What do people thinking of having to align the Mavs?

[MROK73]

I wonder why there's no need to boresight the Mav's on the Hornet and the Warthog...

[MROK73]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

There probably is, but it isn't implemented (yet). Did a thread for the A-10C (II) already but no reactions so far.

Or probably there's no "need" to...

But, on the other hand, this is a Mav procedure, not a type of aircraft porcedure, so...

Edited February 1, 2021 by MROK73

[ST0RM]

Just happened across this thread. I havent flown the Viper in a long while, so this update slipped by me. 

Boresighting the Mavs to the TGP is a thing now? And a realistic feature?

So why do we not have to do it in the Hornet? Or is that something coming? 

 

Thanks

[Lace]

1 minute ago, ST0RM said:

Just happened across this thread. I havent flown the Viper in a long while, so this update slipped by me. 

Boresighting the Mavs to the TGP is a thing now? And a realistic feature?

So why do we not have to do it in the Hornet? Or is that something coming? 

 

Thanks

 

It's a process that takes literally two minutes during the ingress phase of flight.  Even Wags' YouTube tutorial video is an epic 3:00 duration!  Clearly this is an inconvenience for the type of player who thinks multiple hot-pit rearms 5 minutes from FEBA is a realistic type of operation for this aircraft.  Probably the same people who take off from taxiways and fly downwind straight-ins because 'quicker'.

[MROK73]

4 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

But maybe i'm missing something here and someone can enlighten me

I was being sarcastic! For me the only reason to boresighting come up, was the other Sim, and that's all!

Of course you need to boresight them in whichever plane. It's implicit on the way the system is built.

In a sim, you have to balance between the RL procedures and techniques, and the parameters available for the design of the sim itself ( aircraft flight dynamics, weapons available knowledge and parameters, etc.), in order to give the final product a "picture" of what it would be in real life.

2 hours ago, Lace said:

It's a process that takes literally two minutes during the ingress phase of flight.  Even Wags' YouTube tutorial video is an epic 3:00 duration!  Clearly this is an inconvenience for the type of player who thinks multiple hot-pit rearms 5 minutes from FEBA is a realistic type of operation for this aircraft.  Probably the same people who take off from taxiways and fly downwind straight-ins because 'quicker'.

I'll make Lace my own words. If you want a sim, you have to deal with it! It mean a lot more reading, and  consequently more time consuming. A steeper learning curve and also a bigger gratification.

If not, switch to the game mode, which, by the way, I agree as an option (but please, don't make me fly on a simulator server against gamers...) and  give you the same level of gratification. It only depends on what you really want!

Cheers

Edited February 1, 2021 by MROK73

[Machalot]

1 hour ago, ST0RM said:

So why do we not have to do it in the Hornet?

It probably isn't needed for AGM-65E's (laser Mavs) in real life.  I think it should only matter for IR Mavs that need to correlate the image with the TGP. 

[ST0RM]

42 minutes ago, Machalot said:

It probably isn't needed for AGM-65E's (laser Mavs) in real life.  I think it should only matter for IR Mavs that need to correlate the image with the TGP. 

The Hornet also has the Mav-Fs. So maybe something we'll end up having to do. 

[Northstar98]

On 2/1/2021 at 1:29 PM, ST0RM said:

Just happened across this thread. I havent flown the Viper in a long while, so this update slipped by me. 

Boresighting the Mavs to the TGP is a thing now? And a realistic feature?

 

Yes

 

Quote

So why do we not have to do it in the Hornet? Or is that something coming?

 

Because they haven't implemented it yet, same with the HARM limitations. It's interesting in that the Hornet is closer to being feature complete, but the features it has are less well developed than the F-16C, which even though it has less, they're in greater detail, at least for the mavericks and HARMs.

 

Presumably boresighting mavericks will come to the A-10C, AV-8B N/A and F/A-18C at some point. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Northstar98

[Falconeer]

On 26-1-2021 at 2:40 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.

Sorry, but if you know how missile seeker heads work (especially IR seeker heads) when the aircraft is powered, then this above story is bollocks

 

[TobiasA]

Just do a drop down menu so we can select between "easy", "sim" and "hardcore sim". 

It really does not matter that much. In the other sim, I do it on ingress and became used to it. 

I rarely carry mavs tho, I like GBU's as long as there is no SAM threat. No small arms fire, precise af. Doesn't matter if target is behind trees or dug in, moving or not. 

Can't pop helos with it tho, at least it is difficult. 

I'd see mav aligning as a nice to have for the hardcore guys like me, but there are far more important things right now. It should be on the end of the list. 

[Zergburger]

15 hours ago, Falconeer said:

Sorry, but if you know how missile seeker heads work (especially IR seeker heads) when the aircraft is powered, then this above story is bollocks

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-practice-to-boresight-the-AGM65-on-aircraft-as-opposed-to-using-a-ground-target

k

[Fri13]

On 1/14/2021 at 10:15 PM, Northstar98 said:

One 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.

 

I think it is not when you think it that different teams are in different projects, and yet they share common goal.

 

So in F-16 project the weapons team tests and develops the news features, but they will be ported to hornet once team starts to work on it. It would be odd to make both same time when other is years older and anyways different.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

I think it is not when you think it that different teams are in different projects, and yet they share common goal.

 

So in F-16 project the weapons team tests and develops the news features, but they will be ported to hornet once team starts to work on it. It would be odd to make both same time when other is years older and anyways different.

 

Regardless of development, that's how it sits at present.

 

Hornet has much more features, but some features the F-16 has is more in depth than the Hornet.

[Fri13]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Regardless of development, that's how it sits at present.

 

Hornet has much more features, but some features the F-16 has is more in depth than the Hornet.

 

Sure, as I speculated that team working those features are in the F-16 at the moment, so hornet gets them later when team moves there to add them. They need to be done first somewhere, and then it is small effort to put on other as they are weapon related.

[Falconeer]

39 minutes ago, Zergburger said:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-practice-to-boresight-the-AGM65-on-aircraft-as-opposed-to-using-a-ground-target

k

I meant that bouncing part during taxing

[Rubberduck85]

 
Presumably boresighting mavericks will come to the A-10C, AV-8B N/A and F/A-18C at some point. 

SPECULATION:
I don't see this coming, especially for A10 or FA18. Even if boresighting as we have it in viper would be the right procedure for those aircrafts, i don't see ED changing the allegedly simplified agm65 mechanics. These 2 aircrafts are/were ED's flagship modules (flagship=most pushed from a marketing point of view=most likely sold).
ED also stated that one of the biggest problems they have with the player base is customer retention for newcomers. If they raise the bar of difficulty (procedures/avionics), new players (especially those with no previous exp of military flight sim, those who approach this world armed with a console controller so to speak) would be even more overwhelmed than they are already and not enticed in going deeper in the sim.

That said, i REALLY HOPE to be proven wrong in the future (maybe MAC will address the retention problem) i like realistic mechanics and to answer the OP, yes I'm i favor of boresighting, it's a 30 seconds job on the way to target.

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[Spectre1-1]

Chizch already said as much for HARMs and mavs
and the next patch will have the HARM overhauled, as per newsletters. 

[Thunder_]

Looks to me something about the immersion on the simulation , the same principle of the threat on the refuelling , looks like needle picking to me , don't get me wrong it's lots of fun , but miss some of the other realities to it, I've advocated a more relax settings for refuelling so newbies can practice refuelling easily, on my opinion , could be the same for the mavs , an option to require alignment or sort of "alignment" assistant would b good , and if you want or require full immersion, the yeah full alignment, but might b other options there.  

[Spectre1-1]

You all realize that you don't have to bore sight mavs to use them... right ?

Using them unaligned and then taking control to manually refine is what they do irl too afaik. My stance is that all jets that do it irl should do it in DCS, asking for auto refueling or landing is more or less the same thing as asking for this, you have your tools and limitations, to study them in order to exploit them to their maximum capability or to find neat tricks is up to you.

[Northstar98]

On 4/2/2021 at 2:02 AM, Spectre1-1 said:

Using them unaligned and then taking control to manually refine is what they do irl too afaik.

 

Which is also like 75% of the boresighting procedure anyways - once you've done that you only have to press a single button and you're done - just repeat for each maverick - super simple stuff. I really don't get the issue here.

 

Quote

My stance is that all jets that do it irl should do it in DCS

 

Agreed, at least where feasible.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[Stig]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:04 AM, Desert Fox said:

Simulations try to resemble reality.

Games pick what is fun and ignore everything else.

 

It's DCS, not DCG.

 

 

Dislike that the F-16, in a simulation, needs a more realistic procedure than the other models.

Because all the other planes have a more simplified version, the F-16 should be dumbed down.

More realism is a punishment, in a simulation.

 

Uh, what? :')

 

I would suggest rather than berate the poster for this opinion, we look at a workaround.

 

How about like with auto start procedure for those who just don't want that nutcase level simism of 20 odd minutes trying to align mavs that often  wont align on the ground. we have an auto align for those that want realism but not the extra faff.

Id say that's a reasonable compromise.

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, Stig said:

I would suggest rather than berate the poster for this opinion, we look at a workaround.

 

How about like with auto start procedure for those who just don't want that nutcase level simism of 20 odd minutes trying to align mavs that often  wont align on the ground.

 

If it's taking you 20 minutes to do 5 seconds of slewing, hitting TMS up and then hitting BGST you're doing something very wrong.

 

It barely takes me 20 seconds per maverick - if that.

 

And you're supposed to do it from the air - on as far away a target as possible - to minimise parallax errors.

 

Quote

we have an auto align for those that want realism but not the extra faff.

 

That's an odd way of putting it.

 

More like for those who want realism in a yes but actually no sorta way.

 

Quote

Id say that's a reasonable compromise.

 

Why don't you just start from the air where it's pre-aligned?

 

Why not just use the Maverick in any other mode but PRE? 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[Stig]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Workaround is: click that 5 additional buttons to the 150 you click during an average sortie. If you don't like buttons, why fly F-16? Don't get it.

If you don't like sims, just play WT or wait for MAC.

Because not everyone wants that level of faff on the ground, I align them in the air where possible but doesn't work all the time.

Look, this shouldn't descend into simism snobbery, you are not "correct" for wanting ultra level clicks to align as hornet and warthog haven't had this, you fly those too? you moan about that lack of realism until now?

Do you exasperate over auto start functionality in the jets also?

 

The regular fly and fight systems are more than realistic for a large number of users, this workaround is to allow retention of newcomers who leave because its very very overwhelming, how about some functions like this an auto align, like an AutoStart to east them in, you can then choose to do it manually as you progress? to paraphrase your earlier comment huh?

[Stig]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If it's taking you 20 minutes to do 5 seconds of slewing, hitting TMS up and then hitting BGST you're doing something very wrong.

 

It barely takes me 20 seconds per maverick - if that.

 

And you're supposed to do it from the air - on as far away a target as possible - to minimise parallax errors.

 

 

That's an odd way of putting it.

 

More like for those who want realism in a yes but actually no sorta way.

 

 

Why don't you just start from the air where it's pre-aligned?

 

Why not just use the Maverick in any other mode but PRE? 

 

Because not everyone is as "expert" as you guys obviously.......

all well and good belittling people with far less experience than yourselves, I personally have struggled to make the alignment process work, unfamiliarity with the systems, processes, TMS ups downs arounds etc.

Take a step back guys, think about those of us that aren't experts that can take the piss out of newcomers who aren't as proficient and may need that little workaround until everything else gets up to speed too. geez guys, you don't wanna use it, you don't have to, some of us struggle like hell and rather than come away frustrated as fook and decide to give up on that module, or that weapon etc, a workaround whilst being able to manually practise isn't such a drama is it??????

[Northstar98]

On 4/6/2021 at 10:05 PM, Stig said:

Because not everyone is as "expert" as you guys obviously.......

all well and good belittling people with far less experience than yourselves, I personally have struggled to make the alignment process work, unfamiliarity with the systems, processes, TMS ups downs arounds etc.

 

If you don't know how to do it that's fine! Once upon a time I didn't know how to use it either! I help out many newcomers who want to understand something - it isn't an issue, I was in their position - I just learnt it.

 

Quote

Take a step back guys, think about those of us that aren't experts that can take the piss out of newcomers who aren't as proficient and may need that little workaround until everything else gets up to speed too.

 

Yeah, you continue making a scapegoat - nobody is pissing on anyone who doesn't know how to do x, it is clearly not the issue here and your own post makes that clear.

 

All it takes is "hey guys, how do I boresight mavericks?" and people (including me) will happily walk you through it, or direct you to the page in the manual, or a YouTube video or whatever - it's really no issue.

 

Quote

geez guys, you don't wanna use it, you don't have to, some of us struggle like hell and rather than come away frustrated as fook and decide to give up on that module

 

Then ask! It's really simple and many of us are willing to help! You think I don't struggle? I don't even have a throttle! Or rudders and I'm playing on a 15.6" laptop. Stop trying accuse people of elitism - it's a nonsense cop out that holds the square root of bugger all water, plain and simple. See here.

 

And really, here's how you boresight the maverick - slew the pod and command whatever track (TMS up for point, TMS right for area)), switch SOI over to the maverick (DMS down until WPN page has a white square around it), slew it over the same place and TMS up until it locks, then hit BGST on the MFD displaying the maverick - that's it!

 

Hell, if you know how to slew the targeting pod and command a track (which you have to do anyway) - then you can slew the maverick and command a track, the only thing you have to do beyond that is hitting a single button - that's it.

 

And if you noticed the maverick was off, wouldn't the first thing you'd try is slewing the maverick manually to correct it? Because if you do that, you've done the easy majority of the procedure - you only have to hit a single button and you're done. 

 

And let's address "Look, this shouldn't descend into simism snobbery, you are not "correct" for wanting ultra level clicks to align as hornet and warthog haven't had this, you fly those too? you moan about that lack of realism until now?"

 

Ha ha what? Remind me what the entire point of DCS is again? That's literally the 3rd line into the product description? How is making something more realistic not correct? In something advertised as being as trying to be as realistic as feasibly possible? No - those aircraft should have the same limitations, and the F/A-18C is actually getting the same HARM limitations as the F-16C!

 

And as for "simism snobbery" (please), here's a part of the product description for DCS:

 

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

And here's what's explicitly stated on the planned features list for the F-16CM: 

 

Quote

We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

So we take that, but it actually being so is apparently simism snobbery? What?

 

If you want help with something, that's absolutely fine - plenty of us (including me) are more than happy to help and all of us have been in the exact same situation of not knowing what to do or being able to do something. It's no issue, plenty of us are more than happy to help out.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Northstar98