noted Mav boresighting is very annoying for me, any workaround to get rid of it? (I guess no)

[Rewis.C]

20 minutes ago, c0sm0cat said:

I'd say yes and no, it depends on the situation. At least thats what my experiences were so far. If you have a single target with high contrast the mavs seeker will lock the target even if it is not boresighted correctly. But if you have a group of targets tight together like a group of tanks or so, then you set the SPI on a specific target with the TGP, the mav gets a lock, rifle, but it hits not the target you locked with the TGP but one target besides the one you locked instead. The problem is, at a range of 6-8nm it is very hard to distinguish a specific target in a group of several targets with the mavs seeker even in narrow FOV mode. With the TGP no problem at that distance. The mavs seeker image is just too... bad? for this distance in that specific use case.

How does force correlating work in this case? It works great on the A-10 2. I've played with it on the 16 but never really got it down. I just don't want to spend my time on a module that's constantly being messed with and broken in new ways. That said, the 64 and 15E are the ones I've wanted the whole time, and they're really in the same boat but I hope to a lesser degree. They are still pretty early but missing a boatload of stuff. The 16 is inexcusable.

I would fly the 16 over almost every other module if it were somewhat not bugged and incomplete as it is. It's a mess and it's been almost four years since I bought it. What am I getting for my money? Something that is just broken and never fixed after four years. It's really bad but it's the truth.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rewis.C
typos

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Rewis.C said:

How does force correlating work in this case? It works great on the A-10 2. I've played with it on the 16 but never really got it down. I just don't want to spend my time on a module that's constantly being messed with and broken in new ways. That said, the 64 and 15E are the ones I've wanted the whole time, and they're really in the same boat but I hope to a lesser degree. They are still pretty early but missing a boatload of stuff. The 16 is inexcusable.

I would fly the 16 over almost every other module if it were somewhat not bugged and incomplete as it is. It's a mess and it's been almost four years since I bought it. What am I getting for my money? Something that is just broken and never fixed after four years. It's really bad but it's the truth.

 

Dear Rewis, While I understand your frustration with issues you might be experiencing, the F-16C is still very much Early Access. Buying into Early Acces means that you need to expect some growing pains as the module develops. The AH-64 and F-15E are also Early Access and will also experience growing pains as well. 

While it is not expected, it would be wonderful if you sent us full bug reports on any issues you might be experiencing. You will find a link in my signature below on how to submit a proper bug report. Doing this helps speed up development as more eyes on the module helps and is appreciated for sure. One of the big reasons for Early Access is all the extra eyes on the module we get. 

I can assure you the team has been very hard at work on the F-16 since its release, and we constantly see fixes and new features so I am not sure where you are seeing it broken and never fixed. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Please submit bug reports with tracks of the issues you are seeing and we would be happy to take a look. 

Thanks

[Rewis.C]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Dear Rewis, While I understand your frustration with issues you might be experiencing, the F-16C is still very much Early Access. Buying into Early Acces means that you need to expect some growing pains as the module develops. The AH-64 and F-15E are also Early Access and will also experience growing pains as well. 

While it is not expected, it would be wonderful if you sent us full bug reports on any issues you might be experiencing. You will find a link in my signature below on how to submit a proper bug report. Doing this helps speed up development as more eyes on the module helps and is appreciated for sure. One of the big reasons for Early Access is all the extra eyes on the module we get. 

I can assure you the team has been very hard at work on the F-16 since its release, and we constantly see fixes and new features so I am not sure where you are seeing it broken and never fixed. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Please submit bug reports with tracks of the issues you are seeing and we would be happy to take a look. 

Thanks

I appreciate a link to a way to report bugs. Unfortunately, I was more in tune with the problems associated with the 16 back when I ran the 162nd's servers. Also, I am not slamming the 64 or 15 at all. I understand where they currently are and why. The 16 on the other hand is nice to fly but, for instance, you can only pull 8.3Gs before backing out, last I checked. Every aircraft has/had the same 8.3Gs thing, once again, last I checked. It specifically should pull 9Gs with a seasoned pilot due to its seating etcetera.  It's also not living up to the performance it's known for, in my opinion, and the last time I checked. Everything could be different in beta.

The aircraft specifically has improved but it seems like the timing is way off. I understand that I bought into an early access module. I bought into about 30 of them including maps, packs, etcetera. The 16 is the only player module I felt was almost stalled. Don't get me started on the supercarrier... I have flown it recently but mainly to play with the HARMs and HARM pod. But where's the TFR and a slew of other systems that are happening way faster on other modules? I enjoyed the HARM pod though and other improvements. So it's not a total loss and also I stay on stable because I like to know my DCS and its bugs so I can be as effective as I can in the environment. So some things may be different but I'm pretty sure what I've mentioned is still as I said. Hay maybe it's way better in beta now. I have no clue there.

I'll be giving it and a lot more a full shakedown soon but I'll be on stable not beta so... I don't know how it'll help. Hell, I may go over to beta just for that. I'm getting started next week but the time it would take me to go through everything thoroughly will be weeks of work. I have a controlled environment where we push DCS's capabilities to the limit. I have a server running a mission with hundreds of simultaneous active units. AI SAMs, convoys, CAP, CAS, and Civil Flights, It's also variable in the selection and number of said units. It's MOOSE scripting whatever that's worth. The code adds thousands of permutations of the mission from a single mission file. I'm doing this on a normal, unmodified install. I will be using that environment online to do sweeping tests. I'm also going to run a series of controlled tests with very specific situations. This will include fully AI-controlled, PVE, and PVP situations. I'll also run most, if not all of the tests the MT and without, online and offline. 

You can thank @Vodka Meister for the mission file I'm using although it has been slightly modified over time by me and heavily modified for this test. He made the best missions I ever played. Thinking about that, I do appreciate all of the hard work from you guys but you have to realize some of us put dozens or even hundreds of hours a month into making these things work and testing them, fixing all the issues, and working around bugs every update and we don't get paid anything, maybe not even gratitude. We pay you and the ED staff who get mad at us for trying to help. To be fair after all the time that's gone by all I remember is all my posts being deleted and getting an I'll ban you if you post that again for posting something about the 18 I couldn't find anywhere in the forum. That's about the time I stopped trying to help. I'm here again to try again because this is my last hoorah. Either we can get some things done or, well I'm getting tired of the work needed to not enjoy DCS. (joke)

The day I got the Black Shark from Direct 2 Drive was the day I stopped playing any other flight sim. No more Combat Flight, Falcon 4.0/BSM, MFS, Xplane, and I'm sure a few more I've forgotten. It was and still is awesome what you guys have built, but It can all fall in an instant. Listen to people and keep them informed and everyone will have a better time. I will be on here posting results next week but in the meantime I have a huge hurricane bearing down on me, a lot of work to do in the days after and I'm going to get some playtime in. I will be around here and there until Monday which, time hopefully my testing will start. I still have a lot of work to figure out my path through all of it but I will be writing a plan during the storm. I should be in a good spot to ride it out here in South Ga. but I'm sure I'll lose power and internet before it's over. You guys who are also in the path keep safe and get out of the way if you can.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rewis.C
correcness

[Tholozor]

50 minutes ago, Rewis.C said:

But where's the TFR

Not applicable to this variant: 

Also, fellow GA here (north of ATL), stay safe out there.

[skywalker22]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear Rewis, While I understand your frustration with issues you might be experiencing, the F-16C is still very much Early Access. Buying into Early Acces means that you need to expect some growing pains as the module develops. The AH-64 and F-15E are also Early Access and will also experience growing pains as well. 

While it is not expected, it would be wonderful if you sent us full bug reports on any issues you might be experiencing. You will find a link in my signature below on how to submit a proper bug report. Doing this helps speed up development as more eyes on the module helps and is appreciated for sure. One of the big reasons for Early Access is all the extra eyes on the module we get. 

I can assure you the team has been very hard at work on the F-16 since its release, and we constantly see fixes and new features so I am not sure where you are seeing it broken and never fixed. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Please submit bug reports with tracks of the issues you are seeing and we would be happy to take a look. 

Thanks

I guess he doesn't really have any specific bug, so it seems, he is just unhappy with F-16 in general.

@Rewis.C if you have any specific bug, please report it in here, and paste track files (save track file at the end of each misson, in Multiplayer file saves automatically - check location on hdd). And you can also add some unclassified, publicaly available documentation in case if you are able to get it. Else, this kind of complaining will do exactly zero.

[Rewis.C]

7 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

I guess he doesn't really have any specific bug, so it seems, he is just unhappy with F-16 in general.

@Rewis.C if you have any specific bug, please report it in here, and paste track files (save track file at the end of each misson, in Multiplayer file saves automatically - check location on hdd). And you can also add some unclassified, publicaly available documentation in case if you are able to get it. Else, this kind of complaining will do exactly zero.

I was commenting on the appropriate performance, specifically. While it's not a bug it's still relevant. A 8.3G limit on a airframe that should pull 9Gs sounds pretty specific and relevant to me. I was also making a point about the community, not reporting a bug. I also pointed out that I was going to do very specific testing instead of bringing up things I wasn't sure about. I had a question and an opinion relevant to this topic. My question was not answered and my opinion is what it is. I was also corrected on a point I was totally wrong about. I'm glad I was. That was relevant to me and to the person who corrected me, thank you. @Tholozor

 

I'll have video, written documentation, tacview files, client and server track files(for what little good they do) and my issue was not as much about bugs but as how long it took for the 16 to get anywhere. I'm stating my concern and if that isn't enough for someone to at least listen and not jump down my throat basically telling me to report a specific bug or shut up is why not much gets reported. I will report bugs as best I can and provide as much information as possible.

 

I've talked to pilots of multiple variants of the f16. I've had long conversations with them and hundreds of people in the community and pilots of multiple real variants of DCS aircraft. I was in a position to listen to them in the past as a former leader and owner of a substantial DCS community. I'll also find what documentation I can and site it for any report I do. I'm sure that no one here will disrupt that the DCS version of the f16 is far from the dogfighter that real world fighter pilots compare every other fighter to. 

 

This kind of thing is why I left that community. Telling people RTFM and other useless crap when you could just listen and be open to their experiences. Maybe say something other than report specific bugs or shut up, In not so many words, but it's what you're saying. That's disrespectful and drives people away when it's tolerated. That's why I operate an invite only, closed server now. Just a few people who don't drive me bonkers.

 

Anyway I'm not here to attack anyone or argue about things. I was just stating my opinion. I even thanked the whole ED team for their hard work and what they have created. I'm so appreciative I've given them at least a couple thousand dollars for that work. All on the ED web store too.

 

I'm not giving Steam %30 of my money when ED did the work. I have unfortunately bought about 10-15 modules on steam as gifts in the past. Everyone always wanted steam for some reason. Ok I'm now rambling quite a bit but as the hurricane is still going on I'm sitting here on my phone with nothing to do. Thanks for listening, those of you that read all of this. Lol

[skywalker22]

1 hour ago, Rewis.C said:

I was commenting on the appropriate performance, specifically. While it's not a bug it's still relevant. A 8.3G limit on a airframe that should pull 9Gs sounds pretty specific and relevant to me.

Sorry, but you weren't very specific. Gs ok, but in what kind of conditions, clean or with some loadout on it, if so, what kind? At which speed and altitude? These are all very imporant data we have to consider while talking Gs.

Clean F-16 can easily pull 9 Gs, even for quite few some time at low altitude. The limit atm is not the airframe but the G-lock effect. If you disable it, you will see how long the airframe is capable of sustaining 9+Gs.

PS: this thread is about another topic, lets better stick to it.

Edited August 30, 2023 by skywalker22

[NineLine]

31 minutes ago, Rewis.C said:

I appreciate a link to a way to report bugs. Unfortunately, I was more in tune with the problems associated with the 16 back when I ran the 162nd's servers. Also, I am not slamming the 64 or 15 at all. I understand where they currently are and why. The 16 on the other hand is nice to fly but, for instance, you can only pull 8.3Gs before backing out, last I checked. Every aircraft has/had the same 8.3Gs thing, once again, last I checked. It specifically should pull 9Gs with a seasoned pilot due to its seating etcetera.  It's also not living up to the performance it's known for, in my opinion, and the last time I checked. Everything could be different in beta.

This has been reported, and I know that it sounds easy, just make the G tolerance higher, The decision was to take a deeper look at how it works in real life and how it should work in DCS, not for the F-16 alone, but the sim as a whole. So this requires proper research and programming to do it right and do it justice. This does mean that it takes some time but it is known and will be addressed.

[Rewis.C]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

This has been reported, and I know that it sounds easy, just make the G tolerance higher, The decision was to take a deeper look at how it works in real life and how it should work in DCS, not for the F-16 alone, but the sim as a whole. So this requires proper research and programming to do it right and do it justice. This does mean that it takes some time but it is known and will be addressed.

Understood. Like I said I was making a point more then anything. I appreciate the responses but I'll keep it as on topic as possible and I understand the g effects being a universal thing ATM makes that a less than easy fix. 

 

5 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Sorry, but you weren't very specific. Gs ok, but in what kind of conditions, clean or with some loadout on it, if so, what kind? At which speed and altitude? These are all very imporant data we have to consider while talking Gs.

Clean F-16 can easily pull 9 Gs, even for quite few some time at low altitude. The limit atm is not the airframe but the G-lock effect. If you disable it, you will see how long the airframe is capable of sustaining 9+Gs.

PS: this thread is about another topic, lets better stick to it.

 

I'll lay all of that out when I actual do a test again. I know the airframe can take 9+Gs I'm taking about the pilot on average taking more Gs in an f16 than any other planes because of it's almost vertical laid back seating. This has been a talked about feature in the f16 for as long as I've been able to remember helping it's pilots take more G load. 9Gs was the magic number that I've heard and read about for decades. Maybe I'm wrong I'll do my research and we can both be more enlightened. But yes I'll stop derailing the thread.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Rewis.C
correcting autocorrect

[Guest]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Rewis.C:

I'll have video, written documentation, tacview files, client and server track files(for what little good they do) and my issue was not as much about bugs but as how long it took for the 16 to get anywhere.

Sorry, but this makes me really upset. In my main job I am an software architect and former software developer. And as a former developer I get upset when I hear complaints about how slow development is. Really? What gives you the expertise to judge the development speed of ED? I can tell you: nothing. No one of us outside the company can judge it. And besides that, do you have any idea how long software development in general takes? I guess no. And do you know how much manpower ED has available to put into developing modules and the base game? No, you haven't. But I can assure you, ED is a small company compared to the real big players in the software market like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Alpha, Meta, SAP, Amazon and so on. And even for these global players software development takes time and this although they have way more development manpower available than ED. So please let the developers do their job without complaining it is too slow. You just can't judge if it is too slow or not.

And now stop highjacking my thread about the mav boresighting with your general complaints about the quality of the F16. Start your own topic please if you have complaints about the module.

Edited August 30, 2023 by c0sm0cat

[Rewis.C]

30 minutes ago, c0sm0cat said:

Sorry, but this makes me really upset. In my main job I am an software architect and former software developer. And as a former developer I get upset when I hear complaints about how slow development is. Really? What gives you the expertise to judge the development speed of ED? I can tell you: nothing. No one of us outside the company can judge it. And besides that, do you have any idea how long software development in general takes? I guess no. And do you know how much manpower ED has available to put into developing modules and the base game? No, you haven't. But I can assure you, ED is a small company compared to the real big players in the software market like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Alpha, Meta, SAP, Amazon and so on. And even for these global players software development takes time and this although they have way more development manpower available than ED. So please let the developers do their job without complaining it is too slow. You just can't judge if it is too slow or not.

And now stop highjacking my thread about the mav boresighting with your general complaints about the quality of the F16. Start your own topic please if you have complaints about the module.

 

You could have just said take it somewhere else. You don't know my experience or what I'm capable of judging. Everything you just said was an attack and unhelpful to anyone. I'll stay off your thread unless someone speaks to me. If you mind that, well to bad. 

[ebabil]

I agree, I don't select mavs to avoid this needless procedure when I am flying with the viper. A special option to skip it would be good. 

BTW, is viper the only airframe which has to bore sight its mavs? can a10, f18, viggen, f-15, f-4 align their mavs automatically?

[skywalker22]

4 hours ago, ebabil said:

I agree, I don't select mavs to avoid this needless procedure when I am flying with the viper. A special option to skip it would be good. 

BTW, is viper the only airframe which has to bore sight its mavs? can a10, f18, viggen, f-15, f-4 align their mavs automatically?

 

[Guest]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb ebabil:

 

BTW, is viper the only airframe which has to bore sight its mavs? can a10, f18, viggen, f-15, f-4 align their mavs automatically?

AFAIK the Viper is the only airframe that has mav boresighting modeled and mandatory. The F/A-18 does not have it and in the A-10C the avionic has the functions modeled afaik, but they are not mandatory like in the Viper. Can't say how it is implemented in other modules.

[TOViper]

Sorry to jump in right in the middle, but as a DCS F-16C pilot I often wished that there was a "Skip boresighting of AGM-65" option in the mission editor - even when cold starting the aircraft. For me, this is not necessarily true for MP servers (Buddy spike, etc...), but indeed true for "offline-usage".

Now coming to the OT:
I understand the claim to waste life time with that if you just want to fly a bit inbetween the carusell "family-job-personal maintenance-other things", so a company like ED with all their experience in creating modules could make this happen someday, at least this is what I wish. We have so many options to configure the aircraft in the mission editor, we have autostart features, we have rope-lengths, we have safety altitudes, we have pre-alignment of INS, etc., so why not having this "Skip boresighting of AGM-65" ... ? Let the user/customer decide in which depth he/she wants to go, and which features of IRL planes he want to skip in order to save lifetime.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TOViper

[QuiGon]

19 hours ago, c0sm0cat said:

AFAIK the Viper is the only airframe that has mav boresighting modeled and mandatory. The F/A-18 does not have it and in the A-10C the avionic has the functions modeled afaik, but they are not mandatory like in the Viper. Can't say how it is implemented in other modules.

It's not mandatory in the F-16 either. You can use Mavericks just fine without boresighting them in the Viper. It's just that they will be slightly offset from the TGP, but otherwise they will work just fine.

 

18 hours ago, TOViper said:

Sorry to jump in right in the middle, but as a DCS F-16C pilot I often wished that there was a "Skip boresighting of AGM-65" option in the mission editor - even when cold starting the aircraft. For me, this is not necessarily true for MP servers (Buddy spike, etc...), but indeed true for "offline-usage".

Now coming to the OT:
I understand the claim to waste life time with that if you just want to fly a bit inbetween the carusell "family-job-personal maintenance-other things", so a company like ED with all their experience in creating modules could make this happen someday, at least this is what I wish. We have so many options to configure the aircraft in the mission editor, we have autostart features, we have rope-lengths, we have safety altitudes, we have pre-alignment of INS, etc., so why not having this "Skip boresighting of AGM-65" ... ? Let the user/customer decide in which depth he/she wants to go, and which features of IRL planes he want to skip in order to save lifetime.

Pre-alignment (= Stored Heading Alignment) is something that can be done IRL. Boresighting Mavs not so much, so it wouldn't make sense to add such an option. If you want a fully prepared jet, there is hot start for that. I also don't understand the life time argument, as Maverick boresighting is something that's not part of the startup anyways, but something that should be done when airborne already (e.g. on the ingress to the AO).

Edited September 1, 2023 by QuiGon

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb QuiGon:

I also don't understand the life time argument

Exactly that, on the ground it doesn't work that well anyway, I always do it on the flight to the target, the procedure takes less than 20 seconds if you are practiced.

[Guest]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb QuiGon:

It's not mandatory in the F-16 either. You can use Mavericks just fine without boresighting them in the Viper. It's just that they will be slightly offset from the TGP, but otherwise they will work just fine.

 

Sorry, mandatory is perhaps the wrong word (I am not a native english speaker). Recommendet is perhaps a better word for what I mean. The main difference between the Viper and other modules is, in other modules the accuracy of the mavs seeker head is perfect even without boresighting, whereass in the Viper the boresighting really has an impact on its accuracy. Thats what I meant with "mandatory". But yes, that word is to harsh here.

[LeCuvier]

You guys make me wonder if I miss something when I use the MAV with the A-10C. I have never done anything like this and the target transfer from TGP to MAV always works fine. If that's unrealistic I hope it stays that way.

[Guest]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb LeCuvier:

You guys make me wonder if I miss something when I use the MAV with the A-10C. I have never done anything like this and the target transfer from TGP to MAV always works fine. If that's unrealistic I hope it stays that way.

Yep, and in the F/A-18 it works the same way. The handoff is always perfect. But that is not realistic. AFAIK this kind of alignment has to be done in every aircraft that uses IR mav or CCD mav and a targeting pod with handoff due to the parallax effect. So the way it works in the Hornet or the Hog in DCS is unrealistic. But I am with you, I hope it stays that way, too.

[MAXsenna]

I wouldn't mind if they made it like other modules, as long as it optional. I also wouldn't mind if they made the F/A-18C and A-10C like the F-16C.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Guest]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb MAXsenna:

I wouldn't mind if they made it like other modules, as long as it optional. I also wouldn't mind if they made the F/A-18C and A-10C like the F-16C.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Having it optional in every module would be the perfect solution. And perhaps make it a realism option for server owners in multiplayer. So those who operate hardcore servers could chose to have it mandatory for all modules. That way the community would find the perfect solution by itself for every situation.

Edited September 1, 2023 by c0sm0cat

[MAXsenna]

Having it optional in every module would be the perfect solution. And perhaps make it an realism option for server owners in multiplayer. So those who operate hardcore servers could chose to have it mandatory for all modules.

Totally agree!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, c0sm0cat said:

Sorry, mandatory is perhaps the wrong word (I am not a native english speaker). Recommendet is perhaps a better word for what I mean. The main difference between the Viper and other modules is, in other modules the accuracy of the mavs seeker head is perfect even without boresighting, whereass in the Viper the boresighting really has an impact on its accuracy. Thats what I meant with "mandatory". But yes, that word is to harsh here.

I hope this also gets implemented to the other modules if it turns out, that that exists on them as well IRL.

[kraszus]

10 hours ago, QuiGon said:

It's not mandatory in the F-16 either. You can use Mavericks just fine without boresighting them in the Viper. It's just that they will be slightly offset from the TGP, but otherwise they will work just fine.

 

Pre-alignment (= Stored Heading Alignment) is something that can be done IRL. Boresighting Mavs not so much, so it wouldn't make sense to add such an option. If you want a fully prepared jet, there is hot start for that. I also don't understand the life time argument, as Maverick boresighting is something that's not part of the startup anyways, but something that should be done when airborne already (e.g. on the ingress to the AO).

 

Am I right in saying that in a hotstart in the Viper there is no requirement to boresight Mavs?