cannot reproduce Boresighting Mavericks

[skywalker22]

38 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Wingman

 

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/

 

Hmm, excelent option, if there is any. I never thought about it. thx

[silverdevil]

i boresight on my own airfield. i take off and go to several miles away, circle back and boresight on something on the base. this fixes the issue of the desert being devoid of objects.

[mpaps]

There is a bug at the moment and GSBT (PRE) doesn't work though. Not sure how you are making it work?

 

[Lima29]

7 hours ago, mpaps said:

There is a bug at the moment and GSBT (PRE) doesn't work though. Not sure how you are making it work?

 

I’ve read from one or two people that’ve said it doesn’t work when the aircraft is moving, so they go into Active Pause and it works.

[Willie Nelson]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:34 PM, Lima29 said:

I’ve read from one or two people that’ve said it doesn’t work when the aircraft is moving, so they go into Active Pause and it works.

Can't do that in multiplayer, is that still a thing?

[drspankle]

It works very well on the ground in MP.  Remember you need Ground Jettison Enable to ON.  If you find a lighting vehicle or PAR truck at the far end of the airfield your mavs will boresight nicely.

9 hours ago, Willie Nelson said:

Can't do that in multiplayer, is that still a thing?

Dr Spankle

[buceador]

Reading around it seems that mavericks are not a particularly common loadout for the F-16, however I share the frustrations concerning boresighting.  Back in 2021 @ChillNG posted this snippet:

"For CAS in OIF, Mavs weren't mentioned, loadouts referred to were a mix of JDAM, WCMD and tanks + pod.  The 'slant load' is also described, this is TGP, then 2 tanks on inboard stations with 2 x GBU on a TER on each of the outboard stations (called slant load as the GBUs are positioned bottom and outboard on the TER so appear slanted - like on picture above)."

[Willie Nelson]

I do wish there was an option to simply skip the boresighting. I like realism but the time it takes to then often fail airborne......

[RyanR]

All of the Maverick threads seem to merge. The current problem (an actual problem) is not the same problem (me, user error) that started this thread.

Any word if we'll get a fix with the next update? Supposedly, that should be tomorrow, if the F-4E whining is anything to go by.

-Ryan

Edited May 22, 2024 by RyanR

[drspankle]

22 hours ago, buceador said:

Reading around it seems that mavericks are not a particularly common loadout for the F-16, however I share the frustrations concerning boresighting.  Back in 2021 @ChillNG posted this snippet:

"For CAS in OIF, Mavs weren't mentioned, loadouts referred to were a mix of JDAM, WCMD and tanks + pod.  The 'slant load' is also described, this is TGP, then 2 tanks on inboard stations with 2 x GBU on a TER on each of the outboard stations (called slant load as the GBUs are positioned bottom and outboard on the TER so appear slanted - like on picture above)."

This is getting off topic now (as usual).  The fact is ED have said they are going to fix the bore-sighting, and hopefully bring in an option to remove the need for those who would like that. We need to be patient and give them the time they need to get it right. 

Now, to address your post: The missions in the 4YA MP servers (which seem to be very popular) are not CAS but BAI or DAS, and Mavs/Hellfire/Brimstone are ideal weapons for this (as are GBUs depending on the targets).  I haven't found any genuine CAS on an MP server yet.  Unless you're working for a JTAC or friendly Troops In Contact, it's unlikely to be CAS you're carrying out.  Furthermore, I know of no examples of WCMD being used for CAS - you don't drop CBUs anywhere near FFs as the REDs are impossible to determine. 

Hope that helps,

Dr Spankle

[RyanR]

According to the release notes for today's update, we should have working in-flight Maverick boresighting now, as well as the option to auto-boresight. Gotta test it out.

-Ryan

[Northstar98]

27 minutes ago, RyanR said:

According to the release notes for today's update, we should have working in-flight Maverick boresighting now, as well as the option to auto-boresight. Gotta test it out.

-Ryan

BIGNEWY clarified that for the auto-boresight it was for the HMCS when starting hot/starting from the air.

Maverick boresighting works the same way - it's automatically done when air starting or starting hot, with Cold starts still requiring manual boresighting.

Personally, I think this is the best option - it retains the perfectly realistic limitations, but when time is limited (when you'd do a start hot or an air start), you've got the option to have it be done automatically (as with other items when starting hot or air starting).

[RyanR]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

BIGNEWY clarified that for the auto-boresight it was for the HMCS when starting hot/starting from the air.

Maverick boresighting works the same way - it's automatically done when air starting or starting hot, with Cold starts still requiring manual boresighting.

Personally, I think this is the best option - it retains the perfectly realistic limitations, but when time is limited (when you'd do a start hot or an air start), you've got the option to have it be done automatically (as with other items when starting hot or air starting).

 

Very strange. It's like the changelog.... changed..... in the last few hours. I swear it said there was an optional "auto" boresight, with the word "OPTION" next to it.

Now it simply says:"Added Maverick and HMCS Auto-Boresight, automatic for hot starts. Cold starts require manual boresight".

This latter is just fine. Aligning the HMCS is fun, quick, and interesting..... and it's one more thing you can do while the INS is finishing up. I got used to manual bore-sighting. Get it close on the ground, and then it's real quick in the air.

-Ryan

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, RyanR said:

Very strange. It's like the changelog.... changed..... in the last few hours. I swear it said there was an optional "auto" boresight, with the word "OPTION" next to it.

It was mentioned that it would change - quite odd and somewhat misleading, but hey, it's accurate to what's actually happened now.

[RyanR]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

It was mentioned that it would change - quite odd and somewhat misleading, but hey, it's accurate to what's actually happened now.

I just saw the other thread about the change in the changelog. I'm getting old, but I didn't think I was that old.

-Ryan

 

[Willie Nelson]

I’m glad they’ve set the auto boresight. Thanks ED

[RyanR]

 

Is this as good as it gets? Is it a WIP? Or am I doing something wrong? All/any of these answers are fine.

Here's a screen grab. Hot, in air, start. Toasty BTR80 as a targt. Mavericks should be "boresighted" automatically. This is what I'm seeing at 3nm after trying to auto-handoff continuously from 14nm out. Is this what you guys are seeing? As I close the distance, flying straight at it, the offset bewteen the WPN page and TGP gets worse.

The reason I ask is that I'm seeing the same problem/offset every time I do the boresight process myself. It's easy enough the SOI the WPN page and nudge the crosshairs over and lock it up. I've noticed this as a problem ever since the INS work popped up.

Thanks,

-Ryan

 

[Moonshine]

please uninstall mods (even the yellow MFD one) and submit a track, not just a screenshot so people can try and reproduce it.

in the past, mods (even cosmetic ones) did cause some things to break. dont ask me why, spaghetti code i assume. just to be sure, best to run a clean game and submit a track on every bug report unless you want endless "missing trackfile" or "unable to reproduce" tags on your reports 

Edited June 10, 2024 by Moonshine
typo

[RyanR]

3 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

please uninstall mods (even the yellow MFD one) and submit a track, not just a screenshot so people can try and reproduce it.

in the past, mods (even cosmetic ones) did cause some things to break. dont ask me why, spaghetti code i assume. just to be sure, best to run a clean game and submit a track on every bug report unless you want endless "missing trackfile" or "unable to reproduce" tags on your reports 

 

 

Agreed. I figured the yellow MFD mod would raise some eyebrows. I've had this issue long before trying the yellow MFD mod.  If no one else is seeing what I'm seeing, then a reinstall/repair may be on my list. This isn't a bug report, but rather me asking if anyone else is seeing this "phenomenon".

-Ryan

[RyanR]

Track attached....

maverick_TGP-offsett.trk

F-16 uninstalled, all files deleted, then F-16 reinstalled for the above track. The yellow MFD mod was the only mod I ever used, and I deleted all traces of it. Same result, unfortunately. After this screen grab, I SOI'd the WPN page, slewed the crosshairs over, instantly locked up the target, and blew it up. The discrepency between the TGP and WPN pages is enough that auto-handoff never works.

-Ryan

 

Edited June 10, 2024 by RyanR

[RyanR]

To reiterate, all of the following situations are fine:

-It's broke. By definition, the Viper is a WIP, and that is totally understandable. I'll live.

-It's how it's supposed to be. That these sensors work as well as they do boggles my mind. Technology is incredible and never perfect.

-I'm doing something wrong. I will not debate that I am an idiot. In fact, I would debate if someone claimed I'm *not* an idiot.

I'm just fishing for some sanity. Are others seeing what I'm seeing?

-Ryan

Edited June 10, 2024 by RyanR

[RyanR]

 

 

OK. I tried making a new simple mission in the Caucus map. Everything works perfectly. As advertised.

Track attached.

What could have caused trouble with the NTTR map?

-Ryan

Works in Caucus.trk

[Dragon1-1]

Ambient temperature, perhaps? NTTR is fairly hot, while Caucasus is more temperate. There might be less contrast in NTTR.