectrum who isn't so capable or willing to, but want.

 

We need to offer everyone a good changes to enjoy from DCS with various learning curves, so they can proceed to learn and experience in different paces.

 

If you can not accept that there are people with various skills and interests... Regardless their age.....

 

 

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Note that, IIRC, newer planes such as the Viper and Hornet can't set the GBU code. That functionality is only in the A-10.

 

Viper is the only modern one that can't. Others has the unrealistic capability to do so (can't say about JF-17 as don't rember it now).

Even the A-10C II that got major upgrades to code etc, kept the unrealistic method as people are so custom to it.

 

But this might as well be just waiting a new GUI for weapons loadout panel in rearming phase, mission editor etc so you set codes properly there as well.

 

[Oceandar]

To answer the OP : personally I dont have problem with that. I don't recall spending more than 10 minutes doing ramp start and mav alignment and boresight things. As soon as the engine running and rearming completed do INS stored alignment then I hit AG mode, powering Mavs and begin searching an object to do boresight later on. Probably not realistic but this is the way (I do).

[Sarge55]

Meh. If you have an issue with boresighting or aligning etc. Don’t choose “sim”, opt for “game” that’s why DCS provides the two modes. 

Seems pretty straightforward.  If you have the time/inclination fly the Simulator, you don’t them jump into game. 

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, Sarge55 said:

Meh. If you have an issue with boresighting or aligning etc. Don’t choose “sim”, opt for “game” that’s why DCS provides the two modes. 

 

Yes it is great we do have a GAME mode, but are you saying that all assisting features should be transferred from SIM to GAME mode if they are not realistic?

 

8 minutes ago, Sarge55 said:

Seems pretty straightforward.  If you have the time/inclination fly the Simulator, you don’t them jump into game. 

 

Okay, so lets move the:

- Infinite weapons

- Unlimited fuel

- Easy Radio

- Trimmer functions

- TDC action functions

- Hot Start at Ramp

- Start in the Air

- Labels

- External Cameras

- F10 map view

- Joystick Curves adjustments

- Joystick multipliers

- Mouse use in cockpit

- Head movements in high G values.

- Aircraft repair and rearm in 3 minutes

etc

etc

 

All those are moved to GAME mode only. So if someone wants to have any of those features, they need play the DCS as in GAME MODE.

 

To me it seems very straightforward that if someone wants to go play the hardcore as real as it gets, then they shouldn't be given options at all for any unrealistic capabilities.

 

Or.... we simply accept that there are people and scenarios where it is nice to have options and everyone can choose do they use them or not.

Like for AGM-65 launch scenarios with starting in air, with seeker already aligned ready so it is easy to do the testing/training and then restart the mission as it has pre-aligned sensors enabled for it....

[Northstar98]

On 1/9/2021 at 11:33 PM, Donglr said:

I am not against the feature per se, but I strongly dislike the fact, that the F16 is the only jet where it is needed. My understanding is that in reality this is required for every jet because there always is some degree of misalignment. Either implement it for every jet or for none. Currently it feels like punishment for F16 owners.

 

Then it should be the same for other aircraft, not the other way round.

 

Quote

And since were are already on he topic of inconveniences: GBU laser codes

The inability of changing them in the air is a major disadvantage and actually takes away some of the fun in multiplayer servers that run any kind  of JTAC scripts/units. In reality the JTAC could change to our laser code, but that is impossible in DCS, so we have to set the JTAC's code - except the F16, we are left out of the fun.

Apparently in reality the codes can only be set by switches on the ground, nonetheless any other jet can change them in the air, although unrealistic. Again, why is the F16 the only one with that limitation? Again feels like getting punished for choosing the F16.

 

The bomb's code physically cannot be changed in flight, unless you want to climb out onto the wing and dial in a new code with a screwdriver.

 

As for other aircraft, the F-16C isn't the only one with this limitation; the JF-17, F-14, Mirage 2000C and F-5E IIRC all have the same limitation as the F-16C in DCS, i.e the code can only be set in the ME or on the ground via the kneeboard (though it should really be a ground crew option) as they should. The Hornet and A-10C should be changed, not the other way around.

 

As for the whole 8-15 thing, I wasn't much older when I first got into DCS (I was 16 when I started, 22 now), it really isn't difficult to watch a video, or read a manual - both make it pretty easy. Much of it is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Boresighting is what, 3 button clicks and a bit of slewing?

Edited January 16, 2021 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, I got into FreeFalcon back when I was in high school (DCS was way too expensive for me, and I didn't care about the A-10 back then). I could fly it, all right, though this being FreeFalcon, I haven't got into dynamic campaign because of the bugs and lack of clear documentation. It's not hard, it just requires a little focus and dedication. It helped that the original Falcon 4 manual was written by one Pete "Boomer" Boonani, and was a very enjoyable read, to say the least.  

[Fri13]

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Then it should be the same for other aircraft, not the other way round.

 

 

The bomb's code physically cannot be changed in flight, unless you want to climb out onto the wing and dial in a new code with a screwdriver.

 

As for other aircraft, the F-16C isn't the only one with this limitation; the JF-17, F-14, Mirage 2000C and F-5E IIRC all have the same limitation as the F-16C in DCS, i.e the code can only be set in the ME or on the ground via the kneeboard (though it should really be a ground crew option) as they should. The Hornet and A-10C should be changed, not the other way around.

 

Totally agree. But we should have the current option as the game mode one. So not to remove it, just leave it to the aircraft special settings in the mission editor (Enforced Off by default) so individual aircraft (instead all units) can be set with various assisting factors like unlimited weapons, fuel, no INS drift, INS aligned at cold etc.

It just makes testing things easier and faster, as well for many people to learn different things at their own paces and by their own skills.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

As for the whole 8-15 thing, I wasn't much older when I first got into DCS (I was 16 when I started, 22 now), it's really isn't difficult to watch a video, or read a manual - both make it pretty easy. Much of it is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Boresighting is what, 3 button clicks and a bit of slewing?

 

You can think that it is easy, but for everyone it is not. It is not self-explanatory to everyone, it is not "just a one minute" for everyone.

It should be up to everyone that do they want to learn something and when, or do they want to always do something each and every time they want to even test something.

 

Like why is an idea completely disgrace that someone would like to make a short training mission where they start airborne 15-20 nmi from the target area, and have various different missions or aircraft slots with different loadout for different training?

Why they should be enforced to each time they spawn to align INS, Mavericks, TGP, wait the 10 minutes for AGM-154 and 3 minutes for the Mavericks etc?

 

Already bug/feature/behavior testing for something is annoying when in air start you waste time to do the same basic things that you would do at the cold start, every time, sometimes tens of times per day. This is the reason why games usually have the cheat modes, so the testers do not need to waste their time in testing phase but they can actually go and test the things they need to test.

 Why is every beginner in the sim required to know all the loops to jump around that a players with 5-10 years experience (and some even real military background etc) has learn in long time period? That is just elitism.

 

DCS is a game, not a career in military. Someone wants to have fun learning experience to achieve the more realistic levels, but maybe they want to get there in slower pace with various limiting reasons, but still get there... Why shouldn't they be assisted?

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, Fri13 said:

You can think that it is easy, but for everyone it is not. It is not self-explanatory to everyone, it is not "just a one minute" for everyone.

 

To boresight the maverick;

 

1. You select A/G master mode (assuming you're not already in it), turn them on (assuming they're not already), and set them to PRE or VIS (which I'm pretty sure is the default).
2. You then switch over to the TGP 9assuming it's on), slew over something and start whatever track you fancy.
3. You then switch over to the Maverick, and do the same thing, with the same object and lock it.
4. You then press the BSGT option and done.

 

Rinse and repeat for all Mavericks.

 

If you noticed that the Maverick was off on its targeting, and didn't know about the boresight procedure; the first thing I'd expect you to do is take over control of the Maverick and designate the desired target manually (assuming you know how to use them without the TGP) - well that right there is the trickier bit, and is 50% of the procedure, given that you've already presumably done steps 1 and 2. All you have to do now is press 1 button, that's it.  

 

I'd argue it's objectively far easier than dogfighting in the F-16C (and I am crap at that, just like I'm crap at basically employing any aircraft in A/A effectively, don't get me started on AAR, formation flying or landing on a carrier - 90% of the time I just free flight). Hell, I would argue that I am the worst DCS pilot given how long I've been with it.

 

Hell, I don't even have head tracking, don't have a throttle, don't have a rudder, playing on a 15.6" laptop. My set up makes making precise rudder and throttle movements impossible and I certainly can't do them simultaneously.

 

Quote

It should be up to everyone that do they want to learn something and when, or do they want to always do something each and every time they want to even test something.

 

Absolutely agreed, but not sure where it's coming from, as I never said otherwise.

 

And if you want to test a weapon, my advice is to start already in the air.

 

Quote

Like why is an idea completely disgrace that someone would like to make a short training mission where they start airborne 15-20 nmi from the target area, and have various different missions or aircraft slots with different loadout for different training?

 

Again, I have no idea where this is coming from as I never said it was, nor did I imply it as such.

 

I don't think it's a disgrace and if you want to learn something it's best to focus on that thing, and most all included SP training missions are exactly how you describe it here. That's absolutely fine, it's to the point, it's concise. It's how it should be.

 

If you don't know how to do something or how something works, that's fine, there are resources available for you to learn whenever you want to, and you can even ask on this forum, there's no shame in asking questions when you don't know, I'm no different and it isn't a competition. 

 

Quote

Why they should be enforced to each time they spawn to align INS, Mavericks, TGP, wait the 10 minutes for AGM-154 and 3 minutes for the Mavericks etc?

 

If you don't want to perform the cold start procedure, then don't perform a cold start - you already have the option available.

 

As for waiting for things to be ready, that's what time compression is for.

 

Quote

Already bug/feature/behavior testing for something is annoying when in air start you waste time to do the same basic things that you would do at the cold start, every time, sometimes tens of times per day. This is the reason why games usually have the cheat modes, so the testers do not need to waste their time in testing phase but they can actually go and test the things they need to test.

 

Fine, but again, the BSGT option is only necessary AFAIK if you're not starting in the air; if you were bug testing the Maverick, you'd probably be starting in the air anyway.

 

Quote

Why is every beginner in the sim required to know all the loops to jump around that a players with 5-10 years experience (and some even real military background etc) has learn in long time period? That is just elitism.

 

They aren't, where is this coming from?

 

Quote

DCS is a game, not a career in military. Someone wants to have fun learning experience to achieve the more realistic levels, but maybe they want to get there in slower pace with various limiting reasons, but still get there... Why shouldn't they be assisted?

 

Where the hell is this coming from? Where did I ever say they shouldn't be assisted? I had to be assisted, even if it was using the tutorial, watching a video, asking a question or reading the part in the manual. Heck I even answer some of these questions myself, there's no harm in it whatsoever.

 

I'm fine for learning at your own pace, it isn't a race. There are plenty of things I'm clueless about (basically every recent feature in the Hornet for starters).

 

 

As for game mode, I thought it was supposed to be simplified systems modelling in the first place, like FC3 so yes, put it there, that's fine.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Falconeer]

You don't have to boresight every Maverick, only the station/racks that carry them.

[taco3rd]

I have poor success boresighting them. Won't work on the ground and doing it in flight is more of a pia than it needs to be. I've wasted a lot of time trying to do it on the ground in PRE mode per the GRs video, then threw a changeup and said to do it in-flight in VIS mode. I see no problem making an option to make them automatic. They're buggy and they waste time.

[Falconeer]

4 hours ago, taco3rd said:

I have poor success boresighting them. Won't work on the ground and doing it in flight is more of a pia than it needs to be. I've wasted a lot of time trying to do it on the ground in PRE mode per the GRs video, then threw a changeup and said to do it in-flight in VIS mode. I see no problem making an option to make them automatic. They're buggy and they waste time.

It does work on the ground, I do it every time. Make sure master arm is in simulate and ground jettison switch to enabled.

[GGTharos]

This shouldn't be a problem for most people, but there's certainly a get-up-and-go component as well - some people have 20 minutes here and there, and you don't need to be wasting half of them aligning things.   

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As for game mode, I thought it was supposed to be simplified systems modelling in the first place, like FC3 so yes, put it there, that's fine.

 

No, not like FC3.  It's sad that people can't tell the difference between simplification and gamification.

Edited January 12, 2021 by GGTharos

[Donglr]

2 hours ago, Falconeer said:

... and ground jettison switch to enabled.--

 What is that actually needed for? What does it do during boresighting?

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, not like FC3.  It's sad that people can't tell the difference between simplification and gamification.

 

Eh?

 

They're not exactly mutually exclusive are they?

 

I thought the whole point of the game mode was to make DCS more accessible by forsaking a lot of the full-fidelity, realistic stuff; so yes, kinda like FC3? The result is essentially turning FF aircraft into something more resembling FC3.

 

It would seem that most of the time 'gamification' is employed, they get there by doing a fair amount of 'simplification' and there are countless examples of that very thing.

 

On the subject of boresighting, the FC3 A-10A doesn't and probably won't have this modelled, nor do you have to wait for the cooldown - so here, yeah gamifying something does in fact end up broadly similar to simplifying something.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Falconeer]

3 hours ago, Donglr said:

 What is that actually needed for? 

Without going into details.....

 

so that you can simulate a "flying" aircraft.  Use of weapons systems is prohibited by a couple of switches, when aircraft is on the ground

Edited January 12, 2021 by Falconeer

[GGTharos]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

They're not exactly mutually exclusive are they?

 

They are.

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I thought the whole point of the game mode was to make DCS more accessible by forsaking a lot of the full-fidelity, realistic stuff; so yes, kinda like FC3? The result is essentially turning FF aircraft into something more resembling FC3.

 

No, FC3 came before DCS.  And it had a game mode.  Yes, making a 'stable' with FC3 like systems makes things more accessible, but it's not gamification.

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

On the subject of boresighting, the FC3 A-10A doesn't and probably won't have this modelled, nor do you have to wait for the cooldown - so here, yeah gamifying something does in fact end up broadly similar to simplifying something.

 

In other words, you can't tell the difference or you deliberately refuse to.  There's a difference between reducing the number of clicks and turning something into a game, ie. making the FM well ... not even really an FM, the radar just a thing that shows you everything where you hit tab to switch between target, unlimited or a huge number of missiles that fly straight to target etc.