incorrect prodcedure used Problem with Maverick align on the ground using TGP and BSGT

[DarkSideMaster]

Good afternoon!

There is the following problem with the coordination of the Maverick rocket.

If you start the mission from the cold and dark, you need to coordinate the maverick with the TGP. 
If you do this on the ground, then (later, when approaching the target) you will see that the Maverick's crosshairs are still not accurately aimed at the target. You need to search for the target using the Maverick's crosshairs manually. Which greatly complicates the process of launching a rocket.
But, if you align the maverick and the TGP while the aircraft is already in the air (after takeoff) on a target that is 7-8 km away, then the maverick will be guided very accurately to all subsequent targets.
The problem is the following:

1. On the ground, having completed the alignment (for example you use it for alignment of any ground vehicle close to the aircraft), the Maverick will still not be aimed exactly at the target.

2. If you carry out alignment TGP and the Maverick in the air (after takeoff) for any distant target (7-8 кm), then there will be accurate guidance of the Maverick with using TGP.

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[razo+r]

You need sufficient distance between the mavs and the target while boresighting to minimise the parallax effect. In the air you are generally always farther away from a boresighting target than on ground, hence the better accuracy. 

[DarkSideMaster]

Yes, but the training says that it is possible to carry out the alignment on the ground.   This means that on the ground all targets are located close to the aircraft  And there is no mention of parallax effects on the ground.

Then either incorrect training mission or incorrect behavior of the Maverick during the alignment on the ground.

Maybe this effect should be removed altogether and not confuse the player.

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[Lord Vader]

Hello @DarkSideMaster

What @razo+rsaid is true. You do need to have a considerable distance from the aircraft to your selected TGP point in order to align the boresight properly. It is advised to choose targets above 2nm to align the boresight (airborne or on ground), anything below that may have a considerable error.

If you still believe you're making a correct alignment above 2nm, please share a track for our analysis.

The parallax effect is a realistic feature of our simulation. It will not be removed unless the laws of physics change in our reality.

[razo+r]

24 minutes ago, DarkSideMaster said:

Yes, but the training says that it is possible to carry out the alignment on the ground.   This means that on the ground all targets are located close to the aircraft  And there is no mention of parallax effects on the ground.

Then either incorrect training mission or incorrect behavior of the Maverick during the alignment on the ground.

Maybe this effect should be removed altogether and not confuse the player.

It says it is possible and it is indeed possible to boresight on the ground. Its just that the accuracy will be limited if you boresight at short distances. 

[DarkSideMaster]

Hello @Lord Vader, thank you for your answer.

Okay, I will test that feature at a distance near 2 nm on the ground and will report to you.

But add this important note to your manual, please. Because there is no information about such a feature anywhere.

PS For the first time I hear information about a distance of at least 2 miles

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[Lord Vader]

2 hours ago, DarkSideMaster said:

Because there is no information about such a feature anywhere

Although we may consider a reference in the manual regarding parallax or other limitations, it is common sense that sensor operation need to take this into account. The sensors are not positioned in the same spot on the aircraft, the TPOD is set up on the right chin hardpoint, while the Mavericks are on the wing pilots. They will have different perspectives if you align too close. And that will add up if you then aim in longer distances afterwards.

The consideration must be: at what range will I fire a Maverick missile? Certainly above 2nm. So that's where my alignment focus must be. 

[DarkSideMaster]

5 minutes ago, Lord Vader said:

Although we may consider a reference in the manual regarding parallax or other limitations, it is common sense that sensor operation need to take this into account. The sensors are not positioned in the same spot on the aircraft, the TPOD is set up on the right chin hardpoint, while the Mavericks are on the wing pilots. They will have different perspectives if you aim too close. 

The consideration must be: at what range will I file a Maverick missile? Certainly above 2nm. So that's where my alignment focus must be. 

You're absolutely right, the Maverick launches over 2 nm. But a beginner may simply not be aware of the parallax effects and spend a lot of time trying to figure out what's going on. I have used F-16C for more than  1 year, but I'm tired of this problem just now. And I did not find the answer in the documentation ( 

It's good that you answered me, otherwise, I would have suffered further with this problem.

PS I will test that feature on 2 nm on the ground now.

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[Lord Vader]

@DarkSideMaster

I was intrigued with what you said about the manual not referencing this, because I was almost sure it did. Please check page 407 of our Early Access manual:

Again, we may consider a refinement for this explanation, but it is referenced correctly in the manual. 

[DarkSideMaster]

Yes, it is correct. How did I not see it...

But if it sounds like this:

Choosing a target further away (minimum 2 nm) will reduce parallax errors.

Because a beginner simply may not understand what is meant by the words "reduce parallax errors".  But the phrase "to choose a target that is no closer than 2 miles"  sounds very clear.

Add this note to the documentation, please. Please, please... 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[DarkSideMaster]

@Lord Vader

I chose a target at a distance of 2.2 nm on the ground. Maverick and TGP were aligned.

However, when approaching the target, he again failed to capture it in AUTO mode (TMS up when TGP is SOI), since the target was not in the crosshairs of the missile's sight. 

But yes, this time the target was much closer to the crosshair. But not in the center of the sight, due to which the target was not locked in AUTO mode

Edited August 25, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[razo+r]

44 minutes ago, DarkSideMaster said:

@Lord Vader

I chose a target at a distance of 2.2 nm on the ground. Maverick and TGP were aligned.

However, when approaching the target, he again failed to capture it in AUTO mode (TMS up when TGP is SOI), since the target was not in the crosshairs of the missile's sight. 

But yes, this time the target was much closer to the crosshair. But not in the center of the sight, due to which the target was not locked in AUTO mode

 

The further away the target you are boresighting to is, the less parallax error there is. Just because you pick a target a bit further than 2 nm, it does not completely eliminate the effect of parallax. 

Technically, if you want it to capture the target, you have to lock it up at the exact distance from which you Boresighted the mavericks. 

[Furiz]

One important note, if you are flying off target and searching for new target with TGP, when you find the target and then turn towards it, you should move the TGP a little bit and then back on target so that the Mav seeker centers on TGPs SPI. Cause Mav crosshair sometimes is off when maneuvering.

[QuiGon]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:34 PM, DarkSideMaster said:

@Lord Vader

I chose a target at a distance of 2.2 nm on the ground. Maverick and TGP were aligned.

However, when approaching the target, he again failed to capture it in AUTO mode (TMS up when TGP is SOI), since the target was not in the crosshairs of the missile's sight. 

But yes, this time the target was much closer to the crosshair. But not in the center of the sight, due to which the target was not locked in AUTO mode

You're demonstrating the very issue with having a phrase like "minimum 2 nm distance", because then some users will think it works fine at 2.1nm, but that's not how it works. There is no specific distance at which it will work or not. It just depends on the distance you're using the seeker against targets in actual combat and the closer the distance you used to align is to the distance you use to lock up targets, the better the result.

In other words: A boresight alignment against an object that is just 1.5nm away yields a perfect result in combat afterwards if you're using the Maverick against a target that is 1.5nm away. If the target is 8nm away the seeker will be far off though.
Vice versa, if you do a boresight alignment against an obcet that is 8nm away it will yield a perfect result in combat afterwars, if you're using the Maverick against a target that is 8nm away. If the target is just 1.5nm away, the seeker will be far off.

So giving hard numbers in the manual can actually be missleading, because there is no specific range, as it all depends on the specifics of your engagements.

Edited August 28, 2023 by QuiGon

[Furiz]

I found it best to align at 6nm distance while in the air, later on I have no issues with Maverick.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Furiz

[Raptor9]

The manual will eventually get a more detailed explanation on the parallax effect and how it impacts this function in the F-16, but @QuiGon hit the nail on the head.

This is a physical limitation that exists in real-life when multiple sensors are mounted in different locations on an aircraft, and the degree of parallax varies with distance. But this is why a Manual handoff mode exists, so that if the Automatic mode cannot achieve the AGM-65 lock on the intended target, the pilot can still manually initiate a track using WPN as SOI. (I think even if the Automatic mode fails to achieve a track, the pilot can still DMS Down to make WPN SOI and initiate a track. It's been a little bit since I tried it, but I think this is still possible to perform without toggling it to MAN)

The only difference between AUTO and MAN modes is that after handoff in MAN mode, the pilot must initiate the track using TMS Up-Short when the WPN format is SOI. In some cases where the parallax is more severe, a small pressure adjustment to the CURSOR/ENABLE switch may be required to move the AGM-65 seeker slightly left or right to get it on the intended target prior to initiating a track.

This will all be explained in the manual down the road, but a distance value will not be specified for the reason that @QuiGon stated. The implementation of the parallax effect in DCS F-16 is not an issue, but rather ensuring the correct handoff mode is used as needed due to the limitations incurred by the effect. There are times where I have not had the time to find an adequate location to boresight my 65's before proceeding to the target area (or I simply forgot), and I'll just use MAN mode. It works like a charm.

[Nedum]

Is the Mav align system really that "dump"?

If I can TGP a Target, I have the distance. And if I know the distance to the Mav from the center of my plane. So how is it possible to not align the Mavs with the TGP by doing simple math?

The alignment on the ground is only there to figure out the last few inches of a mismatch. If this is done at nearly 2 Miles, what effect should be less by an alignment at 6 Miles?

I really want to learn, what kind of "math" or "physics" would make such a difference. The parallax effect is easy to figure out by simple math.

If I understand all those explanations, an alignment beneath 6 Miles is a time waste. So why the hell should any pilot do a ground alignment at less than 6 Miles, if he knows the Mavs won't work as they should? Why is there a 2+ Miles limit set, if all beneath 6 Miles is worthless? And why is angle calculation in modern jets such a pain in the "butt"? Are mathematics new? I doubt it. And yes, you can !!easy!! negate the parallax effect with simple math. That's the reason you do an alignment. And yes, there should be a min distance for a good alignment, but what we've got in DCS is a thing I can't believe. That would mean, there is only a pure mechanical alignment. And that is the point where I have to say "omfg", if this is true, and I doubt it.

[Furiz]

8 hours ago, Nedum said:

And yes, you can !!easy!! negate the parallax effect with simple math.

Can you give us an example in math on how to negate the effect?

 

8 hours ago, Nedum said:

if all beneath 6 Miles is worthless?

You can do it al short as 1 mile, but I find the best distance to be 4+ miles.

 

8 hours ago, Nedum said:

And why is angle calculation in modern jets such a pain in the "butt"? Are mathematics new? I doubt it.

The problem (in real life) in 2007 was that processors back then were not so great as they are today and jets still needed tremendous amount of calculations done to be able to deliver such weapons, communicate with link16, know what their position is in time and space etc etc. So I guess there wasn't much computing power left extra calculations.

 

Sorry but all we can see from your text is that you are angry that you have to do in air Maverick alignment. This is a sim and simmers want accurate representation, they want all the problems that were there in real life as well as the goodies. If that means aligning Mavs in the air they yeah lets have that.

On the other hand if you can provide math or have evidence that this was done differently please provide it cause after all we want accurate representation.

[Nedum]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

Can you give us an example in math on how to negate the effect?

 

You can do it al short as 1 mile, but I find the best distance to be 4+ miles.

 

The problem (in real life) in 2007 was that processors back then were not so great as they are today and jets still needed tremendous amount of calculations done to be able to deliver such weapons, communicate with link16, know what their position is in time and space etc etc. So I guess there wasn't much computing power left extra calculations.

 

Sorry but all we can see from your text is that you are angry that you have to do in air Maverick alignment. This is a sim and simmers want accurate representation, they want all the problems that were there in real life as well as the goodies. If that means aligning Mavs in the air they yeah lets have that.

On the other hand if you can provide math or have evidence that this was done differently please provide it cause after all we want accurate representation.

 

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html

"Today, with advanced technologies such as adaptive optics and interferometry, we can reach accuracies of a few dozen micro-arcsecond on large ground-based telescopes," Jos de Bruijne, an astronomer at the European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement. "

If you can't negate the parallax effect by math, how can a 6 Miles alignment work the same at 2 Miles but a 2 Miles alignment can't work at 6 Miles? I really would like to hear that explanation.

And please explain why an alignment at 2 Miles, done between two not moving objects, is much worse as an alignment from an object moving with 300 knots and more and shifting its position the whole time? How will the shift be compensated? Perhaps by mathematics? If I had too, I would bet it could be done by mathematics. But perhaps it is only "magic"?

An alignment at 6 Miles, with a 300+ knots shift, is more precise as a steady alignment at 2+ Miles because of what exactly? 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Nedum

[Hobel]

I am not familiar with the math behind this but there seems to be a reason why the pilots do this in the air.

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/amp/

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, Nedum said:

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html

"Today, with advanced technologies such as adaptive optics and interferometry, we can reach accuracies of a few dozen micro-arcsecond on large ground-based telescopes," Jos de Bruijne, an astronomer at the European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement. "

That article is from 2022, our F-16 is from 2007 (15 years apart) and Mavericks? who knows which year are they based on. The difference in technology now and then is huge.

Then in that article they talk about planets and stars where distances are huge beyond our comprehension, we are talking about something else here, much closer and limited by the tech of that time (year 2007).

 

1 hour ago, Nedum said:

And please explain why an alignment at 2 Miles, done between two not moving objects, is much worse as an alignment from an object moving with 300 knots and more and shifting its position the whole time? How will the shift be compensated? Perhaps by mathematics? If I had too, I would bet it could be done by mathematics. But perhaps it is only "magic"?

An alignment at 6 Miles, with a 300+ knots shift, is more precise as a steady alignment at 2+ Miles because of what exactly? 

How is movement affecting boresighting Mav, since boresight it is done instantly when you press the button. It is not a scan of few seconds so movement should affect it.

 

So I ask you again to provide that, as you pointed out simple math, to ED so they can see if they made an error.

[_SteelFalcon_]

A specific manual even states that boresighting should be done as far away as possible. It doesnt specify range values.

Edited September 15, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[QuiGon]

On 9/15/2023 at 10:26 AM, Hobel said:

I am not familiar with the math behind this but there seems to be a reason why the pilots do this in the air.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/amp/

We need this for the DCS A-10C!!

[Hobel]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb QuiGon:

We need this for the DCS A-10C!!

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Hobel

[Falconeer]

I think Mavericks and boresighting is fairly simple and easy to use.

 

If you hate it, its fine, you can use the Mavs without boresighting or use different weapons