Any Plans on integrating the INS Systems?

Hey,

maybe its just me but without the need (and possibility) of an INS allignment the whole Plane feels more like an FC3 or maybe WWII Aircraft to me.

For me thats currently the Reason why i left the Harrier in the Hangar. Especially when you take a look at the F-18 in comparsion where the whole priorisation of features is different, first the flight systems and then everything other...

Sure thats a very personal opinion, other people my have other opinions and there is no right or wrong here just opinions.

So do we have any infos when the plane will be a bit more "complete" from that point of view?

If that is the reason you leave it in your hangar, then why buy the Early Access? I just don't get it sometimes.

There is no specific info on that, unless someone from Razbam responds to this. They usually do one system at the time and knowing this community a bit, most people usually want the combat systems complete first, after that comes non combat essential equipment like INS alignment.

It was said from the beginning that the Harrier was in early access and won't have all of it's features right away, you should look around the forums to see what's coming and especialy this thread :

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204693

And as for the Hornet, i haven't seen anyone enter waypoints in the INS, so while you can align it, you might not be able to enter waypoints just yet. The F/A-18C will be in early access and far from complete at release.

Edit : there you go

The INS alignment is kind nice to have but most of us will probably make it always aligned at start cuz waiting for INS to align is really boring. However, most will probably want the INS to be done now so that we can enter new waypoints during flight. This is something needed often in Multiplayer.

If that is the reason you leave it in your hangar, then why buy the Early Access?

:thumbup:

The INS alignment is kind nice to have but most of us will probably make it always aligned at start cuz waiting for INS to align is really boring. However, most will probably want the INS to be done now so that we can enter new waypoints during flight. This is something needed often in Multiplayer.

It's not about beeing boring, it's about beeing realistic...

I was too lazy to type it all out. I want this system to work too, just like most people. But not because I'd like to wait for INS to align, but because I'd like to be able to program coordinates in.

If that is the reason you leave it in your hangar, then why buy the Early Access? I just don't get it sometimes.

Well, I do. It's because of the piorities, as mentioned above.

We are all very well aware of what Early Access means, but it's just that people have different expectations of what should be available on launch day. It reflects a philosophy. Personally: I prefer to have all non-combat functionalities implemented first (navigation, communication ...), and thus ED's approach to Early Access suits me a lot better than RAZBAM's.

It took months for the COMM1 and COMM2 UFC to work, and even now - 6+ months after initial release - we still don't have proper TACAN implementation (missing HUD symbology, no ability to set a COURSE line on a TACAN station).

INS alignment is also one of those things I expect to be working on day 1 of EA. While I understand that proper INS/GPS functionality is needed for JDAM-implementation, and that exactly that might well be the reason why we don't have it yet, it's one of the things that induce negative learning, which - in my opinion - should be avoided at all costs. And, it reduces immersion since it reduces the module, just as Delareon pointed out, to be little more than FC3.

AFAIK it will be fully implemented, together with lots of things accompanying it. I think that the Harrier is a difficult beast to code due to its nature and lots of calculations and additional onboard systems that are needed for full V/STOL. Take a VREST page as an example - when it is added (and I believe it will) you will get a lot of info that you should input there during the pre-take off checks. Things like length of the runway, magnetic heading, wind at ground level etc in order to correctly calculate the abort speed, nozzle rotation speed etc.

I think that in this case other systems need to be modelled first, as these ones like VREST take into account a lot of info that first needs to be added to the module. And honestly, having done preliminary versions of training for cold start and take off, the amount of systems checks and cockpit meddling in the Harrier is just mind boggling. So everyone looking for more realism should be really happy.

Well, I do. It's because of the piorities, as mentioned above.

We are all very well aware of what Early Access means, but it's just that people have different expectations of what should be available on launch day. It reflects a philosophy. Personally: I prefer to have all non-combat functionalities implemented first (navigation, communication ...), and thus ED's approach to Early Access suits me a lot better than RAZBAM's.

 

 

It took months for the COMM1 and COMM2 UFC to work, and even now - 6+ months after initial release - we still don't have proper TACAN implementation (missing HUD symbology, no ability to set a COURSE line on a TACAN station).

 

INS alignment is also one of those things I expect to be working on day 1 of EA. While I understand that proper INS/GPS functionality is needed for JDAM-implementation, and that exactly that might well be the reason why we don't have it yet, it's one of the things that induce negative learning, which - in my opinion - should be avoided at all costs. And, it reduces immersion since it reduces the module, just as Delareon pointed out, to be little more than FC3.

Your expectations and opinions are nice and you have the right to express them, but I don't think you understand the concept of Early Access, as many others do not understand it either. Early Access is a service from a developer for the players to get onboard early and help the developer with a cash flow upfront and help them find bugs, test, express opinions/feedback on how systems work etc. If you get in to Early Access just because you want to fly the plane, thats fine. But dont go on the forums and complain about stuff missing, stuff that in your opinion should get prioritezed and so on. That is all up to the developer, as with most other things. But for some reason people feel they suddenly deserve something as soon as they spend money on something, which was their own choice in the first place. But hey, who am I to say all this.

It's the same with every new early access release.

Anonymous player (there are too many to mention them all): "I know it's early access, but..."

...and then goes on explaining that he clearly doesn't understand what early access means.

It's worth noting here that the aircraft having a functional Inertial Navigation System (INS) has nothing to do with whether the aircraft can do manual coordinate entry.

Two completely different things, and in DCS having an INS on an aircraft equipped with a GPS is functionally equivalent to just wanting a countdown timer to complete before you can taxi/takeoff (unless you're Heatblur and are modeling actual INS drift).

Not even A-10C has a truly functional INS. It's unlikely that F/A-18C will either.

The Mirage does have the INS drift modeled, I think the same will be true for the Harrier.

It's worth noting here that the aircraft having a functional Inertial Navigation System (INS) has nothing to do with whether the aircraft can do manual coordinate entry.

An aircraft either needs some sort of INS or GPS system to be able to work with coordinates.

Two completely different things, and in DCS having an INS on an aircraft equipped with a GPS is functionally equivalent to just wanting a countdown timer to complete before you can taxi/takeoff (unless you're Heatblur and are modeling actual INS drift).

I not very familiar with the Harrier. Is our variant of the Harrier equipped with GPS?

Not even A-10C has a truly functional INS. It's unlikely that F/A-18C will either.

The A-10C has a GPS assisted INS and the GPS assistance is the reason why drift and some other INS related stuff is not fully simulated there, unlike in the Viggen or the Mirage which don't have GPS.

Ya know if you look at this thread...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204693&page=2

You'll see they are making regular updates and progressing at a reasonable pace.

Considering the AV-8B isn't their only project I'd say they are doing pretty well.

Thanks for the usefull infos, beside the usual "Why early access when you know its not fully functional" stuff. Just keep that comments they are of no use and didnt answer a single question.

Of course one day will every System be implemented. But how about some kind of Roadmap or at least a priorization of features available to the public?

Oh and yes they are making progress, i read it from time to time to check how its progressing.

By the way that RAZBAM has multiple projects going on and still making progress here is nothing i would consider positive, im more concerned that they taking to much projects at once while still having complex Plane Systems to implement.

I think people tend to forget we have game here. INS alignment is effectively just a countdown timer (like Chickensim says). Some modules (like the Tomcat) models the inaccuracies in a more or less realistic way, which is pretty cool. I like that.

INS drift is no big deal to model. Very simply you start with the initial coordinates and as time goes on you add the plane's movement (zero error in game) and add a small amount of drift (random walk) and that would be a reasonable first approximation that most players can't tell from actual INS drift. Heatblur went the whole hog to make it much closer to how a real one will drift. GPS assisted INS is effectively just the actual LatLong of the plane + GPS error (± a few meters at most for military in Lat and long, a ± a lot of meters for height)

I think though, people are asking "when the INS is going to be done" because we'd like to be able to control the nav system, which we cannot do right now i.e. mid mission the tasking changes, you need to go to <new latlong> and you have to go to the F10 map to deal with it.

I think some people tend to forget we have a simulation here. A proper INS is simulation is much more than just an alignment cooldown (which has special cases as well that needs to be simulated, especially with carrier aircraft like the Harrier). It also needs a proper simulation of drift that accumulates over time, depending on the state of the INS and also needs functions to reset drift (nav fixes). Not just Heatblur went all the way to simulate this (not just for the Tomcat, but also for the Viggen which already has all these things!), but also RAZBAM did this with the Mirage 2000. If the AV-8B NA Harrier has no GPS (which I still don't know if that's the case) then I expect all these things to be implemented here as well. But I have no doubt that RAZBAM will do that, as they did that for the Mirage already.

Viggen has no INS, but you are correct. Remember, 'simulation' is a wide term. Not all modules (or possibly none of them) have what you'd call 'research grade' INS models i.e. you probably wouldn't use them to find out how an INS responds in situation XYZ, and since this is primarily a game, we don't really need that kind of thing anyway, just something that is close enough to fool us.

Viggen has no INS, but you are correct. Remember, 'simulation' is a wide term. Not all modules (or possibly none of them) have what you'd call 'research grade' INS models i.e. you probably wouldn't use them to find out how an INS responds in situation XYZ, and since this is primarily a game, we don't really need that kind of thing anyway, just something that is close enough to fool us.

The Viggen has no INS, true, but it's NAV system is pretty much identical to an INS in how it works. The main difference is the data source, which are not gyros like in a normal INS, but the normal flight instruments (pitot tube). But for the pilot it is the same as an INS, just less precise. Heatblur did simulate drift for that system and so did RAZBAM for the Mirage.

Why should they not do the same for the Harrier?

The Viggen has no INS, true, but it's NAV system is pretty much identical to an INS in how it works. The main difference is the data source, which are not gyros like in a normal INS, but the normal flight instruments (pitot tube). But for the pilot it is the same as an INS, just less precise. Heatblur did simulate drift for that system and so did RAZBAM for the Mirage.

Why should they not do the same for the Harrier?

Of course they should. I never said they shouldn't. Just pointing out that you don't have to go to Heatblur levels to make the INS drift believable.

Of course they should. I never said they shouldn't. Just pointing out that you don't have to go to Heatblur levels to make the INS drift believable.

The way it is implemented in the Viggen or the Mirage is already sufficent. I expect the same level of simulation for the Harrier. And of course: Carrier alignment which will be something new (unless the Hornet or Tomcat will have it first).

We're already running into issues with the harrier. Difficult to send team mates to precise locations. Would like coordinate entry to work!

I think people tend to forget we have game here. INS alignment is effectively just a countdown timer (like Chickensim says). Some modules (like the Tomcat) models the inaccuracies in a more or less realistic way, which is pretty cool. I like that. [...]

 

I think though, people are asking "when the INS is going to be done" because we'd like to be able to control the nav system, which we cannot do right now i.e. mid mission the tasking changes, you need to go to <new latlong> and you have to go to the F10 map to deal with it.

I think some people tend to forget we have a simulation here. A proper INS is simulation is much more than just an alignment cooldown (which has special cases as well that needs to be simulated, especially with carrier aircraft like the Harrier). It also needs a proper simulation of drift that accumulates over time, depending on the state of the INS and also needs functions to reset drift (nav fixes). Not just Heatblur went all the way to simulate this (not just for the Tomcat, but also for the Viggen which already has all these things!), but also RAZBAM did this with the Mirage 2000. If the AV-8B NA Harrier has no GPS (which I still don't know if that's the case) then I expect all these things to be implemented here as well.

The Harrier does have an integrated INS + GPS system. In NAV mode the INS is the primary source and does not receive inputs from the GPS (loosely coupled) and in IFA mode the GPS is the primary source and the INS does accept GPS position updates (tightly coupled).

I agree that it's important that these things are modeled, especially for carrier aircraft, although even if we get them I'm not sure how well-integrated those inaccuracies are going to be modeled when it comes to things like their effect on computed/degraded weapons delivery modes, altitude sources (CCIP/GCIP/RCIP), or grid coordinates and elevations pulled from the targeting pod.

In the A-10's EGI you can set it to INS only and the aircraft will display no apparent drift because ED never modeled it, and that has been their flagship module since 2011.

I'm unsure if the F/A-18C is going to get the same "perfect world" treatment where GPS never fails. Having INS drift is cool, but for aircraft with integrated INS+GPS or EGI systems, the juice may not be worth the squeeze for developers - especially to a standard that not even ED thinks is important enough to meet.

Thanks ChickenSim! Well, when the Harrier has GPS, then proper simulation of INS is not that important I reckon. As you said: ED never modeled it for their long time flagship module, as there is not really any use case for it, as GPS is pretty much always available.