[UNABLE TO REPRODUCE] TGP Coordinate Generation

[Harlikwin]

With regards to the TGP, are any of the known errors/problems in generating accurate coordinates from a TGP for JDAM's implemented? Will they be implemented or will we have unrealistically inaccurate coordinate generation from 15 miles out?

[falcon_120]

You meant unrealistically accurate right?

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Dejjvid]

With regards to the TGP, are any of the known errors/problems in generating accurate coordinates from a TGP for JDAM's implemented? Will they be implemented or will we have unrealistically inaccurate coordinate generation from 15 miles out?

 

Dude, have you even tested the TGP?

Edited July 31, 2019 by Dejjvid

[Deano87]

Dude, have you even tested the TGP?

 

Who are you talking to?

[Rainmaker]

This is what happens when folks read things on the internet, don’t have the information for an accurate assessment, and then start trying to question it...

 

Thanks internet...

[ricktoberfest]

With regards to the TGP, are any of the known errors/problems in generating accurate coordinates from a TGP for JDAM's implemented? Will they be implemented or will we have unrealistically inaccurate coordinate generation from 15 miles out?

 

 

 

I think your title is wrong. I think you enjoy it.

 

I for one am just glad we have it and can’t wait to try it out when I get home.

[Ziptie]

The TGP is awesome. Obviously still a WIP, but able to get coordinates and use JDAMs, GBUs, laser mavericks, etc. Took me a few attempts/runs to sort out needing to toggle the correct switches on the right console panel, and appropriate OSB buttons - but once I sorted it out and stopped making the mistake of incorrect procedure - works like a charm. Not sure if you would actually be able to get those coordinates from the TGP like it does for the JDAMS, etc - but you can in the game, which is all that currently matters (for me personally), since we are using a game.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Don

[Kev2go]

This is what happens when folks read things on the internet, don’t have the information for an accurate assessment, and then start trying to question it...

 

Thanks internet...

 

Or perhaps its not wise either to make an assumption on what you think people know or don't know, and retort with dismissal purely on that alone.

 

I know what OP ( harklin) is basing that on

 

"An Analysis of Target Location Error Generated by

the Litening Pod as Integrated on the AV-8B

Harrier II"

 

 

I wont post because rule 1.16 even though its really "open source" ( you can look it up if you want) , but that certainly provides strong enough of a basis to at question if simulation of L2 ability to generate perfect coordinates ( in part due to "communication" errors with aircraft ) , or to inquire whether or not ED are aware, and will eventually implement this . After all the L2 pod is still WIP, so it might premature to judge, but no means is OP out of line for bringing this question up.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Kev2go

[Rainmaker]

Or perhaps its not wise either to make an assumption on what you think people know or don't know, and retort with dismissal purely on that alone.

 

I know what OP ( harklin) is basing that on

 

"An Analysis of Target Location Error Generated by

the Litening Pod as Integrated on the AV-8B

Harrier II"

 

 

I wont post because rule 1.16 even though its really "open source" ( you can look it up if you want) , but that certainly provides strong enough of a basis to at question if simulation of L2 ability to generate perfect coordinates, or to inquire whether or not ED are aware, and will eventually implement this . After all the L2 pod is still WIP, so it might premature to judge, but no means is OP out of line for bringing this question up.

 

You are not talking about the pod generating coordinates itself, that's a limitation for talking to the aircraft. I have been around the real thing, which has been around for quite a while now, and know what exactly it 'is' capable of doing. As for talking to the F/A-18, it has already been stated that a few things were 'advanced' above the LOT 20 software for sim playability/enjoyment purposes. Don't assume that I need to assume things....

[Harlikwin]

This is what happens when folks read things on the internet, don’t have the information for an accurate assessment, and then start trying to question it...

 

Thanks internet...

 

Well I have some knowledge of mathematics and box of crayons so I'm happy to explain.

 

I'd post the whole thing, but that pesky rule 1.16...

 

Till then crayons will have to suffice.

[Harlikwin]

I think your title is wrong. I think you enjoy it.

 

I for one am just glad we have it and can’t wait to try it out when I get home.

 

I love the TPOD. I just want to know if they bothered to model the various errors you get with it. Or if its arcade mode.

[Harlikwin]

You are not talking about the pod generating coordinates itself, that's a limitation for talking to the aircraft. I have been around the real thing, which has been around for quite a while now, and know what exactly it 'is' capable of doing. As for talking to the F/A-18, it has already been stated that a few things were 'advanced' above the LOT 20 software for sim playability/enjoyment purposes. Don't assume that I need to assume things....

 

Actually I'm talking the basic math and physics involved. But please do Edjumacate me my bro.

[Rainmaker]

Actually I'm talking the basic math and physics involved. But please do Edjumacate me my bro.

 

 

Pod knows where it's at in space, pod know's where it's looking and data like slant range, pod generates coordinates of target location. IRL, you would sweeten the accuracy with laser ranging...looks to be an unnecessary step in the sim.

 

That pod has been used to generate coordinates for drops for 15 years now, and that's information that I personally know of, so it could be longer than that.

[Harlikwin]

Pod knows where it's at in space, pod know's where it's looking and data like slant range, pod generates coordinates of target location. IRL, you would sweeten the accuracy with laser ranging...looks to be an unnecessary step in the sim.

 

That pod has been used to generate coordinates for drops for 15 years now, and that's information that I personally know of, so it could be longer than that.

 

The pod we are talking about in the early 2000's pulls INS/gps data from plane.

 

GPS is not perfect. GPS has SEP errors (that be spherical error probability), which also happen to be more or less accurate depending on how much of the constellation they can see, which is time and date dependent, which is also why certain missions are planned for certain times. Never mind the fact GPS can be jammed or spoofed. And if you are relying on INS accuracy, good luck...

 

 

Pod gyros aren't perfect, they also have errors. And since angle rate ranging is used to generate said cooridantes, it has real problems at low angle rates and innacurate angle rates.

 

So... simply put if pod has a error volume that it doesn't know exactly where its in coupled with the fact its "ponting" error gives it real error issues in all 3 planes. Also laser ranging errors are a real thing, especially when there's stuff like, dust, fog etc to make it more of a problem so that's a solution, but only within the actual range of the laser and it has its own real non-zero error.

 

How far can you generate accurate coordinates to, its a straightforward, if not necessarily simple angular relationship. (but hey, I'd be happy if ED coded some linear inaccuracy relationship, that would be "stupid simple eh")

 

As wags said. JSOW's aren't used much in TOO mode, but rather PP mode, and a very big part of that reason is that the TPOD can't actually generate coordinates accurate enough to employ them from that far out (like 20-40nm).

 

PS there are publicly available master thesis written specifically on this topic... And the effective range is a lot closer than 20nm... But rule 1.16 and all that...

 

PPS: Dear ED, I didn't post this in the bug section, the reason you might not be able to replicate it is because you didn't code it in the first place.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Harlikwin

[NineLine]

I don't believe GPS errors are modelled, from what I hear our GPS weapons can be too perfect at times, I also don't know if that is something we will invest time in, I will have to ask.

[Rainmaker]

The pod we are talking about in the early 2000's pulls INS/gps data from plane.

 

GPS is not perfect. GPS has SEP errors (that be spherical error probability), which also happen to be more or less accurate depending on how much of the constellation they can see, which is time and date dependent, which is also why certain missions are planned for certain times. Never mind the fact GPS can be jammed or spoofed. And if you are relying on INS accuracy, good luck...

 

 

Pod gyros aren't perfect, they also have errors. And since angle rate ranging is used to generate said cooridantes, it has real problems at low angle rates and innacurate angle rates.

 

So... simply put if pod has a error volume that it doesn't know exactly where its in coupled with the fact its "ponting" error gives it real error issues in all 3 planes. Also laser ranging errors are a real thing, especially when there's stuff like, dust, fog etc to make it more of a problem so that's a solution, but only within the actual range of the laser and it has its own real non-zero error.

 

How far can you generate accurate coordinates to, its a straightforward, if not necessarily simple angular relationship. (but hey, I'd be happy if ED coded some linear inaccuracy relationship, that would be "stupid simple eh")

 

As wags said. JSOW's aren't used much in TOO mode, but rather PP mode, and a very big part of that reason is that the TPOD can't actually generate coordinates accurate enough to employ them from that far out (like 20-40nm).

 

PS there are publicly available master thesis written specifically on this topic... And the effective range is a lot closer than 20nm... But rule 1.16 and all that...

 

PPS: Dear ED, I didn't post this in the bug section, the reason you might not be able to replicate it is because you didn't code it in the first place.

 

You are trying to cherry-pick out of a report, based on a different airframe, at a different time, with a bugged OFP. That's what I mean by my initial post. This forum is built on experts that read some stuff on the internet.

 

If you are in an effective range/slant angle to use the pod, you are going to be fine for coordinate generation. If you wanna believe it's unrealistic because 'I googled it' then so be it, don't use it beyond whatever range you think in your mind is realistic and move on.

[Rainmaker]

I don't believe GPS errors are modelled, from what I hear our GPS weapons can be too perfect at times, I also don't know if that is something we will invest time in, I will have to ask.

 

Do you really want another 'auto bombing' thread? :D

[Harlikwin]

I don't believe GPS errors are modelled, from what I hear our GPS weapons can be too perfect at times, I also don't know if that is something we will invest time in, I will have to ask.

 

If you would look into it I think there is a solid portion of the player base that would appreciate it.

 

Honestly something like random SEP for GPS, the possibility of GPS being jammed/spoofed. Cuz hey that was a thing in 2003.

 

And for the TPOD something like the error graphs vs range would be easy enough to implement. The paper has both, and the actual just from raw theory error data and "real" flight data which is more accurate because some errors cancel, so you could use the theoretical data, apply whatever "fudge" factor to keep out of classified land and still end up with something in the ballpark. I'd be happy with something like a linear error relationship starting at 0 going up to the max JDAM error 43ft or whatever at the pods effective range and increasing at the same rate past that.

[Harlikwin]

You are trying to cherry-pick out of a report, based on a different airframe, at a different time, with a bugged OFP. That's what I mean by my initial post. This forum is built on experts that read some stuff on the internet.

 

If you are in an effective range/slant angle to use the pod, you are going to be fine for coordinate generation. If you wanna believe it's unrealistic because 'I googled it' then so be it, don't use it beyond whatever range you think in your mind is realistic and move on.

 

I guess my expertise might extend a wee past "interwebz" lore. And I quickly tire of the appeal to authority logical fallacies you like to throw up. Tell you what lets, make the analogy and ask the question again. Can an F1 formula car driver build a formula 1 car, does he have an in depth engineering knowledge of how each part work. OR does he know enough to his job and win races?

 

And did you actually bother to read the report?

 

There is a whole section that in detail describes the theoretical basis for all airframe/tpod errors that could possibly exist. Those hold true for all airframes, and all tpods that have ever been built and will ever be built. It then goes into details using real flight data for one airframe and tpod.

 

So do tell me for the 2007 era hornet and this specific Tpod what is that effective slant range? Is it infinite? Cuz that's how it works right now, perfect coordinates as far as the tpod can see. And that's not realistic.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Harlikwin