What do people thinking of having to align the Mavs?

[DoctorVixen]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:46 PM, Falconeer said:

 

1. Full fidelity model. Its already in the name...... you want it real, you got it real. If people want some sort of easy mode, they might be better of in another module like flaming cliffs. There is a reason why only the best pilots get to fly fighter jets.

 

2. People don't need to align them in the air, you can do it on the ground too. Just make sure you put master arm switch in simulate and ground jettison switch to enabled. 

 

 

the jeff is full fidelity , but u can delegate chores. make the chores like full ins alignment, and the maverick alignment optional for delegation to the ground crew. same for waypoints, set them in f10 and let the ground crew update the data card (if i remember correctly from that other sim the f16 has a data card as well.). Which is a nice bridge to full fidelity wich the f16 is not. it has buttons that say click and do nothing. The real f16 has a datatransfer cartridge, its non existant in dcs. many many things aren't there. Jeff is what a full fidelity plane should be. there are plans to make the f16 full fidelity, it is not at the moment. 

[Northstar98]

 

16 hours ago, DoctorVixen said:

things as waiting minutes, or doing repetetive chores is not what i like. Fine that i can learn them but once i did, i don't think i'll enjoy aligning mavs for the 1000th time. Also this full fidelity f16 is not full fidelity at all yet. Its an early access module. NOBODY asked for 8 minutes alignment or the boresight procedure. We don't have ground radar sea radar of any of the toys on the jf17.  And what do they implement? chores.

 

I don't want to be harsh, but I don't know what to say other than welcome to the real F-16? Even if they wouldn't have come at the time they did, they would've come eventually. And as far as I know, you only need to boresight the mavericks when starting on the ground; and if you're after something quick and you don't want to spend time doing 'chores' starting on the ground is not what you're probably going to do.

 

Quote

For me, i was really excited when i found out about the f16, i did not realize that it was missing so much.

 

Yes and I agree and this is almost a universal frustration, personally I think the F-16C should've only hit OB in the state it's in now; in the meantime the other sim is better at the moment for the F-16s systems, as well as having proper DTC and mission planning functionality, so long as you can handle the drop in graphics and cockpit interaction (IMO). 

 

Quote

the mavs are actually a hassle to use in my opinion and the cbu97's are hassle free, more fun and more effective.

 

Well, nobody is forcing you to use the mavericks...

 

If you want to have options like 'realistic Mavericks' and pre-aligned weapons, then fine go for it.

 

Quote

i can't set spi, no ground radar. yes full clickable cockpit, all kind of buttons that say click an animate and do nothing.

 

Yes it's a pain, and the F-16C is one such example of EA done badly, at least on release. Luckily ED hopefully have learnt their lesson and have got the message that this shouldn't repeat. I imagine the F-16s A/G RADAR modes will come after the Hornet's is finished (just missing/tuning GMT, SEA and TA AFAIK).

 

Quote

I tried the jf17 during the free trials and bought that one. update dtc data - copy.  f10 click click click BAM  waypoints set. you can shoot cruise missiles drag bombs, have al kinds of radars and modes, buttons work.

 

Yes, the JF-17 had a fantastic release and Deka have been very good at getting it complete, as well as doing a great job on the module itself, with more greatness coming. I really enjoyed testing it out, even if I didn't do much.

 

Only thing is, the JF-17 is not an F-16C...

 

As for the F10 menu, it's done as a workaround until we get proper mission planning and data cartridge functionality implemented into the core. After that, this will cease to be an issue, particularly on multiplayer servers.

 

By mission planner I mean something like the mission editor, that you can bring up either before you spawn or after you've spawned (so long as you're cold), whereby you can edit all the waypoints (for the F-16, that includes flight plan, pre-planned threats, additional lines and open points (used for targets), maybe we could even have it be done automatically (like the other sim). The other thing is the data cartridge, which will not only have all the steerpoints/waypoints but also countermeasure profiles, communication presets, default displays for each mode, IFF plan, loadout and weapon profiles etc. 

 

Quote

in the f16...waiting for 8 minutes ins align.

 

Then use the stored heading, this problem is why it exists. It cuts the time down to something like 2 minutes, like the JF-17.

 

It's the same in the Mirage 2000C, F/A-18 and Tomcat.

 

Quote

lets put in 1 waypoint, go to f10, change so its metric, get a pen and paper north 12.23.34423 east 32.12.31231

ok press wpt, N put in all the numbers from youre note. next put in easting, remember to add a 0... ok now elevation, first waypoint done. f10 map, not next waypoint back to plane, put in the waypoint. do the same for the other 15 waypoints.

 

Again, this is a problem that exists for multiple aircraft with INS systems, including the Hornet and A-10C; we'll have to wait for a proper mission planner; and will stop being an issue when the data cartridge and mission planner are implemented, along with the F-16s DTE page.

 

Quote

when done with that chore, get ready to find a target to align the missiles, aah to bad this airport has no object to align on, ah well. lets startover at another field.

 

Well, the boresighting procedure should be done on far away objects, to minimise parallax errors. And I'm having a hard time accepting the boresight procedure as being this massive chore of an issue.

 

And you can do it while airborne.

 

Just stick a steerpoint in the editor (if possible) near some isolated object, I use electrical pylons, but anything will do. Once started and ready to taxi, power on the mavericks (if you don't want to wait), by the time you're in the air and approaching the steerpoint they should be ready to go. Select the steerpoint (so that it's the SPI - should be a crosshair over it in the HSD), fire up the TGP and press CZ to slave it to the SPI (which should be over your object), and command whatever track you want (so far 2 button clicks), have the Mavericks in PRE and they should slave to the SPI too, just a little off; adjust as necessary and hit BGST. All in all a grand total of 4-5 button presses and a few seconds of slewing, with another 2 button presses and 5 seconds of slewing for each AGM-65.

 

For a full set of Mavericks it doesn't take me much more than a minute.

 

Quote

meanwhile in the jeff i am actually having fun. its the full fidelity kind i like.

 

That's fine, but you probably should've realised the F-16C isn't a JF-17, which should've been pretty obvious. 

 

I think the main issue here is that the JF-17 is a lot closer to being feature complete, whereas the F-16C isn't.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[DoctorVixen]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

I don't want to be harsh, but I don't know what to say other than welcome to the real F-16? Even if they wouldn't have come at the time they did, they would've come eventually. And as far as I know, you only need to boresight the mavericks when starting on the ground; and if you're after something quick and you don't want to spend time doing 'chores' starting on the ground is not what you're probably going to do.

 

 

Yes and I agree and this is almost a universal frustration, personally I think the F-16C should've only hit OB in the state it's in now; in the meantime the other sim is better at the moment for the F-16s systems, as well as having proper DTC and mission planning functionality, so long as you can handle the drop in graphics and cockpit interaction (IMO). 

 

 

Well, nobody is forcing you to use the mavericks...

 

If you want to have options like 'realistic Mavericks' and pre-aligned weapons, then fine go for it.

 

 

Yes it's a pain, and the F-16C is one such example of EA done badly, at least on release. Luckily ED hopefully have learnt their lesson and have got the message that this shouldn't repeat. I imagine the F-16s A/G RADAR modes will come after the Hornets is finished (just missing/tuning GMT, SEA and TA AFAIK).

 

 

Yes, the JF-17 had a fantastic release and Deka have been very good at getting it complete, as well as doing a great job on the module itself, with more greatness coming. I really enjoyed testing it out, even if I didn't do much.

 

Only thing is, the JF-17 is not an F-16C...

 

As for the F10 menu, it's done as a workaround until we get proper mission planning and data cartridge functionality implemented into the core. After that, this will cease to be an issue, particularly on multiplayer servers.

 

By mission planner I mean something like the mission editor, that you can bring up either before you spawn or after you've spawned (so long as you're cold), whereby you can edit all the waypoints (for the F-16, that includes flight plan, pre-planned threats, additional lines and open points (used for targets).  

 

 

Then use the stored heading, this problem is why it exists. It cuts the time down to something like 2 minutes, like the JF-17.

 

It's the same in the Mirage 2000C, F/A-18 and Tomcat.

 

 

Again, this is a problem that exists for multiple aircraft with INS systems, including the Hornet and A-10C; we'll have to wait for a proper mission planner; and will stop being an issue when the data cartridge and mission planner are implemented, along with the F-16s DTE page.

 

 

Well, the boresighting procedure should be done on far away objects, to minimise parallax errors. And I'm having a hard time accepting the boresight procedure as being this massive chore of an issue.

 

And you can do it while airborne.

 

Just stick a waypoint in the editor (if possible) near some isolated object, I use electrical pylons, but anything will do. Once started power on the mavericks, by the time you're ready they should be ready to go. Select the steerpoint (so that it's the SPI - should be a crosshair over it, fire up the TGP and press CZ to slave it to the SPI (which should be over your object), and command whatever track you want (so far 2 button clicks), have the Mavericks in PRE and the y should slave to the SPI too, adjust as necessary and hit BGST. All in all a grand total of 4-5 button presses and a few seconds of slewing, with another 2 button presses for each AGM-65.

 

For a full set of Mavericks it doesn't take me much more than a minute.

 

 

That's fine, but you probably should've realised the F-16C isn't a JF-17, which should've been pretty obvious. 

 

I am sorry , while writing all of this i went into rant mode (apologies).

 

I love what ED is doing and i also love the f16, so much so it can get me into rant mode, so it's actually a compliment when i rant like that :).

But i have had some disappointments, i could have read it was missing many features, but i wouldn't be able not to buy it anyway. I've been here since fc3, the first ka-50 and then dcs world....

 

The thing that keeps me coming back is the realism. But how deka developed this module is pretty impressive, there are some tasks u can do two ways yourself or via delegation, in wich the latter is faster and easier. Every client can decide how he would like to play and it doesn't affect the realism in my opinion of a full fidelity model.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

42 minutes ago, DoctorVixen said:

I am sorry , while writing all of this i went into rant mode (apologies).

 

None needed, I share many of your frustrations (which sounds more related to DTC and mission planning, both being things ED is yet to deliver, and if it's something akin to the other sim, then fantastic).

 

42 minutes ago, DoctorVixen said:

I love what ED is doing and i also love the f16, so much so it can get me into rant mode, so it's actually a compliment when i rant like that :).

But i have had some disappointments, i could have read it was missing many features, but i wouldn't be able not to buy it anyway. I've been here since fc3, the first ka-50 and then dcs world...

 

Absolutely, and don't worry, you're far from alone. How ED are rolling is that they're going to finish the Hornet first, then the F-16C. IOne thing I will say that's weird with the F-16 is that while it is less feature complete, some of its features are more in depth; such as the Maverick BSGT and HARM limitations and modes, which is kinda confusing if you think about it.

 

42 minutes ago, DoctorVixen said:

The thing that keeps me coming back is the realism. But how deka developed this module is pretty impressive, there are some tasks u can do two ways yourself or via delegation, in wich the latter is faster and easier. Every client can decide how he would like to play and it doesn't affect the realism in my opinion of a full fidelity model.

 

Again, this is something that we're waiting on a full mission planner and data cartridge being implemented, at which point this issue would be solved. I will agree that Deka's JF-17 is a fantastic module, done very well.

 

 

[Falconeer]

13 hours ago, DoctorVixen said:

the jeff is full fidelity , but u can delegate chores. make the chores like full ins alignment, and the maverick alignment optional for delegation to the ground crew. same for waypoints, set them in f10 and let the ground crew update the data card (if i remember correctly from that other sim the f16 has a data card as well.). Which is a nice bridge to full fidelity wich the f16 is not. it has buttons that say click and do nothing. The real f16 has a datatransfer cartridge, its non existant in dcs. many many things aren't there. Jeff is what a full fidelity plane should be. there are plans to make the f16 full fidelity, it is not at the moment. 

You do realize its an "early acces" F16?

 

Many people simply don't understand or refuse to understand what this term means

Edited January 15, 2021 by Falconeer

[fragal]

I love boresighting - with practice you get better it's a thing you can do in like 5 seconds i would like to see it expanded to other modules that have the requirement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHvXL_tLALM
Forgive the sloppy slew my deadzones are all off right now.

[DoctorVixen]

...in the meantime..i've gotten used to aligning the mavericks now, and it doesn't take me very long anymore. U don't have to do it either, u can slew the first target manual, and press bsgt before u fire, then the next mav on the same rack will be aligned at least. 

Also in multiplayer it could be a bit of a chore, but if u land your plane you dont have to realign again after rearming i think.

 

I am wondering though, do the pilots align the missiles normally or will a technician do it?

[kengou]

It doesn't bother me really but I wouldn't mind a Special option to turn the requirement on or off, like INS alignment on some aircraft. Sometimes I am in the mood for full realism, sometimes I'd rather get airborn quicker.

[fudabidu]

57 minutes ago, DoctorVixen said:

I am wondering though, do the pilots align the missiles normally or will a technician do it?

The pilot does it in the air, preferably at maximum possible range. On the ground you can't get the required view range (obstacles, terrain, etc), you'd get parallax errors and the Mavericks wouldn't align properly with the HUD and TGP.

These errors aren't modeled yet, but that's probably going to change at some point.
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258806-maverick-bore-sighting-is-always-perfect/?tab=comments#comment-4539578

 

[DoctorVixen]

4 hours ago, fudabidu said:

The pilot does it in the air, preferably at maximum possible range. On the ground you can't get the required view range (obstacles, terrain, etc), you'd get parallax errors and the Mavericks wouldn't align properly with the HUD and TGP.

These errors aren't modeled yet, but that's probably going to change at some point.
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258806-maverick-bore-sighting-is-always-perfect/?tab=comments#comment-4539578

 

do they set a waypoint especially for this and do the slave onto some landmark at that waypoint, or do they setup some object to align on? Or do they align on the intended target during a first recognition pass?

Just interested.

[DoctorVixen]

Hey thx for the extra info.

Btw i haven't heard of these missions before, i play a lot of multiplayer lately, it has a different vibe, and i am starting to develop some bad habits.

 

I should do some proper missions some more and i haven't really used the nevada map much, and now i seem to have a nice use for it.

 

thx again 

[Blinky.ben]

Curious question shouldn’t the bore sighting also be something the F-18 should be doing also? I’m a little confused as to why this feature is only exclusive to the f-16. As the F-18 is coming to a end I don’t see any hints ED is implementing this to the F-18 so it seems to me the F-18 isn’t planned to get it.

[fudabidu]

10 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

If i align the Mav in the F-16s PRE mode to a steerpoint for example, how does the Mav seeker know where that steerpoint is (or: that it's actually pointing there exactly), when it is mis-aligned?

This came to my mind when i thought about how you can slew the Mav to a TAD SPI, HMCS SPI or any other external source in the A-10C. How would it need alignment for the TGP source but perfectly know from TAD or HMCS, markpoint... ?

When boresighting you're not aligning the Mavericks to the TGP, you're aligning them to the whole plane. You can also boresight in VIS using the HUD, but most people tend to do it with the TGP.

The SOI shouldn't matter at all.
In practice the plane takes a known location and only tells the Maverick which direction to look. Boresighting makes sure the plane is sending the correct directions. Without it you would always get the same offset, regardless of which SOI is used.

[Machalot]

13 hours ago, fudabidu said:

When boresighting you're not aligning the Mavericks to the TGP, you're aligning them to the whole plane.

What process aligns the TGP with the plane? 

[fudabidu]

Can't find the manual in a reasonable time, but kept coming across this line: "An on-gimbal inertial navigation sensor establishes line-of-sight and automatic boresighting capability."

So, I'd assume the TGP boresights itself by exchanging INS information with the plane during TGP startup or there is a DED menu for it. The Maverick doesn't have such an INS, hence the manual boresight procedure.

[Machalot]

14 hours ago, fudabidu said:

When boresighting you're not aligning the Mavericks to the TGP, you're aligning them to the whole plane.

I think since you directly correlate the images, you are in fact aligning Mav directly with TGP. Any alignment error between TGP and the airframe becomes irrelevant. 

[fudabidu]

Sorry to be blunt, but you're wrong.

If TGP and plane weren't aligned, how can the TGP be slaved to a waypoint accurately? It can't!

The whole system works based on simple trigonometry. The plane knows its own position and the position of the steerpoint. It then calculates a vector and sends that to the TGP.
"Hey TGP, could you look 20° to the right, 30° down, please?" ... if the TGP is misaligned by just 1° it will look in the wrong direction. It's exactly the same issue as with Mavericks before boresight.
Same the other way around when creating mark points (not implemented yet): TGP knows the angle and distance and sends it to the plane. If there is a misalignment the plane will use incorrect numbers for its calculation and store faulty coordinates.

That's why the TGP (and MAVs) are supposed to be boresighted. The plane knows about any misalignments and can account for them. This is what makes the whole system accurate and useful!

The plane is the MASTER, the brain of the system. It tells every other sensor / weapon what to do. Every other system is SLAVEd to this.
The TGP and Mavericks are SLAVEs. They exchange data with the MASTER.
In general a SLAVE will not directly communicate to another SLAVE

So, a TGP -> MAV handoff looks a bit like this on the system side:

• TGP sends directions to the plane
• plane converts this into GPS coordinates (SPI) via basic trigonometry (accounting for TGP misalignment)
• plane converts SPI into directions for the Mavericks, using trigonometry (accounting for MAV misalignment)
• Image comparison between TGP and MAV sensor + fine adjustments
• command MAV lock, only in AUTO

You see the system has to account for misalignment twice. Without aligning (aka boresighting) this wouldn't be possible. The AAQ-28 (supposedly) just happens to do that automatically via its own INS.

[Machalot]

18 hours ago, fudabidu said:

If TGP and plane weren't aligned, how can the TGP be slaved to a waypoint accurately? It can't!

I agree the TGP needs to be aligned to the airframe to do certain things, such as CZ to steetpoints, or designate targets for CCRP.

 

I understand the trig and vector math, and I'll take your word for it on the pricess steps. 

 

My point is, if you use the TGP image and the Mav seeker image to boresight the Mav, because you use a common visual reference, any residual TGP alignment error vs the airframe is also included in the the Mav boresight solution.  Therfore the TGP alignment error does not matter purely for the purpose of handing off targets to the Mavs. You effectively align the Mav with the TGP without the need for any part of the system to know the correct value of the TGP misalignment. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Machalot

[fudabidu]

39 minutes ago, Machalot said:

You effectively align the Mav with the TGP without the need for any part of the system to know the correct value of the TGP misalignment. 

This is why I was talking about MASTER and SLAVE.

The TGP isn't sending information directly to the Maverick. The plane takes the information, does some math and passes instructions to the Maverick.

[Machalot]

Yes, I wrote imprecisely.  I didn't mean to imply the TGP and Mav were directly communicating, just that the pilot directly matches the errors of the two systems by visual reference, rather than aligning each system to the jet individually. 

 

Thanks for your attention to detail. 

[Zergburger]

to the guys trying to boresight on the ground...If it does not work, it's because its not supposed to work. The boresight is supposed to be done in the air. This is done because taxing/takeoff bounce the seekers and rails around on the mavs, and their final rest place in the air will be different. Also real mavs have 60min of battery time, 30min if they are producing a video feed.

 

IMHO ramp boresighting is unrealistic and shouldn't work. but they need to address the infinite maverick power-on time first.

[Machalot]

18 minutes ago, Zergburger said:

to the guys trying to boresight on the ground...If it does not work, it's because its not supposed to work. The boresight is supposed to be done in the air. This is done because taxing/takeoff bounce the seekers and rails around on the mavs, and their final rest place in the air will be different. Also real mavs have 60min of battery time, 30min if they are producing a video feed.

 

Is the ground jostling during taxi and takeoff worse than pulling g's in the air?

 

Does the Mav not receive external power from the aircraft?  It always runs on internal battery power?

Edited January 26, 2021 by Machalot

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, Machalot said:

Is the ground jostling during taxi and takeoff worse than pulling g's in the air?

No, if you give the Mavs a rough ride in the air, it should mess the calibration up, as well. You shouldn't be pulling any serious Gs with Mavs on the rails.

Quote

Does the Mav not receive external power from the aircraft?  It always runs on internal battery power?

It's not about power, it's about seeker cooling. Mavs have a limited supply of coolant, which will run out faster when they're producing video.

[Machalot]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's not about power, it's about seeker cooling. Mavs have a limited supply of coolant, which will run out faster when they're producing video.

That makes more sense.

[Geraki]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:40 AM, Zergburger said:

to the guys trying to boresight on the ground...If it does not work, it's because its not supposed to work. The boresight is supposed to be done in the air. This is done because taxing/takeoff bounce the seekers and rails around on the mavs, and their final rest place in the air will be different. Also real mavs have 60min of battery time, 30min if they are producing a video feed.

 

IMHO ramp boresighting is unrealistic and shouldn't work. but they need to address the infinite maverick power-on time first.

In RL as far as HAF is concerned  the AGM-65G have to Bore sight in the ground in hold position. The crew warm up the MAV -bore sight with TGP and then power off the MAV.