[Fixed] Maverick boresight problem

[Swant]

Flying towards a SA2 at 7620m ASL I can fire a Maverick at maxrange 8nm. When I get within 6nm the Maverick can NOT fire, target is outside of weapon boresight. Wihtin about 2nm I can fire again.

Whats going on here?

1147.11

[Swant]

Here is a screenshot

[Dimitris]

Before digging into the save, my guess would be that, given the AC's altitude, at 8nm the target is still within the missile's boresight limits (ie. its seeker's FOV) but as the range closes it steps out of it on the vertical plane.

If you assign the weapon anyway, does the pilot pitch down in order to bring the target within the FOV and fire ?

[Dimitris]

Testing now with B1147.11, and the weapon can fire without issue:



Can anyone else cross-check ?

[Swant]

No it wont fire of a Maverick untill it is gets within about 1.5 nm

[SteveMcClaire]

Hi Swant -- there is an issue here with calculating the vertical bore sight angle at certain ranges. This will be fixed for the next update.

Also note the aircraft in your example save is RTB (as ordered.) This is preventing it from maneuvering to engage targets. If you use 'U' / Unassign to clear the RTB status the aircraft should then maneuver on its own in response to F1 / Shift+F1 attack orders.

[Primarchx]

Yeah, I run into vertical boresight issues all the time in recent builds. Pretty frustrating at times.

[DWReese]

I just tried the same situation with F-22 carrying GBU-32s with a listed range of 13 nm. The data indicates that the attack should be made at the cruising altitude which is 55k feet. Well, if the F-22 is a 55k feet and closes to 13 nm, then the target is not on its boresight to be able to fire. The plane has to drop down in order for that to occur.

This is similar to what the others are saying about the Maverick. I assume that it is the same for all. If the range is too short, and the launch altitude is too high, then it won't fire. Manually, you can dive and get into the proper mode, but the AI won't do it on its own.

If you allow the AI to continue, it will eventually fire, but only after it closes to about 1 nm away from the target, even at 55k feet. But, firing at just 1 nm defeats the purpose of firing a weapon that has a 13nm range.

[SteveMcClaire]

The bore sight issue should be improved when the fix is available.

What are people's thoughts on RTB aircraft not actively engaging targets even if you manually target something? Clearing the RTB status if the player gives an attack order seems like it might cause people to run their aircraft out of fuel unintentionally. A sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Or perhaps a more obvious indicator of when aircraft RTB would be better?

[Grazyn]

Doesn't the log already show a message that says something like "I was on RTB, you better know what you're doing!"

[Swant]

Bingo fuel RTB aircrafts should probably ignore targets, but maybe aircrafts that are RTB for other reason shouldn't?

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

Doesn't the log already show a message that says something like "I was on RTB, you better know what you're doing!"

From memory, the logged message shows if clear a RTB aircraft by pressing 'U'.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire
..
What are people's thoughts on RTB aircraft not actively engaging targets even if you manually target something? ..

If I manually engage something I would prefer it just listen to my instruction, RTB status or not. Though I usually clear it first anyway. -2cents

[DWReese]

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

What are people's thoughts on RTB aircraft not actively engaging targets even if you manually target something?

Where I first saw a problem was when planes that were dedicated ESCORTS were returning to their base following their strike aircraft when they were bounced by some enemy MIGs. They had Sidewinders, but they would not defend themselves. Instead, the MIGs followed them all the way home, shooting them down one by one. In fact, the MIGs were down to using guns on the ESCORTs at the end. I think that it is a little unrealistic to allow yourself to be shot up by a MIG using guns when you have Sidewinders just because you are RTB with your striker. And, in this case, fuel wasn't the issue. It was the fact that the mission was over and they were on a track headed home.

[BrianinMinnie]

I'd like for the rtb aircraft to be able to be assigned F1 or attack, (at any time) then as soon as target is destroyed, return to rtb.

maybe have an option a: "If there's fuel enough to get home" and b: "Disregard fuel constraints".

Also throw in while rtbing, assess known AA threats along shortest route home, calculate based on threats known weapons capability, chart the safe distance/shortest arc around said threat, while maintaining shortest route back to Base for as long as possible until fuel state forces a straight course back to base.

Nothings worse than doing a attack, succeeding, then having the attacking aircraft rtb right over the remaining ships of the group that was struck.

I do realize creating a strike mission can do a similar thing but, sometimes due to not keeping track of all your aircraft, rtbing aircraft can fly into danger zones and be destroyed.

I may be asking for the sun to rise in the west, but I figured I'd ask.

Thanks

B.

[DWReese]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

The bore sight issue should be improved when the fix is available.

A new Beta was released on October 5. Was this "fix" included in the October 5th release?

[Swant]

I still have this problem [&:]

v 1:02

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Swant

I still have this problem [&:]

v 1:02

Please don't take this the wrong way, but: Do you actually enjoy anything in this game???

I am genuinely curious because, IIRC, every single of your posts here has been about "there is a bug with XYZ" or "why does [this] work like that?".

I don't think you are trolling, as your observations are constructive and kind, and we thank you for that; but I am curious to understand if you are actually playing the game, and simply not posting about having fun with it, or if this is a bug-finding expedition from your POV.

Let us know either way. Thanks!

[Swant]

What are you talking about? Many of the problems I have been posted about have been actual bugs. I have been very carful not to assume it is bugs but perhaps my lack of insight how the game works. What wrong with trying to make the game better.
And why can't I ask how things work? I can't be interessted in that?

I seriously baffled about that reply

[thewood1]

"Do you actually enjoy anything in this game???"

Actually, was kind of wondering the same thing. I think the question becomes, when someone new joins the forum and introduces himself through 50 posts with confusion, concerns, and bugs, are you playing the game to play the game or to find issues you can post about.

Over the last seven or so years, a number of people have come through who've made the game a bug hunt. You're newness, confusion about parts of the game, and the ability to find a bug every play of a scenario gets a few on the forum a little concerned about motives.

Maybe your just more aggressive in hunting bugs than the average player, but it had me wondering too.