boresight at 3 to 5 - not 7 Boresighting Mavericks at 7nm

[LastRifleRound]

Also, you guys aren't understanding what he's saying. All these explanations on why handoff works the way it does, does not explain why the behavior changes within 6nm.

You're using forum truisms like "hardly ever used" and "not that accurate" when this user is showing you inconsistencies within the sims own internal logic.

If the tracking gate is too large at 7nm because there's two targets in it, why is this not also true at 6nm when there are still two targets in it?

What does auto handoff (read, not maverick information in general which is not useful in this context) do that a manual hand off does not? Is the auto handoff and waiting period literally just to save an extra TMS up? Seems unlikely.

Edited July 8, 2024 by LastRifleRound

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb LastRifleRound:

Also, you guys aren't understanding what he's saying. All these explanations on why handoff works the way it does, does not explain why the behavior changes within 6nm.

You're using forum truisms like "hardly ever used" and "not that accurate" when this user is showing you inconsistencies within the sims own internal logic.

If the tracking gate is too large at 7nm because there's two targets in it, why is this not also true at 6nm when there are still two targets in it?

 

 

This is because the closer you get, the smaller the area in which the tracking gate can lock on false targets.

 

Zitat

does not explain why the behavior changes within 6nm.
If the tracking gate is too large at 7nm because there's two targets in it, why is this not also true at 6nm when there are still two targets in it?

this is because the behavior does not change, if units are very close to each other it can still happen that the seeker jumps around between the units that are close to the tracking gate, here in the example it is under 6nm and the seeker jumps around.

 

Zitat

What does auto handoff (read, not maverick information in general which is not useful in this context) do that a manual hand off does not? Is the auto handoff and waiting period literally just to save an extra TMS up? Seems unlikely.

When I attack a Farp I want to kill all AAA/SAM units first, with the TGP the detection and identification is very fast and if I have the right unit, I can hand it over at the same time.

 

it should also be said that in DCS you can currently only lock targets up to max 9nm with the Maverick D, the documentation shows that it is even possible to Lock at 20nm! at this distance you can only see a small IR dot with the Maverick search head and can no longer see anything and this is exactly where the TGP and the Handoff come into play.

Edited July 8, 2024 by Hobel

[LastRifleRound]

28 minutes ago, Hobel said:

This is because the closer you get, the smaller the area in which the tracking gate can lock on false targets.

 

this is because the behavior does not change, if units are very close to each other it can still happen that the seeker jumps around between the units that are close to the tracking gate, here in the example it is under 6nm and the seeker jumps around.

 

When I attack a Farp I want to kill all AAA/SAM units first, with the TGP the detection and identification is very fast and if I have the right unit, I can hand it over at the same time.

 

it should also be said that in DCS you can currently only lock targets up to max 9nm with the Maverick D, the documentation shows that it is even possible to Lock at 20nm! at this distance you can only see a small IR dot with the Maverick search head and can no longer see anything and this is exactly where the TGP and the Handoff come into play.

 

It seems like you are saying you believe the only difference between a manual handoff and an automatic one is you may be able to press one less TMS up.

[Hobel]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb LastRifleRound:

It seems like you are saying you believe the only difference between a manual handoff and an automatic one is you may be able to press one less TMS up.

As I have already said.
you can recognize units much better, you can make better fine adjustments with the TGP and you can Lock directly to the right target and transfer everything with the handoff.

Try this in the video without switching back to the SOI TGP and hit the right targets.
I simply save time here before I constantly switch between WPN and TGP with the SOI.
 

 

[LastRifleRound]

You seem to be confusing a manual handoff with slewing a maverick around with no pre-targeting with a TGP at all.

There is no functional difference in DCS between what you did and using manual handoff and then pressing TMS up until it works.

[Hobel]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb LastRifleRound:

 

There is no functional difference in DCS between what you did and using manual handoff and then pressing TMS up until it works.

what do you mean?
I posted a video that shows exactly the opposite...

here the same again only with manual handoff , the procedure takes much longer and I have to switch back to the TGP SOI for each new destination<

 

MAN:  2x TMS UP + 1 DMS down
vs
AUTO: 1 TMS UP

 

Edited July 8, 2024 by Hobel

[LastRifleRound]

That's because manual handoff is bugged. The initial engagement was just as speedy. And the second wasn't that much slower. 2 updates ago after launch the next missile would be at SPI and the TGP would be SOI again. This changed in the same update that broke auto handoff completely. Auto handoff was fixed in the next patch but many other things were not.

VIS is also bugged in that at times the SPI is lost entirely and at minimum TMS down is necessary to cue the next missile. 

The bottom line is there was another layer of processing going on with auto handoffs (hence "auto handoff in progess") that does not happen in DCS. There is no difference in maverick target selection between an auto handoff and just switching SOI to WPN and hitting TMS up.

Edited July 8, 2024 by LastRifleRound

[Hobel]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb LastRifleRound:

That's because manual handoff is bugged. The initial engagement was just as speedy. And the second wasn't that much slower. 2 updates ago after launch the next missile would be at SPI and the TGP would be SOI again. This changed in the same update that broke auto handoff completely. Auto handoff was fixed in the next patch but many other things were not.

VIS is also bugged in that at times the SPI is lost entirely and at minimum TMS down is necessary to cue the next missile. 

The bottom line is there was another layer of processing going on with auto handoffs (hence "auto handoff in progess") that does not happen in DCS. There is no difference in maverick target selection between an auto handoff and just switching SOI to WPN and hitting TMS up.

I agree with you about the bugs, but when WPN SOI and the Maverick is fired, I have to do the SOI back to TGP which is another work step I still save and I demonstrated that in the video.
with Auto Handoff I DON'T HAVE to do a DMS down for another shot and can immediately search for new targets and lock them.

if you don't see the advantage in this, everyone should play the way they like it.

[LastRifleRound]

23 minutes ago, Hobel said:

I agree with you about the bugs, but when WPN SOI and the Maverick is fired, I have to do the SOI back to TGP which is another work step I still save and I demonstrated that in the video.
with Auto Handoff I DON'T HAVE to do a DMS down for another shot and can immediately search for new targets and lock them.

if you don't see the advantage in this, everyone should play the way they like it.

You're not addressing my argument. I'm not arguing that no one should use auto handoffs. I'm arguing that auto handoffs in DCS, unlike in real life, are just automated TMS up in WPN, so those who are seeing odd behaviors and not sure why someone would go through the trouble of making such a feature can know the system in DCS is greatly simplified and not representative of the actual advantages the system may have had.

It seems silly in the same way offset Hornet cursors seem silly. That some people found ways they made such a feature useful in DCS does not mean they are implemented correctly and it does not mean the feature will make any sense beyond the backwards rationalizations people propose for it. 

If you find it useful, great. But this thread started from someone wondering why lock precision isn't enhanced even slightly with an auto handoff vs TMS up in the weapon page, and the answer is that the feature isn't really implemented beyond saving you a button press.

[LastRifleRound]

You know what? I have to take back what I said. I hadn't used MAN in a few flights. AUTO handoff is much, much better on average run-to-run than going to MAN, particularly on moving targets. You were right @Hobel

The difference is subtle, but I decided to test on a grouping of 4 close APC's over 15 iterations, and the results with auto handoff were consistently superior until about 5-4nm.

You're not going to notice it until you test a bunch, and use a hot start jet to eliminate an additional variable with boresighting.

Edited July 8, 2024 by LastRifleRound

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb LastRifleRound:

You're not addressing my argument. I'm not arguing that no one should use auto handoffs. I'm arguing that auto handoffs in DCS, unlike in real life, are just automated TMS up in WPN, so those who are seeing odd behaviors and not sure why someone would go through the trouble of making such a feature can know the system in DCS is greatly simplified and not representative of the actual advantages the system may have had.

Okay?   What do you expect the actual function to look like?   It's basically the same as irl, tgp is soi, you point the tgp at a target and press TMS UP, then a handoff is given to wpn and the maverick tries to lock the target.   And that's how it is in dcs.  

vor 2 Stunden schrieb LastRifleRound:

seems silly in the same way offset Hornet cursors seem silly. That some people found ways they made such a feature useful in DCS does not mean they are implemented correctly and it does not mean the feature will make any sense beyond the backwards rationalizations people propose for it. 

What is not implemented correctly, the general process is exactly as described in the irl documents for the f16.

 

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb LastRifleRound:

If you find it useful, great. But this thread started from someone wondering why lock precision isn't enhanced even slightly with an auto handoff vs TMS up in the weapon page, and the answer is that the feature isn't really implemented beyond saving you a button press.

TMS up handoff and TMS up on the wpn have the same precision in the end if done correctly, I have also linked a video how it works.

 and especially with units that are close to each other at a great distance, problems can arise, why has already been explained.  

vor 19 Minuten schrieb LastRifleRound:

You know what? I have to take back what I said. I hadn't used MAN in a few flights. AUTO handoff is much, much better on average run-to-run than going to MAN, particularly on moving targets. You were right @Hobel

The difference is subtle, but I decided to test on a grouping of 4 close APC's over 15 iterations, and the results with auto handoff were consistently superior until about 5-4nm.

You're not going to notice it until you test a bunch, and use a hot start jet to eliminate an additional variable with boresighting.

 

Oh hum, okay nice.

[sze5003]

On 7/1/2024 at 7:47 AM, Hyperlynx said:

Actually, I was starting to come to the conclusion that mavs are only any good for picking off tanks out in the open. This thread was to see if I was missing something

The actual scenario is some of the Wild Weasels SEAD campaign missions, where they keep giving me two AGM-65Ds and two JDAMs/LGBUs. The bombs are just fine, but I'm having a  hell of a time accurately picking off AAA or a Gecko or whatever that's been parked next to a building.

I thought maybe the solution is "yes, you need to boresight the missiles, then you can accurately pick out the target with the TGP and do a handoff". The bus scenario was just to test that out. The distances are pretty similar to the Gecko being parked next to a building. The conclusion I was coming to was that yeah, Mavs really aren't suited for this sort of thing, and the TGP isn't going to help much.

In the context of the SEAD campaign, I'm thinking only try to use the Mavericks on things I can clearly identify, and for cleaning up TELs after the radars are destroyed, and to use guided bombs for everything else.

e: I wish we got the laser guided mavs, (ersatz Hellfires?) because they'd probably work a lot better. Or, even better, APKWS

 

I’m currently stuck in the Weasels campaign on mission 3 trying to use Mavs. What did you to do achieve a better lock? For me the auto hand off only worked in the tutorial missions and never seems to happen if I set point track on an SA-8 with TGP and then try to hand off when Mav is in PRE and TGP is on Auto. 

[Hobel]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb sze5003:

I’m currently stuck in the Weasels campaign on mission 3 trying to use Mavs. What did you to do achieve a better lock? For me the auto hand off only worked in the tutorial missions and never seems to happen if I set point track on an SA-8 with TGP and then try to hand off when Mav is in PRE and TGP is on Auto. 

what kind of distances are we talking about here?

[sze5003]

2 hours ago, Hobel said:

what kind of distances are we talking about here?

I’m about to fly the mission once more in a few minutes but I’m going to say it was between 8-10 miles. I’m able to lock up the SA-8 on the targeting pod well before that distance. But it’s super hard to see on the WPN screen when trying to boresight (specifically in VR).  I will probably use the GBU-38’s instead on the first target and try the Mavericks on subsequent targets. I’ll save the track if I fail again which I probably will  but I like the practice.

[Nedum]

On 7/8/2024 at 6:19 AM, Hobel said:

what do you mean?
I posted a video that shows exactly the opposite...

here the same again only with manual handoff , the procedure takes much longer and I have to switch back to the TGP SOI for each new destination<

 

MAN:  2x TMS UP + 1 DMS down
vs
AUTO: 1 TMS UP

 

 

Please try that again at level flight and with overlapping targets (behind and not in a row in front of you).

Could it be, that you pick the ideal solution to show that it works? War will never give you "the" ideal position.

The "trick" is, that this should work even in a horizontal flight and at the min release height.

All your Vids are from a high position (20.000 feet) and a deep dive angle. What, if you have to stay low?

With such an attack run I can easily do the same as you, but that's not the problem.

Fly horizontal at 5000 feet, and try to do the same in the Sinai Weapon Practice Mission.

[Hobel]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb Nedum:

Please try that again at level flight and with overlapping targets (behind and not in a row in front of you).

Could it be, that you pick the ideal solution to show that it works? War will never give you "the" ideal position.

The "trick" is, that this should work even in a horizontal flight and at the min release height.

All your Vids are from a high position (20.000 feet) and a deep dive angle. What, if you have to stay low?

With such an attack run I can easily do the same as you, but that's not the problem.

Fly horizontal at 5000 feet, and try to do the same in the Sinai Weapon Practice Mission.

what you are describing should also lead to problems with the real Maverick, I have now shown several times to what extent tracking works in certain aspects in DCS and everything stands and falls with the >>tracking gate<< if there are several targets in this, which tends to happen at long distances, problems arise.

This is likely to be even more dramatic irl than in DCS.

 

 

I even took the situation of a user here and showed him that it works using his own mission

 

 

Such situations are quite rare and if you avoid firing like this, what I am showing here would be much more difficult irl.
 

 

 

[Nedum]

On 6/30/2024 at 10:13 PM, Hobel said:

 

 

100feet or even 30m is not much at all - this is what it looks like for the IR seeker at 8nm

3 targets are in the tracking gate so it is not surprising that the wrong one may be locked, if this happens press (TGP SOI) TMS UP or right to start a relock until the correct target is selected. the Handoff and IR Maverick are very cool tools but targets that are close together can cause problems which is not uncommon.
other aircraft have the same problem

 

public document

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA361645.pdf



page 136

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/29/2001329786/-1/-1/0/AFD-100929-043.pdf
 

what exactly has changed? on other aircraft the D Maverick behaves in the same way as on the F16
the logic in the F16 makes it the easiest overall

 

5000 feet or lower? Hm? You use active pause, and no target is overlapping. And on top, you see clearly the real locked target (closed cross) was the wrong one. You never got the preplanned target locked with a closed cross. That's exactly we are talking about. In that time you did all the tweaking, you would have closed in 3 more miles. Try this with 4 MAVs preplanned. You understand the problem?

Why you are still fighting for a thing, that's obviously broken?

As soon as you try to lock the target (short TMS up) the MAV will lock any target but for sure not the one you want to lock if there is any kind of target more yummy for the MAV. Mostly the one that is more near into the direction to the MAVs sensor. The distances in between the Targets doesn't really matter, as long there is one more interesting target closer to the MAVs sensor.

All you showed is the issue we are talking about.

And on top of that all, at a certain distance, the ground stabilization of the MAV isn't working anymore. I don't know, is it the angle of the MAVs sensor or the TGP shared Info.

I can manually still correct the MAV, but the ground stabilization is gone at round about 4 miles.

Not the sensors nor the ATG weapons working like they should.

Currently, the F16 is totally broken if you try to use the weapons and sensors like you have to do in one of the campaigns.

Try rippling any type of bomb. Completely off. It doesn't work in any kind of way. No matter what type of ATG weapon, one is using.

CCIP, CCRP with rippling = broken. FCR is totally broken, even without using Datalink. With Datalink on, is completely off. Every type of preplanned bombing is off. HARM/HTS is off. MAVs are broken. Dog Fight Mode breaks the preselected radar mode, as soon you switch to another system or mode.

With Datalink on, you get blinded and fooled from your "friends". You are unable to see what targets are system targets anymore, and you are unable to make them all to system targets with a single button press. And your Friends are switching from "Hello Friend, here I am", to "No, not now. I will play hide and seek with you. Now I am unknown, now I am your Friend." Playing games on a war field.  Some kind of special USAF-Humor?

Even with Datalink all off, I am unable to make two tracked targets in the extended view with one click to system targets. My Radar clearly sees two different Targets, but I have manually to fiddle 10 seconds and more to make the second one to a system target, because the target cursor tries to snap !!!!!!always!!!!! to the target that is already a system target. What a "funny" minigame for the Pilot. If that is RL behavior, who ever said the system-devs of the F16 have no humor? So many "funny" mini-games for the pilot to play with. It's so funny playing games during a fight. Haha, haha, ha.... no!

Hey, give me a number for the rippling distance. Doesn't matter... no matter what, they will fly to the Moon..... so much fun! Yeah. *funny dance*

Preplanned bombing. Why planning it, bro? Doesn't work at all. Again, party time *whoop, whoop*

So much fun........ No, not really!

What kind of weapon or sensor system of the F16 is working like it should 100 %? The Gun, I guess? All other weapon or sensor systems have issues. Some small, some big. But all have issues.

Fixes?

If we were "lucky" to get a "fix", we've gotten at minimum two more bugs on top of that. So the issue count for the F16 is raising and raising with every new patch. And to make it "funny" again, most of these bugs inflicting other systems.

Any ETA for any real fix?

Not a single word!

But, hey, we have a new Helicopter. Be happy. Yeahhhh...... no!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Nedum

[Hobel]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nedum:

5000 feet or lower? Hm? You use active pause

below 4500 feet and active pause was not on both can be seen in the video
ah you reacted to another video

and also here I have said a few times why this happens

100feet or even 30m is not much at all - this is what it looks like for the IR seeker at 8nm
3 targets are in the tracking gate so it is not surprising that the wrong one may be locked
and i need a second attempt in this case, even if there was no active pause in the example, that would still be okay.

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nedum:

And on top, you see clearly the real locked target (closed cross) was the wrong one. You never got the preplanned target locked with a closed cross.

 

Zitat

As soon as you try to lock the target (short TMS up) the MAV will lock any target but for sure not the one you want to lock if there is any kind of target more yummy for the MAV. Mostly the one that is more near into the direction to the MAVs sensor. The distances in between the Targets doesn't really matter, as long there is one more interesting target closer to the MAVs senso

 and I have now said several times why this is the case, if there are several targets in the tracking gate, it is almost random which target you lock.  That's why I also need several attempts, which is completely normal.
targets that are close to each other are a problem for the Maverick seeker, especially if they overlap
Irl the Maverick would have even more problems with targets that are so close together.

here, as can be seen in the video, all targets are in the gate, how is the seeker supposed to know which one to lock if there are 3 or more
IR signatures in the gate?

If you have a problem with the Maverick in a certain situation then upload a track and we can talk about it.
because so far you have not posted a single track of the problem so that we can see your view...

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nedum:

And on top of that all, at a certain distance, the ground stabilization of the MAV isn't working anymore. I don't know, is it the angle of the MAVs sensor or the TGP shared Info.

I can manually still correct the MAV, but the ground stabilization is gone at round about 4 miles.

Track? i don't have the problem

 

 

 

and for the other things you can create bug reports and attach a track if something doesn't work, we don't have to discuss it here

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Hobel

[Hyperlynx]

On 8/9/2024 at 10:26 PM, sze5003 said:

I’m currently stuck in the Weasels campaign on mission 3 trying to use Mavs. What did you to do achieve a better lock? For me the auto hand off only worked in the tutorial missions and never seems to happen if I set point track on an SA-8 with TGP and then try to hand off when Mav is in PRE and TGP is on Auto. 

I took the Mavericks off the jet, and replaced them with 500-poundd LGBUs. I lost patience trying to get Mavericks to stop being garbage.

Edited September 1, 2024 by Hyperlynx

[PawlaczGMD]

As per the title. This makes handoff impossible.

I will try to make a track, but it doesn't happen instantly, only after some time in flight they desync - might be related to INS drift??

[SpecterDC13]

I just posted these. Check these out. I bet you are having just a problem with how they work. Obviously watch part 1 first.

Edited October 20, 2024 by SpecterDC13

[PawlaczGMD]

7 hours ago, SpecterDC13 said:

I just posted these. Check these out. I bet you are having just a problem with how they work. Obviously watch part 1 first.

 

Ok, thanks - but your video shows that the way to correct the steering error is to just manually realign the mav with TGP. If I could easily do that, I would just not use the TGP and use the MAV in VIS mode. Is there a simple way to just realign the TGP and MAV perfectly? I want to designate with TGP and auto handoff, which is the point of carrying the TGP. Ideally I don't want to touch the mav display directly at all. 

[SpecterDC13]

3 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Ok, thanks - but your video shows that the way to correct the steering error is to just manually realign the mav with TGP. If I could easily do that, I would just not use the TGP and use the MAV in VIS mode. Is there a simple way to just realign the TGP and MAV perfectly? I want to designate with TGP and auto handoff, which is the point of carrying the TGP. Ideally I don't want to touch the mav display directly at all. 

Unfortunately that is just the way it works. Do it right the first time and it wont be messed up.  Avoid maneuvering while the 65 video is up as well as that will cause some issues too.

 

Also, if you are doing a Hot start or Air start there is no reason to do a boresight unless you really have to. 

 

You can also just go back to the TGP as SOI and TMS UP again on the target to update the SPI info to the missile. 

[PawlaczGMD]

@BIGNEWY was this entry in the F-16 update log: 

• Fixed. Maverick Boresight using an aircraft causes drifts/offset.

supposed to fix the issue in this thread? Because it didn't. Maverick in pre mode is still offset up to hundreds of feet from where the TGP is pointing.

[Carbon715]

On 12/7/2024 at 6:02 PM, PawlaczGMD said:

@BIGNEWY was this entry in the F-16 update log: 

• Fixed. Maverick Boresight using an aircraft causes drifts/offset.

supposed to fix the issue in this thread? Because it didn't. Maverick in pre mode is still offset up to hundreds of feet from where the TGP is pointing.

Yeah, air boresight still offsets. It's a shame. Anything moving that's being Boresight on causes a delta from the point of TMS up on TGP to track to hitting bsgt after Mav lock. Static objects are fine.