TGP Auto Handoff to AGM-65D Causes Loss of SOI

[Nedum]

On 3/10/2024 at 9:03 AM, Furiz said:

And if it was wrong target what did you do?

So whats the difference? It only switches it auto for you.

If you get the wrong target you needed to undesignate and fine tune anyway. You can't undesignate Mav with TGP as SOI right?

 

And as Raptor said they are still working on handoffs, so I guess we will see more tweaks and I'm betting TMS RIGHT will see better use.

There is no need in TGP Auto mode to switch automatically to the WPN page if I point track a moving target to make sure it's the target I want to hit first. The MAV can't "see" that far as the TGP can do. It's not necessary to switch to the WPN Page 15 miles away from the target. I have to do all the research with the TGP. At this distance the WPN Page is pointless.

And even with the Mav Ds the problem stays for a ripple shot. As soon I switch to Point Track, I have to switch back to the TGP page to designate another target.

Now again my question, what is the reason and/or the benefit that the WPN page will be automatically become SOI if I activate Point Track? Workload added for what reason?

Don't use ever Point Track until you are sure you marked the right target?

And if you only use VIS or BORE Mode, why is there a function to designate the target to the mavs, without switching to the WPN page, but as soon you use Point Track, it's switching automatically? I don't get the reason for this behavior, but I want to know what's the trick behind it.

"Hey, there is a bridge, use Point Track, because Area Track mostly let the MAV miss the target." Sorry for the "switch back"."

If this behavior was bound to a WPN Mode like VIS, I could understand it, but now it's a pain in the A for ripple shots. And yes, I know you can fast shoot in VIS mode, but that is no reason or explanation for this, in my eyes, stupid behavior.

You guys never use Point Track to research moving targets? What is the "Magic" behind that feature? What is better now?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2024 by Nedum

[Furiz]

35 minutes ago, Nedum said:

Now again my question, what is the reason and/or the benefit that the WPN page will be automatically become SOI if I activate Point Track? Workload added for what reason?

That has been answered here:

 

36 minutes ago, Nedum said:

Don't use ever Point Track until you are sure you marked the right target?

I never point track until I want to command auto handoff.

 

37 minutes ago, Nedum said:

And if you only use VIS or BORE Mode, why is there a function to designate the target to the mavs, without switching to the WPN page, but as soon you use Point Track, it's switching automatically?

That was also answered by Raptor here:

 

39 minutes ago, Nedum said:

I don't get the reason for this behavior, but I want to know what's the trick behind it.

You don't need to get the reason. They are replicating the real thing as best as they can.

 

If this weapon is too complicated for you I suggest using GBU-12, also very good for moving targets. And you can point track and research.

[RyanR]

On 3/13/2024 at 4:59 PM, Furiz said:

You don't need to get the reason. They are replicating the real thing as best as they can.

That's really the bottom line.

The different types of hand-off do make sense. Even with a good boresight, overlapping targets can be hard to discriminate for IR MAV's. I'm new to DCS and campaigns are teaching me how easy it is to blow up the wrong thing with the auto-hand-off.

I wish the AGM-65's had more "zoom". I've been spoiled by other F-16 "sims" in the past.

-Ryan

[_SteelFalcon_]

44 minutes ago, RyanR said:

Even with a good boresight, overlapping targets can be hard to discriminate for IR MAV's

True. The only really annoying part is the current behavior where the mav locks on street lamps instead of the tank driving next to it however. The lamps aren‘t even visible on the WPN page… and yet, the mav prefers them over the hot vehicle next to it.

Edited March 16, 2024 by _SteelFalcon_

[Dragon1-1]

This is realistic, both the switching to WPN page and locking onto random crap on the ground. While the contrast lock mechanism could perhaps be improved, in general it's rather easy to lock onto anything except your intended target. It was bad enough with EO seekers so that the term "tactical bush" came about to describe the missile deciding that a nearby bush looks more like a tank than the actual tank does. IR Mavs weren't completely free from that, either, but at least they'd track what you locked onto, for most part.

[RyanR]

There are definitely bugs here. I'm practicing weasel work. Ballparked an SA3 with the HAD, found it with the TGP, and marked it as a steerpoint. Made an attack with the WPN page in the opposite MFD. 

In on the SA3 on the deck, at 7nm, I popped up. TGP was SOI in point mode. TMS UP did not SOI to the WPN page. Why???

TMS up has always SOI'd the WPN page. I mean, this thread was created because of this behavior.

-Ryan

[Nedum]

On 3/21/2024 at 6:45 PM, RyanR said:

There are definitely bugs here. I'm practicing weasel work. Ballparked an SA3 with the HAD, found it with the TGP, and marked it as a steerpoint. Made an attack with the WPN page in the opposite MFD. 

In on the SA3 on the deck, at 7nm, I popped up. TGP was SOI in point mode. TMS UP did not SOI to the WPN page. Why???

TMS up has always SOI'd the WPN page. I mean, this thread was created because of this behavior.

-Ryan

I have the same problem, but only if it's a STPT made from a mark point.

Right now I have a hard time to make different STPT with mark points and stay at the newest ones. The system mostly switches back to the first one I've made, after I double return to get out of the mark point menu.

Since the latest MAV update, there are many issues I've never seen before. But perhaps that's the ugly RL behavior? I don't know, but hell yeah, all the Viper Pilots are some kind of magicians in my eyes if it comes to the MAVs. How do they manage all this ugly behavior?

[Gizmo03]

I've tried the F-16 today for the first time after this update. I was a bit confused and checked the forum - so i found this thread.
I can somehow understand why the TGP changes the SOI to the WPN page after pushing TMS up. In my opinion it is extremely annoying but if the real aircraft does it like this, the one in DCS should do it the same way - if it's good or not doesn't matter.
But i have one question - that's where i started to struggle. I like to use the TGP in SnowPlow mode when i'm far away from any Waypoints. Now how do i get out of the SP mode without changing the SOI if i want to engage a target with the Maverick?

Usually i just pressed TMS up to get a Point Track and then i slewed the TGP over the target. Now if i do so i just change the SOI. How do you guys do that?

Edited April 1, 2024 by Gizmo03

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, Gizmo03 said:

I've tried the F-16 today for the first time after this update. I was a bit confused and checked the forum - so i found this thread.
I can somehow understand why the TGP changes the SOI to the WPN page after pushing TMS up. In my opinion it is extremely annoying but if the real aircraft does it like this, the one in DCS should do it the same way - if it's good or not doesn't matter.
But i have one question - that's where i started to struggle. I like to use the TGP in SnowPlow mode when i'm far away from any Waypoints. Now how do i get out of the SP mode without changing the SOI if i want to engage a target with the Maverick?

Usually i just pressed TMS up to get a Point Track and then i slewed the TGP over the target. Now if i do so i just change the SOI. How do you guys do that?

 

You can switch back to TGP with DMS AFT or you can have HSD for example on second MFD so it wont change SOI.

[Gizmo03]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Furiz:

You can switch back to TGP with DMS AFT or you can have HSD for example on second MFD so it wont change SOI.

Yes i know. That's the way i did it - i just switched the SOI back to the TGP but i thought it is a bug because this behavour seems to me.... how to say.... not very smart.
It's a bit sad because the SP mode is the only mode which is at least a little bit like some sort of a boresight mode which i would like to have in the F-16 - like in the F-18, Harrier, the F-15E or the A-10C with the HMCS.
This way it's a bit like: "I will do that for you - and i don't care if you want me to do or not."
 

[RyanR]

It almost seems to me that it takes the Maverick longer to lock on a target with the the TGP handoff than it does with the the WPN page as SOI.

Thew other thing, is that no matter how well you boresight the missiles, you really need to have an eye on the WPN page to see when the MAV seeker can distinguish one target from another. 

-Ryan

 

[LastRifleRound]

It definitely doesn't work right, because you can trick the system into functioning properly by TMS up, DMS down to get TGP as SOI again, then use TMS right for all other designations. Only problem is if you slew in point track over something you don't want and linger too long it'll hand off every time you stop slewing, when it should really wait for another TMS up or right. This will force you to DMS back to WPN and TMS down to break the lock.

The way it most likely works in real life is TMS up once to point track and hand off. TMS up again will switch to WPN. Slewing in point track won't hand off until TMS right is used. Subsequent TMS up once in point track switch to WPN. That's how the other two modes work, how the real manual describes it, and makes the most sense. Preponderance of evidence is making this look alot like an FA18 ATFLIR offset cursor situation. 

[dimi]

I was busting my head today for two hours trying to figure out why TMS UP changes SOI to WPN. I am glad I found the thread. Mystery solved. Indeed, with this change, we cannot fire Mavericks like a machine gun but if this is how TGP and MAV works in real life... then we will take it and adapt. 

[RyanR]

1 hour ago, dimi said:

I was busting my head today for two hours trying to figure out why TMS UP changes SOI to WPN. I am glad I found the thread. Mystery solved. Indeed, with this change, we cannot fire Mavericks like a machine gun but if this is how TGP and MAV works in real life... then we will take it and adapt. 

You can sling a bunch of IR Mavericks off no problem. TMS right with the TGP as SOI and the auto handoff. Not the best practice, but with a good boresight.....

-Ryan

[LastRifleRound]

This is completely broken now. Automatic handoffs don't work at all as far as I can tell

[LR.Jpatty]

same,  auto is as if it is in manual mode.  no 'auto handoff in x' , no lock attempt,  soi switches to mav wpn screen and then you tms up MANUALLY

[RyanR]

I finally had a chance to see how broke the Maverick boresighting is. Boresighted MAV's are less boresighted than those not boresighted at all. Whoops....

I do see "Auto handoff to 7"... but who knows. Basically, I'd assume Mavericks to be unusable until we get an update or hotfix for the INS stuff. 

Meanwhile, I'm using the opportunity to practice other things (that I desperately need to work on!).

-Ryan

 

[Nedum]

I think we will not get any Hotfix or at least a fix very soon. All the issues where you have to acquire something seem heavily bound with the new INS stuff. The ground stabilization is totally off. Nothing stays at its desired place, all data seem to move. I believe, we have to wait a long time for a fix. If ED knew what's wrong, we have got some info like "internally fixed" or something like that, but this thread is still marked as "correct as is".

Edited April 26, 2024 by Nedum

[RyanR]

4 hours ago, Nedum said:

I think we will not get any Hotfix or at least a fix very soon. All the issues where you have to acquire something seem heavily bound with the new INS stuff. The ground stabilization is totally off. Nothing stays at its desired place, all data seem to move. I believe, we have to wait a long time for a fix. If ED knew what's wrong, we have got some info like "internally fixed" or something like that, but this thread is still marked as "correct as is".

 

 

This thread predates the INS work, and we've veered off topic, so the "correct as is" doesn't apply to the later messages here.

Fingers crossed a quick fix is forthcoming.

-Ryan

[Silver_]

I understand that in the development of a simulator all kinds of new bugs appear, it is natural.

 I don't understand that bugs from the past (ghosts of the past) come back and this frustrates me.  It makes me think as a customer that things are not being done in an orderly manner and that I am paying money, and not exactly cheap, and wasting my time.

 I understand that posts can be closed because the topic deviates and simply ends in an absurd discussion that does not lead to anything positive.

 I do not understand that the client is treated as if he were an idiot by saying that evidence is needed or asking for a video (of something that cannot be demonstrated on video) when the failure is evident and is proven with a simple test.

 I have been with the simulation since 1989 and I understand less, or perhaps, I don't understand at all.

Edited April 30, 2024 by Silver_

[LastRifleRound]

What I don't understand is not integration testing features. There will be a maverick update in the patch, and mavericks will be broken. I honestly can't understand how it makes it past testing or, if the testers know about it, why it doesn't get added to the patch notes, especially since there is no more separate beta version. You would think if you were pressed for time in testing, then you would at least test the things you know for sure were changed. If they do test it, you would think they'd put it in the patch notes so we don't waste our time and theirs reporting stuff they already know about and are working on.

[RyanR]

On 4/30/2024 at 1:06 PM, Silver_ said:

or asking for a video (of something that cannot be demonstrated on video) when the failure is evident and is proven with a simple test.

Of course, TRK files don't even work properly in DCS. Play a track 5 times, and you'll see 5 completely different scenarios..... which you can verify with TacView. Even the order of operations by the user isn't correct sometimes.

-Ryan

[rob10]

4 hours ago, RyanR said:

Of course, TRK files don't even work properly in DCS. Play a track 5 times, and you'll see 5 completely different scenarios..... which you can verify with TacView. Even the order of operations by the user isn't correct sometimes.

-Ryan

Realize that the devs have different tools that they can use on track files than average users which I assume gives them more useful information than a user might see.

And I get that people get annoyed with the request for a track file, but I've seen too many threads that have gone on for multiple pages with no track file provided where it turns out it was some simple thing that the OP was doing (so user error) that either the user never thought twice about the fact they were doing, or didn't report because they thought it should have no effect but was causing the issue.  Stuff that would have been obvious if they had just posted a track file.  Without a track file devs get to try a thousand things to repro something that might or might not be a bug.  Are track files perfect: no.  Are they helpful, yes.  A video might not show every button a user presses, a track file captures it.

[RyanR]

1 hour ago, rob10 said:

Realize that the devs have different tools that they can use on track files than average users which I assume gives them more useful information than a user might see.

And I get that people get annoyed with the request for a track file, but I've seen too many threads that have gone on for multiple pages with no track file provided where it turns out it was some simple thing that the OP was doing (so user error) that either the user never thought twice about the fact they were doing, or didn't report because they thought it should have no effect but was causing the issue.  Stuff that would have been obvious if they had just posted a track file.  Without a track file devs get to try a thousand things to repro something that might or might not be a bug.  Are track files perfect: no.  Are they helpful, yes.  A video might not show every button a user presses, a track file captures it.

 

All true..... but I've seen some weird tracks. In one example, I originally did a split-s, and fired a 9X at a bandit that got past us. In the track, the missile fired before the split-s.  And I have a TRK file of it! Sigh...

-Ryan

[rob10]

26 minutes ago, RyanR said:

All true..... but I've seen some weird tracks. In one example, I originally did a split-s, and fired a 9X at a bandit that got past us. In the track, the missile fired before the split-s.  And I have a TRK file of it! Sigh...

-Ryan

Yes, that's a limitation of track files because they were never designed to replicate exactly what happened: they were designed to record inputs for debugging purposes and became a fill in option for doing "replays".  ED improved their replayability in the last year, but since they are recreating (rather than replaying) what happened any slight randomness can change the result.  That's why you can get multiple different results from the same track and if something goes even slightly different in the early part (even if it's not noticeable) that can amplify and cause big changes later.  Since it records exactly what the inputs were is what lets the devs use it to debug.