Simulated INS align time

[JetwasH]

Don't know if its just me but i feel simulating the waiting for INS needs to be an option.

I enjoy the ramp start but the waiting seems rediculous in a game. Im currently making a coffee and still getting back in time to wait some more..

I know about the stored heading but often this option ends in a failed alignment on many servers...

Please ED give us the option to atleast halve the wait

[Emmy]

Are you loading weapons or refueling while running a Stored HDG Alignment?

 

If so, stop.

 

Jostling the jet in any way while doing a SHA will make the alignment go stupid.

[Gunrun_KS]

Stored alignment aligns faster than you can get most of your aircraft set up. Turning it off and doing it again does the trick.

[QuiGon]

Don't know if its just me but i feel simulating the waiting for INS needs to be an option.

I enjoy the ramp start but the waiting seems rediculous in a game. Im currently making a coffee and still getting back in time to wait some more..

I know about the stored heading but often this option ends in a failed alignment on many servers...

Please ED give us the option to atleast halve the wait

Stored Heading Alignment just takes 1-2 minutes and works flawless. It can get interrupted though if you load weapons simultaneously, as your aircraft wobbles from the weight and that movement can interrupt the alignment.

 

I would much rather see that ED makes the Stored Heading Alignment optional, like it is for the F-14, as it is absolutly unrealistic to have this option available all the time.

[=Panther=]

Stored Heading Alignment just takes 1-2 minutes and works flawless. It can get interrupted though if you load weapons simultaneously, as your aircraft wobbles from the weight and that movement can interrupt the alignment.

 

I would much rather see that ED makes the Stored Heading Alignment optional, like it is for the F-14, as it is absolutly unrealistic to have this option available all the time.

 

So loading weapons in and fuel tanks in 60 seconds is realistic? Sometimes things need to be tuned unrealistically to meet the middle road of a game.

[QuiGon]

So loading weapons in and fuel tanks in 60 seconds is realistic? Sometimes things need to be tuned unrealistically to meet the middle road of a game.

Sure, but you need to draw a line somwhere. The way they did it for the F-14 is great, as you can have both: If you want Stored Heading Alignment be available then you can enable it for specific aircraft in the mission. If you don't want it, you can leave it disabled. With the F-16 on the other hand, there is currently no way to disable the Stored Heading Alignment, which sucks.

[Agrrregat]

Im currently making a coffee and still getting back in time to wait some more..

 

This is beautifull part, game is forcing you to take a brake and relax before flight.

To make last checklist:

- Phone - turned off

- Coffee - full cap

- Food/Snakes - Optional / Depends on time flight

- Internal tank - empty :smilewink:

 

If INS is not alligned yet, check map and briefing one more time :pilotfly:

[mvsgas]

Don't know if its just me but i feel simulating the waiting for INS needs to be an option.

I enjoy the ramp start but the waiting seems rediculous in a game. Im currently making a coffee and still getting back in time to wait some more..

I know about the stored heading but often this option ends in a failed alignment on many servers...

Please ED give us the option to atleast halve the wait

 

There are plenty of option for this already. You have easy avionics, start in the ramp or runway running or in the air. This is not a problem with the model but with the missions. You don't have to wait at all if you start in the air right over the target.

 

90 seconds for store alignment is not that long and you can refueled, rearm and takeoff in the same time it take the Mig-29 in game ( at around 4.5 minutes) I have never encounter a problem doing store alignment if done properly. The problems I often see is people just want to flip all the switches now as oppose to follow the proper sequence so it messes the flow and they have to redo several steps.

[MadJiitensha]

Usually, i use storage first, then NAV and load a weapons i need, meanwhile setup time, tacan etc. And when plane is loaded i switch to normal align to go to 6 align and im good to go in less than few min.

[Frederf]

If anything a SHA should be more tolerant to movement of the airplane, not less. After all it's not finding heading by gyrocompassing like a normal alignment, it's blindly copying a stored value from computer memory. Rearming activities would produce most motion in roll and maybe pitch with nothing in yaw and yaw is synonymous with heading. Local gravity finding is occurring the same in normal or SHA alignment so anything which breaks one should break the other. And it turns out it does.

 

I did two tests and not all rearming breaks alignment. Putting a single AIM-120 on 1 didn't but the default (first in list) CBU-87 load did. You can see which motion did it: one of the heavy items tank or CBU by when the status number stops decreasing. Stored heading shouldn't fail because of any particular server. It should work the same offline or server A or sever B. And I'm suggesting that it does. The variable issue is because sometimes you are loading disruptive stores and sometimes you are not. I honestly have no idea if wiggling the real airplane in either alignment mode should result in what happens in DCS but hey, it is what it is today.

 

I can't help sound elitist so I'm not going to try. I hope this is taken in the constructive manner I mean it: This isn't a reasonable feature to ask for and you're much better off learning how to use the airplane as simulated. You might think that you having the option doesn't harm anyone else but you're wrong. I can articulate why but you probably don't want to hear the explanation and explaining it anyway is going to seem mean. That doesn't mean that similar ideas to this aren't worthwhile but this one in particular is a no-go.

[Dee-Jay]

I imagine the "good" old INS which were requiring 30min of alignment and no GPS hybridisation (no GPS at that time). And about 2Nm drift per hours in nominal cases.

 

Now IRS about 8min. EGI about 4min. And stored heading alignment ... 1.5 min ...

 

1.5min ... Big deal! :smilewink:

 

And furthermore, fully GPS hybridised! :thumbup:

Edited June 23, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Tiger-II]

Loading of weapons during INS alignment isn't normal!

 

 

It IS correct that such rocking of the aircraft can disrupt INS aligment. Heck, even strong winds buffeting the aircraft can be enough to disrupt the process.

 

 

Change/load your stores, then get the aircraft started. It's hardly a big deal!

 

 

As already mentioned: if you want to start NOW, edit the mission to start on the hot ramp already loaded with the stores you want.

 

 

This isn't a game, it's a simulator. Treat it as such.

[USA_Recon]

If anything a SHA should be more tolerant to movement of the airplane, not less. After all it's not finding heading by gyrocompassing like a normal alignment, it's blindly copying a stored value from computer memory. Rearming activities would produce most motion in roll and maybe pitch with nothing in yaw and yaw is synonymous with heading. Local gravity finding is occurring the same in normal or SHA alignment so anything which breaks one should break the other. And it turns out it does.

 

I did two tests and not all rearming breaks alignment. Putting a single AIM-120 on 1 didn't but the default (first in list) CBU-87 load did. You can see which motion did it: one of the heavy items tank or CBU by when the status number stops decreasing. Stored heading shouldn't fail because of any particular server. It should work the same offline or server A or sever B. And I'm suggesting that it does. The variable issue is because sometimes you are loading disruptive stores and sometimes you are not. I honestly have no idea if wiggling the real airplane in either alignment mode should result in what happens in DCS but hey, it is what it is today.

 

I can't help sound elitist so I'm not going to try. I hope this is taken in the constructive manner I mean it: This isn't a reasonable feature to ask for and you're much better off learning how to use the airplane as simulated. You might think that you having the option doesn't harm anyone else but you're wrong. I can articulate why but you probably don't want to hear the explanation and explaining it anyway is going to seem mean. That doesn't mean that similar ideas to this aren't worthwhile but this one in particular is a no-go.

 

Good catch, I wondered the same.

[Frederf]

It IS correct that such rocking of the aircraft can disrupt INS aligment.

 

I know this doesn't apply to any alignment but the normal type but with normal alignment it's possible and even desired to drive the airplane 1000s of feet while aligning in order to improve its accuracy and extend the align time. The movement doesn't help obviously but if you park it with a new heading ~90 off the first one that's the only way to get status <10. Also you're allowed to taxi in norm align all you want and it suspends/resumes when you start/stop moving. I think you are required to get to status 60 before first movement though.

[Viking 1-1]

I would much rather see that ED makes the Stored Heading Alignment optional, like it is for the F-14, as it is absolutly unrealistic to have this option available all the time.

 

What is the problem?

 

If you dont like the stored alignment move the knob further for full alignment. Or what am I missing? :huh:

 

If you dont like it, dont use it. Sounds pretty optional to me...

[QuiGon]

What is the problem?

 

If you dont like the stored alignment move the knob further for full alignment. Or what am I missing? :huh:

 

If you dont like it, dont use it. Sounds pretty optional to me...

The problem is that I want to create realistic multiplayer missions where Stored Heading Alignment isn't available for all or certain playable aircraft, depending on the scenario. With the Tomcat this is perfectly possible, as the mission designer can define which aircraft has a prestored SHA and which aircraft does not. I would love to see that feature for the F-16 as well.

[Viking 1-1]

The problem is that I want to create realistic multiplayer missions where Stored Heading Alignment isn't available for all or certain playable aircraft, depending on the scenario. With the Tomcat this is perfectly possible, as the mission designer can define which aircraft has a prestored SHA and which aircraft does not. I would love to see that feature for the F-16 as well.

 

Ah, got it. Thanks.