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

[Guest]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb kraszus:

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

AFAIK only an air start gives you boresightet mavs. So any form of ground start requires boresighting.

[LeCuvier]

3 hours ago, c0sm0cat said:

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.

 

I agree!

[QuiGon]

17 hours ago, kraszus said:

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

Hot starting should provide you with a fully completed startup, but as Mav boresighting is something that should be done after takeoff, I wasn't sure if this is included in a hotstart. Looks like there is the answer:

16 hours ago, c0sm0cat said:

AFAIK only an air start gives you boresightet mavs. So any form of ground start requires boresighting.

That would make sense, as it's something that should be done when airborne (which is also why I don't understand the argument that it prolongs the startup and takes away lifetime).

[Guest]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb QuiGon:

That would make sense, as it's something that should be done when airborne (which is also why I don't understand the argument that it prolongs the startup and takes away lifetime).

My argument was that is is annoying for me and kills the fun I have with the Viper, not that it takes away lifetime. The lifetime thing came from someone else. The only thing I said about time is that I decide what I do in my (rare) spare time and therefore I discarded the Viper until there is a solution to that boresighting stuff, that lets me get around it.

[_SteelFalcon_]

On 9/1/2023 at 8:25 PM, kraszus said:

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

Yep

[QuiGon]

On 9/2/2023 at 2:16 PM, c0sm0cat said:

My argument was that is is annoying for me and kills the fun I have with the Viper, not that it takes away lifetime.

Well, that's part of accurately simulating an aircraft, which not just includes simulating the good parts, but also the bad parts as well. I find the lack of high AOA maneuverability of the Viper also quite annoying, but it's just how the aircraft is. I would never come up with the idea of wanting to have a high AOA maneuverability mode getting implemented for the DCS Viper, even if it would be entirely optional. It's just not a feature of the Viper IRL and thus shouldn't be in DCS, just like magic Mav boresighting isn't.

Edited September 4, 2023 by QuiGon

[Guest]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb QuiGon:

Well, that's part of accurately simulating an aircraft, which not just includes simulating the good parts, but also the bad parts as well. I find the lack of high AOA maneuverability of the Viper also quite annoying, but it's just how the aircraft is. I would never come up with the idea of wanting to have a high AOA maneuverability mode getting implemented for the DCS Viper, even if it would be entirely optional. 

 

Responded you via PN, as this has nothing to do with the topic here.

[LeCuvier]

36 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Well, that's part of accurately simulating an aircraft, which not just includes simulating the good parts, but also the bad parts as well. I find the lack of high AOA maneuverability of the Viper also quite annoying, but it's just how the aircraft is. I would never come up with the idea of wanting to have a high AOA maneuverability mode getting implemented for the DCS Viper, even if it would be entirely optional. It's just not a feature of the Viper IRL and thus shouldn't be in DCS, just like magic Mav boresighting isn't.

 

I respect your opinion but I hope it does not prevail. With that mindset you would probably also vote to remove the auto-start macros from all modules

[void68]

My addendum: The Boresighting once worked. SP once worked. Then they broke it. Again: what's so difficult to program "on press SP move TGP to X=0, Y=0, Z=0" like they do with the FCR / GM? It worked a year ago! When they broke it, ok, may happen. But they don't fix. Come on.

My squad member and me retested the Mavericks. I even did a re-calibration in flight. I was used to the Mave's eye looked exactly to where the TGP's eye was looking. But nope, it was way off. Ofc you still can operate the Maverick to a somewhat satisfactionary degree, but you have to readjust it all the time. Together with broken OA1, OA2 etc it's no fun at all. At least the dumb bombs are modeled correctly.

I always wonder why ED still requests track files of obvious bugs. Just refly and you see, dear devs. And yes, I know it's Early Access, but I did'nt expect "early" means more than 4 years to go, and we aren't even in beta state. Come on, charge us an additional 50$ for full, honest release with minor bugs and I'll gladly pay. But please, deliver and squash bugs as fast as possible and give us a roadmap.

[NineLine]

4 hours ago, void68 said:

I always wonder why ED still requests track files of obvious bugs.

We require a short and concise track to see exactly what you are doing to reproduce these bugs, in many cases this can be very important to resolving the bug if there is one. As well this is not the only bug report or communication we are dealing with at any given time throughout the day. Creating a track fast tracks your report to getting looked at rather than us setting it aside to have time to try to reproduce and hope we did exactly what you did without knowing for sure. 

Thanks.

4 hours ago, void68 said:

But please, deliver and squash bugs as fast as possible and give us a roadmap.

This is what we have done, and continue to do. 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

 

[Blinky.ben]

100% agree, have a special feature turn align off or add this as a standard to all ED modules. Why the hornet being a ED module doesn’t share the same requirements to align MAV’s or have the same level of error in the GBU-38 is odd. Items like these should be across all ED modules to maintain a standard.