INS Alignment implementation

I can understand that a eight minute alignment time may be off-putting to some but I really don't think we should start reducing it arbitrarily either. This is the kind of thing that may work well for the multiplayer crowd and I fully understand that, but in the end, if we start (as the community and not developers) picking and choosing what realistic elements we want and what we don't, we start setting a pattern where the players with the loudest voices on forums start setting up the baseline level of realism that EVERYONE will get.

There have been many games that started with a eye towards realism only to go the entirely opposite way due to pressure from PVP/competitive centric players.

Please note, I have no issues at all with a server enforceable option to reduce alignment times, this would allow the action packed dogfight centric servers to have their quick alignments while more realism focused servers can keep everything consistent (instead of having some players using a 2 minute option and others using a 8 minute option).

I will personally stick with the realistic alignment times, I have no problem with waiting since if gives me a chance to go over all the mission info and make sure I have everything laid out for those flying with me.

You do realize the Ka-50's alignment time is 3 minutes in game and 30 minutes (or so I've heard) in the real thing right? Shortening the Mirage's isn't setting a new precedent. I think the alignment time should be represented, but I don't think wasting 8 minutes of everyone's time at the start of every single mission (especially MP where there isn't any time acceleration) is appropriate. There should be an acknowledgment of INS alignment's existence (like in the Ka-50 and A-10C) but nothing more.

You do realize the Ka-50's alignment time is 3 minutes in game and 30 minutes (or so I've heard) in the real thing right? Shortening the Mirage's isn't setting a new precedent. I think the alignment time should be represented, but I don't think wasting 8 minutes of everyone's time at the start of every single mission (especially MP where there isn't any time acceleration) is appropriate. There should be an acknowledgment of INS alignment's existence (like in the Ka-50 and A-10C) but nothing more.

Well, as I said, I have nothing against server enforced options since this seems more like a multiplayer/PVP concern than a single player/co-op one. If it bothers you to wait the eight minutes, there should be a option you can enable to shorten it to your taste while not encroaching on the experience of those who do want the full alignment time.

You do realize the Ka-50's alignment time is 3 minutes in game and 30 minutes (or so I've heard) in the real thing right? Shortening the Mirage's isn't setting a new precedent. I think the alignment time should be represented, but I don't think wasting 8 minutes of everyone's time at the start of every single mission (especially MP where there isn't any time acceleration) is appropriate. There should be an acknowledgment of INS alignment's existence (like in the Ka-50 and A-10C) but nothing more.

Think of it as a balancing consideration.

Also, the FC3 aircraft don't count as they're from the arcade days, the KA-50 was one of the first modules made, and the A-10C has the full align time. There's not really a precedent in favor of either way since this is the third aircraft in DCS to actually have a functioning INS system.

Besides, an 8min align is pretty good for 1980s tech, about the same for early Vipers...

What if it were settable per-unit in the mission editor, e.g., "Takeoff from parking aligned"?

It wouldn't be the same and I'd rather enter the cockpit fully cold, but just a thought :)

You must really hate the idea of people using the Mirage in MP.

No, what makes you think that? The opposite is true. I play DCS almost exclusively MP and I'm quite happy that I can do that with the Mirage 2000 now. Apart from my general opinion to keep stuff as realistic as possible I'm strongly against an optional setting for the M2000 to decrease alignment time if it can't be enforced by the server, because that would be like cheating, since it gives some pilots unfair advantages.

They can do it with every other plane in DCS in MP except the A-10C (which takes 4 minutes to start anyways), so might as well keep it consistent. And I fail to understand what exactly is being simulated by having the player go make a snack while the INS aligns. It's just wasting the player's time imho. And it isn't realistic either as that's what the ground crew is there for. If you want to sit there for 7-8 minutes doing nothing every time you start it up, then there is nothing stopping you. But I have little interest in sitting around all day not playing the game because some guy on the internet decided that slapping an arbitrary 8 minute timer on the startup procedure was a good idea. I want a Mirage 2000 flight sim, not a Mirage 2000 INS alignment sim.

That's what Hot Start is for.

I do not have the m2k, but 4 min aligning doesn't sound long at all.

Get in plane, turn on batteries, start alignment, start the engine, admire the view.. And let's go!

8 min does sound kinda long, but can someone tell me how long it could take and how big the chance is that INS goes inaccurate?

I'm also cursious where those 8 min came from?

8 minutes alignment or not doesnt matter in MP. Usually there is no flight plan programmed and no waypoints in MP with rare exceptions. The INS is not needed and you dont have to wait for its allignment. If you worry about RTB, you can use TACAN.

8 minutes alignment or not doesnt matter in MP. Usually there is no flight plan programmed and no waypoints in MP with rare exceptions. The INS is not needed and you dont have to wait for its allignment. If you worry about RTB, you can use TACAN.

Then you definately prefer a different kind of MP than I do. I prefer realistic missions with flight plans in MP as well, so I do need INS. I'm not a fan of those "Here is every type of aircraft for you to choose, so just pick one and go kill the enemy no matter what"-kind of missions (104th for example, although even they have flight plans for the strikers at least).

Then you definately prefer a different kind of MP than I do. I prefer realistic missions with flight plans in MP as well, so I do need INS.

It's my observation (and disappointment) of the servers I have seen.

It's my observation (and disappointment) of the servers I have seen.

I have to agree with that. It still puzzles me how most MP missions are very arcady and totally unrealistic and would fit better in HAWX than in DCS, while the game itself and most of the community are about realism.

But that's not the topic here I guess.

I'm also cursious where those 8 min came from?

From Mirage 2000C RDM manual...

8 minutes alignment or not doesnt matter in MP. Usually there is no flight plan programmed and no waypoints in MP with rare exceptions. The INS is not needed and you dont have to wait for its allignment. If you worry about RTB, you can use TACAN.

INS is also used for aircraft attitude: horizon, pitch ladder and so on...

Where is the issue with "hot start" clients?

I know the Ka-50 is an example given for balancing, but if it is the goal to achieve realisitc procedures and to simulate systems, there should be the simulated basis for the simulation mode. And in my opinion, there should be at least the option to have Ka-50 INS alignment simulated (but this might not be possible due to classified data, since I could not find anything official concerning the alignement time for the Ka-50 INS, when I looked that up a few years ago).

You can still change the setting to game mode or just set the client to hot start, so I don´t understand the problem and there should be no lowering of the simulation approach, just because some cannot find a way to change mission or game settings.

INS is also used for aircraft attitude: horizon, pitch ladder and so on...

As far as I understand it, you can use the SEC mode for that. It only provides gyroscopic information, but not nav data, so it doesn't need alignment. Is that correct?

Yes, there is SEC mode.

But globally, you guys are astonishing. You want the system to be modeled to the smallest detail when it's about radar, ECM and so on, but you don't want to align INS which is the aircraft's brain ! :(

Yes, there is SEC mode.

 

But globally, you guys are astonishing. You want the system to be modeled to the smallest detail when it's about radar, ECM and so on, but you don't want to align INS which is the aircraft's brain ! :(

Yeah, that's indeed not really comprehensible.

you cant satisfy everyone but DCS is axed about realism. If the alignment requires 8 minutes then let it be.

^Exactly.

Yeah, that's indeed not really comprehensible.

I find this request perfectly comprehensible (in the end I wouldn't mind it to be implemented).

Ground INS alignment time doesn't bring anything to the enjoyement of the simulated systems.

Having radar, ECM with detailed, real simulation IS bringing something.

Here's an example: I would be OK to reduce the time needed to align the INS on the ground, BUT not OK to cut the time required to align the INS in flight (if it is ever available/possible, I just use it as an example), because with the latter you are actually doing something (i.e. flying the aircraft in a precise way to allow in flight alignment).

You can call that "training value" (this term might sound familiar).

Yes, there is SEC mode.

 

But globally, you guys are astonishing. You want the system to be modeled to the smallest detail when it's about radar, ECM and so on, but you don't want to align INS which is the aircraft's brain ! :(

There is a big difference between having realistic interactions with a system and simply hitting the power button and waiting 8 minutes. One is an interactive process, the other is a stop watch. So as said, it should be an option in the misc or special tabs. I'm for options, it's some of you who seem to want to take them away for whatever reason. And I do have to wonder just how much spare time some of you have that you're willing to spend a minimum of 20% of your flight sim time just sitting around waiting for the INS to align. And it isn't like you're doing other things while waiting, the rest of the Mirage takes under 30 seconds to start up. The mission briefing bit is valid maybe the first or second time you play a given mission, but the missions are all hand made so we end up playing them over and over. That briefing is rather meaningless on the 30th play of that mission.:smilewink:

So I guess you guys also don't want the radar warm-up to be implemented?

So I guess you guys also don't want the radar warm-up to be implemented?

Nah we can keep this one ;)

If you forget it in your startup procedure then you'll have to wait in flight before being able to use it muhahaha.

For the same reason the ground INS alignment time should still exist, but not be 0.

Because you should still be penalized if you forget to wait for it to be finished before taxiing.

I'd say 3-4 minutes is a good value (like in A-10C or Ka-50).

Timings (from RL manual):

ALN (Normal Alignment)

- 4'20" for minimal required precision (classe 4) (ALN light gets off, PRET light blinks)

- 5'40" for classe 3 precision

- 7' for classe 2 precision

- 8' for full alignment (classe 1) (PRET light is on, no blinking)

when switching from ALN to NAV, PRET light comes off.

ALCM (quick alignment with pre-memorized heading)

- requires that the aircraft has not been moved since last time UNI (INS) was operational

- 1'30" needed for alignment (ALN light gets off, PRET light comes on, no blinking)

when switching from ALCM to NAV, PRET light comes off.

In both ALN and ALCN, if using STS (Status) on the PSM, the status in % of remaining time to full alignment is displayed in the top right numeric display of the PCN.

STS 76% is needed before putting the aircraft in alert/standby (réseau d'alerte) when doing QRA duties.

= = = = = =

I see no valable reason to change those timings in the simulator.