The time vs result on INS/GPS feature update.

[Rosly]

Hey,

Hi, electronic engineer here and some rant I put a lot of admiration to effort given to details of any engineering modelling of aircraft systems. I generally enjoy such details as those are basically aligned with my field of interest and profession.

Though, the recent announcement about INS/GPS feature improvements made me start thinking "is this even make a sense".

1) Who wait for this? I do not recall wide discussion about urgent need for this feature. We already have basic implementation of dead reckoning. Why to spend more time if more wanted features are in queue?

2) How we can use it?

I do not recall any API which allows to influence on GPS precision. We do not even have damage models for this, nor we can trigger GPS precision degradation from mission scripts to simulate some nice scenarios (like in recent battle fields).

The only way to degrade GPS is to switch the date before 1991 (or something like that I do jot recall exact date coded into DCS).

3) How many of us will ise it?

No one will use those INS features as in most servers we have GPS. As long as you have GPS the total error is below a couple of meters. This is a measurement error. It does not matter for plane navigation as this error does not accumulate! While GPS is functional.

4) Should ED spend time on more wanted features?

You tell me?
- heat seeking missiles see through clouds and mist (same AI units without radar like WWII or Cold War)

- TGP is jumping like a rabbit when.l tracking AA targets (no inertia simulation for camera head) to the point you cannot distinguish the siluete.

- no pilot body

- damage model is a joke  

Yeah I get it the idea about simulation details and I will probably enjoy this details os few cold war missions. Though comparing the development velocity for ED and some third party vendors, and also level of perfection and details to core features, makes me very bad emotions. I'm waiting for major bug fixes mentioned above but instead I get more detailed feature almost noone will notice on daily basis.

The only way to make sense of having those improvements wouldn't be model of electronic warfare or at least dumb API to define zone with degraded GPS precision.

Edited April 8, 2024 by Rosly

[Tholozor]

The long-and-short of it is: because that's how it works, and it sets the precedent that other ED modules should follow a similar level of quality/simulation. Primarily, the Hornet has been in development far longer, and yet its INS/GPS is not as detailed as this yet, having been plagued with middling problems (for quite some time) literally requiring the use of GPS and other workarounds for it to be combat-effective.

[IMGX]

Because ED will need it for its military contracts.  The gaming community really doesn't need it.  There are other priorities such as the excellent aiming of the AI capable of taking you down with a slingshot, or a dynamic campaign that works and allows you to use all the maps...