TGP loses target tracking

[kk0425]

And does any of that shared information include the Litening II ATP? If not you might as well be talking about a speedboat when describing a motorcycle race. The thing I know is that I spend a lot of time lurking on these forums. I've read a lot of advice and technical data from various members and I know which ones are right most of the time.

[Harzach]

PERTINENT DATA: LOAD UP A10c and TRY IT!

...

If you get a point track on a vehicle (indicated by the small square box inside the crosshair of the TGP MFD and then bank the plane untill the L (laser) indicates LM (laser is masked) you lose the track (the little box indicating point is tracked vanishes) whereas the image is still on the MFD.

 

All of which applies when the laser is disabled, as well. Acquiring and maintaining a track does not involve the ranging laser in any way other than to provide refined positional data. Without the laser, you are tracking the ground, regardless of what you see in the MFD. A point track on a vehicle from a high distance/low angle will result in a point that is several meters beyond the vehicle. Laser-ranging the target results in a point track that is on the vehicle itself. It seems that this is something you should already know and understand. Perhaps you should revisit your "pertinent data".

 

ya.. I deff feel like a car mechanic trying to describe how a internal combustion engine works to a bunch of soccer moms...

Insults are always helpful and productive.

[Drunken_Skull]

The only thing buggy with the TGP is the way you are misusing it.. It works as intended.

 

try doing things differently...

 

ie;

 

... ^^excellent vid on employment of the TGP in-game .

Edited April 5, 2014 by Drunken_Skull

[Eddie]

You are right in the sense that point track utilizes same technology as the missile. But just as the missile relies on RANGE TO TGT being verified before it can be fired, so does the TGP for initial track.

 

In a sense there are two separate functions of the laser.. one is as a "Designator", the other is as a "Rangefinder". The rangefinder is in use when the TGP is active. The designator only fires when the pilot or DSMS tells it to. Im speaking of the rangefinder, not the designator, dont get them confused.

 

The reason for this reliance I have already stated, as with the MAV Missile and the TGP, without accurate RANGE data, the only info gathered is a two-dimensional image. The MAV needs to know how far away it is from the target so that it can be fired within "RANGE" (indicated by the range ladder on the HUD). The TGP needs the range data to track the point in three dimensions so that accurate GPS coordinates can be generated AND so that motion can be predicted in the Z axis (motion in the Z axis cannot be accurately tracked in 2 dimensions as the only indication of it in 2D space is the target getting larger or smaller as it travels towards or away from the camera).

 

Once a MAV Missile is fired the Z axis to target is no longer relevant and only X/Y is needed to steer the missile up/down and side to side as it travels along the Z to the target.

 

The Maverick has no idea at all how far away its target is, and nor does it care. You as a pilot need to know and care so that you can launch within parameters, the missile doesn’t. This is why the range information is provided by the aircraft and not the missile. That information may be displayed on the same MFD as the maverick image but it is not coming from the missile, or being sent to the missile by the aircraft, just as the aircraft generated symbology on the TGP page is not sent to or coming from the TGP. The missile does not in any way rely on that information, it will come off the rail and guide toward any tracked target regardless of launch range, the range is only important to the tactical employment considerations of you (the pilot) and whether you should launch the missile. The same is true of the TGP’s optical tracking.

 

And again, as has been pointed out to you, range as displayed by the TGP is derived from one of two sources. Either the LASER, when it is firing, or when the LASER is not firing (or no usable reflection is detected) from the DTSAS (Digital Terrain System Application Software). Now the fact that you seem to not get how that works in the context of the combat aircraft/TGP integration, yet claim to have studied GIS at degree level doesn't add up to me.

 

Again you are mixing up your lasers, disabling the laser will deny the designator only, not the internal function of the TGP. It will tell you when it is masked still...

 

No the LASER arm switch in the A-10C (or any military aircraft for that matter) entirely disables the LASER system within the pod.

 

Oh and by the way, there is only ONE physical LASER in the LITENING AT (and Sniper). It operates at 1.06µm in combat mode and 1.57µm in eye-safe training mode. The rangefinder function is actually provided by the narrow FOV CCD camera (which also provides the laser spot search/track functionality) detecting the reflected LASER energy when the LASER is fired (both at combat and training power).

 

I also suggest you learn how optical tracking actually works, the TGP does not need to know the range to a given point in order to track it it any mode, both area and point track are 100% optical tracking modes and as others have pointed out they work in a similar way to how the AGM-65 series track a target (with the TGP area track being similar to correlate, and point being similar to centroid).

 

ya.. I deff feel like a car mechanic trying to describe how a internal combustion engine works to a bunch of soccer moms...

 

When I studied Geographic Information Systems, The head lecturer there was a retired Airforce Engineer. Over the 3 years studying under Him we had a great deal of knowledge passed to us about how military systems gather data and represent it spatially.

 

GIS is essentially the collection manipulation and management of data that can be represented spatially.

 

end of story.

 

Good for you, I'll send you a medal.

 

As for insults.. you do realize you are trying to troll someone who has studied these principles and passed exams on them at a university level? May as well go and tell your GP he has no idea about medicine and should go back to grade school.

 

Congratulations you've spent 3 years at school, come back to me when you've been using, maintaining, or designing this stuff for 15 or 20 years.

 

The only thing buggy with the TGP is the way you are misusing it.. It works as intended.

 

try doing things differently...

 

ie;

 

It does work as intended, you just don't understand how that is. Oh and if you're referencing that video for insight on how to fly the A-10C and use it's systems, that is your first mistake. That video has as near as makes no difference nothing in common with real world TTPs, and if that's how you're flying you have a lot to learn indeed.

 

The problem here is that you have just enough knowledge to think that you actually know what you're talking about, without knowing enough to recognise what you don't know, and just enough arrogance to believe that you know more than anyone else on these forums. Something not helped by the fact that you're new and therefore are very unlikely to have seen or read the hundreds of discussions on these topics that have occurred over the years. People have so far been quite civil with you, which is quite a good reflection on those involved given your attitude. Don't expect that to last forever if you continue being so obnoxious.

[Eddie]

Hehe, I was definitely waiting for Eddie to chime in as well. Seems it may have been in vain though :megalol:

 

I was really trying to resist jumping in, these kind of discussions and all the armchair experts that they attract are one of the main reasons behind my leaving the test team and becoming very tired of DCS in general of late. But alas I can't help at least trying to stop all the misinformation spreading.

[Supersheep]

Sir, I suggest you start by spending some days reading these forums.

Then sleep about it for a few, and read some more.

 

 

While I'm here: I am blown out of the water how much people care about this place.

A honest 'Thank you' for that.

 

 

Sheep

[Eddie]

EDDIE NOWHERE in my post did I say a MAV had rangefinding ability.

 

No you didn't, nor did I state in my reply that you did claim it had a range finding ability. I suggest you need to read not only what others are writing, but also what you are writing yourself.

 

You said..

...as with the MAV Missile and the TGP, without accurate RANGE data, the only info gathered is a two-dimensional image. The MAV needs to know how far away it is from the target so that it can be fired within "RANGE" (indicated by the range ladder on the HUD).

 

And as I pointed out (below), the Maverick does not at any point know or need to know about it's range to a tracked object. That information is provided by the aircraft to you (the pilot) in the same way as LOS position and slant range are derived for the TGP, not the missile. The Maverick, and the targeting pod are very much tracking objects in a two dimensional plane, the third dimension (range) is not relevant to that action. It only becomes relevant when you want to derive coordinates and determine if you can employ a weapon on the object being tracked, and that information is produced by the aircraft's systems and presented to you (the pilot) in order that you can make that determination.

 

The Maverick has no idea at all how far away its target is, and nor does it care. You as a pilot need to know and care so that you can launch within parameters, the missile doesn’t. This is why the range information is provided by the aircraft and not the missile. That information may be displayed on the same MFD as the maverick image but it is not coming from the missile, or being sent to the missile by the aircraft, just as the aircraft generated symbology on the TGP page is not sent to or coming from the TGP. The missile does not in any way rely on that information, it will come off the rail and guide toward any tracked target regardless of launch range, the range is only important to the tactical employment considerations of you (the pilot) and whether you should launch the missile. The same is true of the TGP’s optical tracking.

 

As for the remainder of your post I've got better things to do than devote significant time to respond to insults and similar such things on the internet, so I'll simply say (in traditional internet fashion), you're new here aren't you?

[Eddie]

Don't do it Noodle, run away, it's not worth the frustration. ;)

[NoJoe]

Eddie and Noodle, thanks for chiming in and sharing your knowledge, even if it was in frustrating circumstances. ;) I know I learned more about the TGP and associated systems!

[Flagrum]

Don't do it Noodle, run away, it's not worth the frustration. ;)

It would be almost comical if one could ignore the Fremdscham (erm ... german, possibly untranslatable?, for "feeling ashamed on someone else's behalf" :o)

[Groove]

Guys, calm down and back on topic or we will close that thread.

 

Thanks!

[camsr]

SOI TGP, TMS down, doesn't seem to lose track when I do it ;)

[Drunken_Skull]

(FINAL EDIT)

 

It has come to my attention that some people may have missed my final post in this thread, and are attempting to use it as a means of humiliating and discrediting me in other unrelated posts...

 

To go over it again;

 

{Quote};

If I have offended anyone with my limited civilian knowledge of complex classified military systems and my ill temper over the last few days then I am truly sorry.

 

Perhaps my knowledge on the subject is limited and out of date.

{End quote}

 

This is a heart-felt and sincere apology that goes out all. At the time I was having IRL issues and in hindsight, should not have been posting at all. There is great truth in ENO's motto; "Type in anger and you will make the greatest post you will ever regret."

 

Thanks.

 

(Original post at this location)

 

There is about 1/2 a page of usefull "topic-related" subject matter here and 3 and a half pages of "bloat and gloat". Ive cleaned up the posts Im responsible for, and I suggest others do the same.

 

thanks.

 

Noodle... I find the info you have provided, albeit off topic and unrelated... quite interesting and I'd enjoy discussing these things further with both you and Eddie.

This thread isn't the place for that however.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Drunken_Skull

[Flagrum]

There is about 1/2 a page of usefull "topic-related" subject matter here and 3 and a half pages of "bloat and gloat". Ive cleaned up the posts Im responsible for, and I suggest others do the same.

 

thanks.

You mean all that unnecessary back and forth that were the result of your own "bloat and gloat"? Or simply just the postings with the last traces of your stubborness in form of quotes?

 

Hrm, that would leave then basically only 1/2 page of postings of Yurgon, Eddie and Noodles - oh, and the OP, ofc.

 

Good idea, seems you are able to learn!

 

+rep inbound!

 

edit:

sry, can't +rep you ... "have to spread some rep first" ... wonder if that has something to do with -repping you beforehand ...

 

edit2:

ah, damn, I lied ... I didn't even edit this posting once ...

[shagrat]

:megalol:

[Drunken_Skull]

TBH I like being "infamous around these parts", sounds cool, like rattlesnake style .

 

*starts singing "ya know Im bad" *

 

Yep, please remove my quotes and all... how do I say "Im very ashamed of myself" in German?

 

If I have offended anyone with my limited civilian knowledge of complex classified military systems and my ill temper over the last few days then I am truly sorry.

 

Perhaps my knowledge on the subject is limited and out of date.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Drunken_Skull

[shagrat]

TBH I like being "infamous around these parts", sounds cool, like rattlesnake style .

 

*starts singing "ya know Im bad" *

 

Yep, please remove my quotes and all... how do I say "Im very ashamed of myself" in German?

 

If I have offended anyone with my limited civilian knowledge of complex classified military systems and my ill temper over the last few days then I am truly sorry.

 

Perhaps my knowledge on the subject is limited and out of date.

Take it easy! meant no offense... when you go through some of the discussions on these forums they are very similar.

That was what that guy meant with: " You are new here!"

Eddie and Noodle etc. are simply kn own to have intricate knowledge about military aviation, systems etc. (...as far as I know they do these things for a living)

 

Once in a while a Newbie chimes in and explains why this and that is wrong in the sim because it was different in FSX, X-Plane, his Cessna, whatever... which usually leads to a hot discussion with others who oppose and finally The "Pros" raise their voice and try to clarify things.

 

As thanks they get a little flame war, until people realize they know what they are talking about. :smartass:

 

I was simply amused by the thread!

[chardly38]

I took a bit of a break from DCS between version 1.2.2 and just started back with 1.2.7. Anyways, I am finding that the tgp is losing tracking even when I engage point track or inr-p and make a simple turn to the target. The behavior feels different from earlier versions

 

Drunken_Skull the video you posted is from early version of World where the TGP stayed on target. To add dropping a CBU now will kill FSP. Thats why I keep 1.1.1.1. Installed.

[Flagrum]

I'm confused...how is it off-topic and unrelated? Each point directly addresses a comment or assertion you made regarding how the TGP works.

Drunken_Skull... Drunken_Skull ...

[Yurgon]

I believe one question remains unanswered: Why does the TGP lose track of targets when they're still visible, and why is it unable to lock targets while it is being marked as masked, even when the targets are clearly visible in the TGP page?

 

Drunken Skull's approach to the question was the assumption that a tracking laser is masked and therefore tracking cannot be maintained. I think it is clear by now that this is not the case and therefore not an explanation to the phenomenon.

 

But why, then, does the TGP lose track? With optical tracking, it shouldn't matter whether the TGP is "officially" masked or not, it should only matter if the tracking sensor is factually masked, as can be seen on the TGP page.

 

I don't know the answer to this, but I'd like to offer a plausible explanation.

 

In order to simulate optical tracking, DCS would need to compute the contrast that is shown in the TGP and then decide whether or not anything can be tracked.

 

Simulating this type of optical tracking would also require very detailed knowledge of how the actual Litening pod works.

 

And possibly most important of all, these computations must be performed in real time and would most probably consume quite an amount of CPU time (which wouldn't be that bad if DCS made full use of multi-core CPUs, but that is veering off-topic here :music_whistling:).

 

For all of the above reasons, my approach would be to not actually simulate optical tracking, but instead have the TGP lock objects whose position in the world is obviously known to the simulator engine. To make tracking appear realistic, I would then add a number of exceptions where optical tracking should not work in real life. One of these exceptions would obviously be TGP masking.

 

If this is loosely how tracking works in the DCS A-10C, then my guess would be that the programmer in charge simply took a shortcut and made the TGP lose track as soon as the "masking" indication comes up, regardless of whether or not the TGP image is actually masked.

 

But just so we're clear, this is a wild guess on my part, and the reason for loss of tracking may well be something completely different.

[hcf]

If you look in the manual (on my phone, so I can't quote it) it talks about an ifcc masking option. The general gist is you configure a masking config based on your weapons load out.

 

Said another way, the TGP has no idea if it is looking at a tank, the grass, or your wing. So it masks by geometry, and not by deciding the picture is showing your undercarriage. This stops it tracking early, before it gets a lock on your wing.

 

It adds a disclaimer that multiple masking patterns are not implemented in the Sim, so the option doesn't change masking behavior...just ornamental.

 

If you're looking at a target, and have area track, it will pivot around the ground behind the target.

 

If the TGP is masked, it will inertially track the point on the ground behind the target, and maybe accrue some error to boot.

 

Solid track works in point track mode, without masking.

 

 

Personally, I've never had the TGP so far off that I couldn't slew back after making my turn, so it's never bugged me...

[hcf]

The TGP also has no idea of ideas. It is not sentient, and doesn't care about you or your love for it.

 

The DCS Enrichment Center recommends offering the TGP some delicious cake after every successful mission. It will never start liking you, if course, but you will either come to realize your love is unrequited, or the sharing of cake will give you a pleasing sense of progress with your relationship.

 

(I don't know, I just thought DCS needs an enrichment center run by a rogue AI.)

[Yurgon]

If you look in the manual (on my phone, so I can't quote it) it talks about an ifcc masking option. The general gist is you configure a masking config based on your weapons load out.

 

Said another way, the TGP has no idea if it is looking at a tank, the grass, or your wing. So it masks by geometry, and not by deciding the picture is showing your undercarriage. This stops it tracking early, before it gets a lock on your wing. [...]

 

That sounds very plausible as well, good point! :thumbup:

 

The TGP also has no idea of ideas. It is not sentient, and doesn't care about you or your love for it.

 

The DCS Enrichment Center recommends offering the TGP some delicious cake after every successful mission. It will never start liking you, if course, but you will either come to realize your love is unrequited, or the sharing of cake will give you a pleasing sense of progress with your relationship.

 

(I don't know, I just thought DCS needs an enrichment center run by a rogue AI.)

 

At the Enrichment Center we believe that if at first you don't succeed, you fail. :D

[Nobody96]

I believe one question remains unanswered: Why does the TGP lose track of targets when they're still visible, and why is it unable to lock targets while it is being marked as masked, even when the targets are clearly visible in the TGP page?

 

Drunken Skull's approach to the question was the assumption that a tracking laser is masked and therefore tracking cannot be maintained. I think it is clear by now that this is not the case and therefore not an explanation to the phenomenon.

 

But why, then, does the TGP lose track? With optical tracking, it shouldn't matter whether the TGP is "officially" masked or not, it should only matter if the tracking sensor is factually masked, as can be seen on the TGP page.

 

I don't know the answer to this, but I'd like to offer a plausible explanation.

 

In order to simulate optical tracking, DCS would need to compute the contrast that is shown in the TGP and then decide whether or not anything can be tracked.

 

Simulating this type of optical tracking would also require very detailed knowledge of how the actual Litening pod works.

 

And possibly most important of all, these computations must be performed in real time and would most probably consume quite an amount of CPU time (which wouldn't be that bad if DCS made full use of multi-core CPUs, but that is veering off-topic here :music_whistling:).

 

For all of the above reasons, my approach would be to not actually simulate optical tracking, but instead have the TGP lock objects whose position in the world is obviously known to the simulator engine. To make tracking appear realistic, I would then add a number of exceptions where optical tracking should not work in real life. One of these exceptions would obviously be TGP masking.

 

If this is loosely how tracking works in the DCS A-10C, then my guess would be that the programmer in charge simply took a shortcut and made the TGP lose track as soon as the "masking" indication comes up, regardless of whether or not the TGP image is actually masked.

 

But just so we're clear, this is a wild guess on my part, and the reason for loss of tracking may well be something completely different.

 

Nice explanation, thanks.

 

I just guessing here, but one could go a step further and think it is a realistic behavior to go to INR tracking once the M indication comes on. If I recall correctly, this indication comes on way before the actual masking occurs and I think the reason is, to prevent the contrast tracking from accidentally picking up a contrast on the aircraft itself. Compared to tracking a rivet on one of your weapon stations, going INR tracking is definitely a better solution. Doing this before the actual masking occurs makes sure that it works even on faster jets or during violent maneuvering.

 

Just as an idea.

 

-Mathias

 

 

EDIT: just realized that there were more posts at the end of the thread and that hcf has already said what I was trying to say here.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Nobody96

[Yurgon]

EDIT: just realized that there were more posts at the end of the thread and that hcf has already said what I was trying to say here.

 

Yeah, but the two of you definitely make a good point there, that sounds very plausible indeed. :thumbup: