What do people thinking of having to align the Mavs?

[Northstar98]

22 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

They are.

 

I disagree.

 

Simplification is the process by which you make something simpler; this can be fidelity, ease of use, whatever.

 

Isn't that exactly what you would do to a simulator, in order to make it more game like?

 

Take Arma3, something more sim-ish; with expanded ballistics modelling, commands, stances etc. If we wanted to 'gameify' it, a good place to start would be simplifying the stances so you only have the basic 3, just to name one example. You might simplify the ballistics, and make the maps smaller - hey you've now basically got CS:GO as far as these mechanics are concerned.

 

So no, not mutually exclusive.

 

Quote

No, FC3 came before DCS.  And it had a game mode.

 

And?

 

Quote

Yes, making a 'stable' with FC3 like systems makes things more accessible, but it's not gamification.

 

Is FC3 more reminiscent of an arcade like game, when compared to DCS or isn't it? Simple as.

 

Quote

In other words, you can't tell the difference or you deliberately refuse to.

 

Apparently so.

 

Tell you what, how about you define what you mean by 'gameification' what criteria would satisfy it? 

 

Quote

here's a difference between reducing the number of clicks and turning something into a game, ie. making the FM well ... not even really an FM, the radar just a thing that shows you everything where you hit tab to switch between target, unlimited or a huge number of missiles that fly straight to target etc.

 

Where's the line here? Because, it seems to me that you're just moving goalposts so that 'gameification' can only be something on the extreme end - like Ace Combat or something.

 

Would you consider SF2 (something its own studio calls a game) to be more game like than DCS full-fidelity? Because SF2 isn't too far away from FC3, but SF2 is even more simplified (simplified RADAR/Sensor use, using a keybind to 'select next target', instead of using a TDC and a simplified FDM).

Edited January 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[GGTharos]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Is FC3 more reminiscent of an arcade like game or isn't it? Simple as.

 

 

Apparently so. Or somebody is moving goalposts...

 

Where's the line here? Because, it seems to me that you're just moving goalposts so that gameification can only be something extreme.

 

I already told you the line.  Aircraft that don't fly like aircraft, sensor and weapon systems that are all seeing and don't have realistic limitations but rather balanced/game type limits of simple ranges, etc.

 

[Northstar98]

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

I already told you the line.  Aircraft that don't fly like aircraft, sensor and weapon systems that are all seeing and don't have realistic limitations but rather balanced/game type limits of simple ranges, etc.

 

 

Just for an example at the risk of 1.16, would you call SF2 a game?

Edited January 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[GGTharos]

I have no idea what SF2 is and I don't need to. The whole thing is perfectly self-contained within this game right here.

 

This is nothing short of people who click things in a cockpit wanting to call everything else arcade - it's missing the forest for the trees, because in the end while having fewer things to click, the aircraft effectively operate the same way.  The flight models are the aircraft's behavior exactly like in the 'full systems' aircraft, weapons are the same, the sensors share the same limitations, the aiming systems act the same way, and what you get is just a more limited aircraft systems simulation but it is still an aircraft systems simulation.

 

Which part of this is difficult for?  Is it that you can't figure out the difference between having the same FM vs. having no FM, or that you somehow equivocate more limited systems simulation to a 360 degree radar that shows you everything and you can just tab through to select a target?

 

Do you by any chance realize that IRL air forces will uh 'play games' for their real life scenarios where they won't be spending time to align mavericks, run warm-ups for missiles or start from the ground 'cold and dark'?   In a bunch of cases their simulator's FMs aren't even as good as he DCS ones.  They're doing pretty arcady things, aren't they?

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

I have no idea what SF2 is and I don't need to. The whole thing is perfectly self-contained within this game right here.

 

This is nothing short of people who click things in a cockpit wanting to call everything else arcade - it's missing the forest for the trees, because in the end while having fewer things to click, the aircraft effectively operate the same way.

 

And when did I make this argument again? All I said was game mode includes simplifies the systems modelling (which it does), and FC3 also has simplified systems modelling (which it also does). Hell ED themselves even defines them both as doing such!

 

You realise I think DCS as being a video game right? Just one trying to be more representative of reality. It's okay to have a game that accurately depicts reality.

 

It isn't less valid just because you call it a game, it is utterly meaningless.

 

I don't have some superiority complex about being able to perform the incredible feat of clicking on a mouse to click a freaking switch - that's just silly. 

 

They're obviously not identical and I only brought up that one aspect. You sound like I'm trying to gatekeep DCS with FC3, pretending FC3 is an arcade game and that I think it's therefore invalid or something, when I never said that, nor did I imply it!

 

Quote

and what you get is just a more limited aircraft systems simulation but it is still an aircraft systems simulation.

 

EXACTLY!

 

SF2, a game, is still an aircraft systems simulation, but much more limited than full-fidelity DCS. What's the problem here?

 

Quote

Which part of this is difficult for?  Is it that you can't figure out the difference between having the same FM vs. having no FM, or that you somehow equivocate more limited systems simulation to a 360 degree radar that shows you everything and you can just tab through to select a target?

 

Yes, I am making that 'equivocation' because words have definitions. I mean, would making a RADAR so that you just tab through the contacts not be a simplification? I mean, do you know what simplification means at this point?

 

You started off saying that simplifying something and 'gameifying' something are mutually exclusive concepts. All you've done through this is move the goalposts, give me tonnes of examples of things being simplified and being a game. To the point that, unless it's simplified to the absolute extreme, it's not a game (even when developers of their own product say otherwise) whereby the imitation of the real thing is really poor. It's still a simulation, just one that isn't very accurate at all.

 

Quote

Do you by any chance realize that IRL air forces will uh 'play games' for their real life scenarios where they won't be spending time to align mavericks, run warm-ups for missiles or start from the ground 'cold and dark'?   In a bunch of cases their simulator's FMs aren't even as good as he DCS ones.  They're doing pretty arcady things, aren't they?

 

Again, not my argument, where is this coming from? I'm fine that FC3 and game mode exist, I never argued against them.

 

What point are you even addressing here?

Edited January 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Donglr]

4 hours ago, Falconeer said:

Without going into details.....

 

so that you can simulate a "flying" aircraft.  Use of weapons systems is prohibited by a couple of switches, when aircraft is on the ground

 

 

 

by all means please go into details, because I never use this switch, neither the weapons trains mode, to bore sight my MAVs. I can slew and lock just as fine wtihout them, so I wonder why I see people use them.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Donglr said:

 

 

by all means please go into details, because I never use this switch, neither the weapons trains mode, to bore sight my MAVs. I can slew and lock just as fine wtihout them, so I wonder why I see people use them.

 

It's in the manual, but I'm not sure you need to disable the weight on wheels switch to boresight the Mavericks with the TGP

 

The ground safety essentially disables the weight on wheels switch which usually inhibits things like RADAR emission, and weapons use (for obvious reasons, you don't want weapons in a state where they can be fired on the ground, nor do you want to be putting out high power (relatively speaking) RF).

 

Only thing is I'm not sure you need to use the switch to boresight the Mavericks, which I don't think even needs master arm on either; as both the TGP and the Mavericks will be able to use their sensors without them, just launch and arming is inhibited.  

[fudabidu]

20 minutes ago, Donglr said:

by all means please go into details, because I never use this switch, neither the weapons trains mode, to bore sight my MAVs. I can slew and lock just as fine wtihout them, so I wonder why I see people use them.

Weight-on-wheels will trigger the ground safety and (among other things) disable the Maverick video feed. Same thing with Master Arm set to Off.
In order to boresight on the ground you'd need to flip both switches. This is not recommended since your TGP & MAV view range is very limited on the ground and you would introduce parallax errors (not a factor, yet)
Training mode allows you to boresight the Mavericks, but you can't (accidentally) launch them.

Remember: F-16 is still WIP.

Edited January 12, 2021 by fudabidu

[Machalot]

16 minutes ago, fudabidu said:

you would introduce parallax errors (not a factor, yet)

Curious why you say parallax is not a factor. Are the TGP and Mav lines of sight not modeled as originating from their actual locations on the jet, rather from a common point like the mass center?

[fudabidu]

6 minutes ago, Machalot said:

Curious why you say parallax is not a factor. Are the TGP and Mav lines of sight not modeled as originating from their actual locations on the jet, rather from a common point like the mass center?

No, it's just magic right now.
In a small test mission I placed two units 800 meters apart. TGP looking at #1, MAV looking at #2, then BSGT. This is obviously wrong, but the MAV would still slave perfectly to the TGP.

[Fri13]

https://youtu.be/m9nFM5l4454?t=1317

 

It is fairly easy to understand both sides.... 

 

As I want to go the "hard way", it doesn't mean I want to do that all the time or every single time.

And I can't expect everyone should enjoy for it as well.

[Fri13]

32 minutes ago, Machalot said:

Curious why you say parallax is not a factor. Are the TGP and Mav lines of sight not modeled as originating from their actual locations on the jet, rather from a common point like the mass center?

 

They are. You can even see it from TGP by seeing literally your own aircraft from the TGP camera head position. In JF-17 you get even ultra wide angle view to see yourself in a cockpit.

The mavericks are similar. But why shouldn't they have a capability aim properly to the distance regardless the small parallax error if the target range is known?

 

The problem is more of a that the gimbal small movements and corrections, errors in range etc are not yet modeled. We have perfect ground stabilization each time (but now we have the bug that makes designations in the air etc) and almost perfect lock capability etc in TGP and DMT.

 

F-16C targeting pod video from (warning with volume) OIF https://youtu.be/XFj6f9L827A

F-16C bombing attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom https://youtu.be/jgUwjpopeLY?t=67

It is those small tiny movements, shakes, drifts etc that are missing and that makes the "immersion" but as well challenges.

 

It is easy to program a perfect simulation system from the known model as you do not include errors as you want perfection.

The challenge is to make the emulation via software where you need to implement all the functions that are as well there to cause the problems and errors.

 

Edit: To add that for different purposes the simulation without errors is acceptable. But for interest of the subject, the errors are what makes something challening and interesting too.

Like this is a flight simulator, and part of the errors are air behavior, be it a sidewind at airfield or turbulence when flying or a low visibility because dirty window.

Anyone can make the old 90's simulators that are basically just perfect, but to really really get the audience that want all the challenge, they need the errors to challenge them.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Fri13

[Northstar98]

25 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

https://youtu.be/m9nFM5l4454?t=1317

 

It is fairly easy to understand both sides.... 

 

As I want to go the "hard way", it doesn't mean I want to do that all the time or every single time.

And I can't expect everyone should enjoy for it as well.

 

That's absolutely fine, but there are existing options to rectify this even if it forsakes something else. If you don't want to compromise, I see no harm in having an option - we already have similar things anyway.

 

14 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The problem is more of a that the gimbal small movements and corrections, errors in range etc are not yet modeled. We have perfect ground stabilization each time (but now we have the bug that makes designations in the air etc) and almost perfect lock capability etc in TGP and DMT.

 

F-16C targeting pod video from (warning with volume) OIF https://youtu.be/XFj6f9L827A

F-16C bombing attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom https://youtu.be/jgUwjpopeLY?t=67

It is those small tiny movements, shakes, drifts etc that are missing and that makes the "immersion" but as well challenges.

 

It is easy to program a perfect simulation system from the known model as you do not include errors as you want perfection.

The challenge is to make the emulation via software where you need to implement all the functions that are as well there to cause the problems and errors.

 

Edit: To add that for different purposes the simulation without errors is acceptable. But for interest of the subject, the errors are what makes something challening and interesting too.

Like this is a flight simulator, and part of the errors are air behavior, be it a sidewind at airfield or turbulence when flying or a low visibility because dirty window.

Anyone can make the old 90's simulators that are basically just perfect, but to really really get the audience that want all the challenge, they need the errors to challenge them.

 

I absolutely agree.

[QuiGon]

On 1/9/2021 at 7:15 PM, Pekins said:

Hello, new F16C owner here, former A10C and FA18C simmer.

 

I just wanted to know the overall opinion of the users on having to manually align the mav with the TGP.

 

I'm not a fan, I think its a frustrating mechanic, despite of it being correct to real life or not. Even if doing the boresight alignement when on the ground, some times you have nothing to lock on, and if you do you'd have to stop in the taxiway/ramp blocking people behind you.

 

And in the air, well for me personally its difficult, if you're too far you wont get any lock so you cant hit BRSG to align, and if you're too close, well the Viper is fast so you'd have to manage it quickly.

 

what do you guys think?

 

I love it, because it is realistic (at least that's what ED said).

[taco3rd]

IMO, it takes a certain level of experience to even recognize and work around these issues. Expecting a newb to come in and understand what he/she is looking at and then take the actions necessary to rectify it is asking a lot. The F16 already has too few weapons and these issues keep me from loading mavericks unless there's no other choice (they must be a time nightmare on multi-player missions). I feel like it's much more important for someone to learn the basics just to get up and down reliably and safely, than sitting on a runway trying to boresight buggy mavericks. I enjoy the realistic aspects as much as anyone else, but the 16 is buggy and incomplete. I don't see any reason to not have an option to do some of these procedures automatically until the procedure is complete and works exactly as it should. 

[taco3rd]

Silly. Somehow a buggy incomplete process is "realistic".

[Falconeer]

 

2 hours ago, Donglr said:

 

by all means please go into details, because I never use this switch, neither the weapons trains mode, to bore sight my MAVs. I can slew and lock just as fine wtihout them, so I wonder why I see people use them.

 

i'm not sure what i can and cannot post on the internet about this stuff, so i choose not to. And besides fudabidu it pretty well

 

I like my job and i prefer to keep it that way  

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Falconeer

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, taco3rd said:

IMO, it takes a certain level of experience to even recognize and work around these issues. Expecting a newb to come in and understand what he/she is looking at and then take the actions necessary to rectify it is asking a lot. The F16 already has too few weapons and these issues keep me from loading mavericks unless there's no other choice (they must be a time nightmare on multi-player missions). I feel like it's much more important for someone to learn the basics just to get up and down reliably and safely, than sitting on a runway trying to boresight buggy mavericks. I enjoy the realistic aspects as much as anyone else, but the 16 is buggy and incomplete. I don't see any reason to not have an option to do some of these procedures automatically until the procedure is complete and works exactly as it should. 

 

While I vote for the choice, a option that is set in the mission editor for each individual unit (not a global one) that does the pilot decide it in his settings or is it enforced On or Off, it is still that time is better spent first fixing the bugs than come up with a solution to overcome the bugs by another means. And then add the possibilities, as it would be as well for all other modules and units that ever will be made when the system is in place.

 

Like example the Mi-8MTv2 was required to have a automatic autopilot system because the human player alone can not be there keeping eye of the instruments and adjusting it in real time as that is the flight engineer job. So the automatic system was made like the flight engineer would do it, and yet pilot still can push few buttons on joystick and throttle to do so, without jumping to the flight engineer seat to do it.

 

[taco3rd]

1 minute ago, Fri13 said:

 

While I vote for the choice, a option that is set in the mission editor for each individual unit (not a global one) that does the pilot decide it in his settings or is it enforced On or Off, it is still that time is better spent first fixing the bugs than come up with a solution to overcome the bugs by another means. And then add the possibilities, as it would be as well for all other modules and units that ever will be made when the system is in place.

 

Like example the Mi-8MTv2 was required to have a automatic autopilot system because the human player alone can not be there keeping eye of the instruments and adjusting it in real time as that is the flight engineer job. So the automatic system was made like the flight engineer would do it, and yet pilot still can push few buttons on joystick and throttle to do so, without jumping to the flight engineer seat to do it.

 

agree 100%

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

A newb should get the important things first: general cockpit overview, at least a rough idea what the systems are and how the startup goes, ground handling/taxi, take off, basic navigation, straight in landing, overhead landing... when hes deep enough for weapons, boresight wont be a barrier for him.

 

Oh wait... folks get into study sims just to pew pew. Sorry, i forgot. Gotta dumb down study sim so folks can insta drop JDAM all day 20 minutes into the sim... eh, game. Correct.

 

Yes, there are those who want to go to see things go boom quickly. Even the ED director admits that he doesn't know how to start any aircraft, while loves to fly them because he uses the auto-start. Like why to waste time to such things (his opinion)?

 

Is he now a newbie, or somehow a "unworthy to play DCS"? Does he demand that DCS should be dumb down so he can do those things?

 

[fudabidu]

3 minutes ago, taco3rd said:

Silly. Somehow a buggy incomplete process is "realistic".

The process of boresighting is realistic. Point track with TGP, lock same object with MAV, press BSGT, repeat for the other pylon. Since the SPI update (open beta) it works wonderfully.
The mechanics aren't 100% realistic yet, but the process is.

[taco3rd]

My bad if the process was fixed. Last time I tried to boresight them on the ground I could only get one side to align. Still had to manually slew on the right side. Still, I'm talking to the point of when these things simply aren't working the way they're supposed to. I'm pretty sure the Air Force isn't putting 16's out with software bugs that pilots have to find work-arounds for. That's all I'm saying.

[Machalot]

Why not keep it in but make it part of the autostart sequence? 

[Machalot]

3 hours ago, fudabidu said:

No, it's just magic right now.
In a small test mission I placed two units 800 meters apart. TGP looking at #1, MAV looking at #2, then BSGT. This is obviously wrong, but the MAV would still slave perfectly to the TGP.

What do you mean by "slave perfectly"? Are they pointing at different targets or the same? 

[falcon_120]

On 1/9/2021 at 10:15 AM, Pekins said:

Hello, new F16C owner here, former A10C and FA18C simmer.
 
I just wanted to know the overall opinion of the users on having to manually align the mav with the TGP.
 
I'm not a fan, I think its a frustrating mechanic, despite of it being correct to real life or not. Even if doing the boresight alignement when on the ground, some times you have nothing to lock on, and if you do you'd have to stop in the taxiway/ramp blocking people behind you.
 
And in the air, well for me personally its difficult, if you're too far you wont get any lock so you cant hit BRSG to align, and if you're too close, well the Viper is fast so you'd have to manage it quickly.
 
what do you guys think?

As I've said in many ocassions:
1-I love that it is there, because sometimes I have the mood, energy and time to make the whole package (true simulation, cold start, ins alignment.... )

2-I hate that I don't have the option to turn it off because I have a Real life and sometimes I simply don't have the mood or time to do it, I simply don't have enough time in a day to fly more than 20/25 min.

3-What bothers me more than point 2, is those of the realism, so afraid that introducing certain options allowing for different playstyles would turn DCS into Ace combat 7, screaming that out loud like we are all sinners by suggesting "gamey mechanics" , which is simply not true and also not a factor to DCS search of realism for many many reasons that ED have always shown.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Edited January 13, 2021 by NineLine
Removed offensive term