not planned USMC Version of Litening TGP

[Ahmed]

Lethality bands and HUD symbology are the main that come to my mind. It's a shame that the Hornet doesn't have as much public documents available as the Viper.

[Harker]

Yeap, you're right. However, how sure are we about how it should work in that regard? Maybe signal intensity isn't something the RWR wants to show the pilot. Are we certain that IRL it is that way? We'll never know.

I have a publication that someone sent me and they also sent to one of the mods IIRC. It explains that the RWR classifies threats based on signal strength as well (different signal strength values that depend on the identified radar). A hostile that's close enough to launch should be moved to the lethal (middle) band, while someone locking you is in the lethal band and has the semi-circle that denotes STT. On a side note, the RWR is not very good at determining the distance based on signal strength (for example, the signal might be attenuated before it's received) , so it'll likely offer a good safety margin to the pilot and err on the side of caution.

[NineLine]

But its weird since somehow a USAF interfance of L2 for A10C is used, and USMC interface of L2 for Harrier all have coordinates in their screen and not a generic export one?

 

Why would ED be so persistent of using a Spanish Hornet L2 version ( even if thats documentation that they have) and not fill in the blanks on how the interface should work with USMC version to make our DCS hornet more akin to the version its supposed to be replicating?

 

 

Based on what we have seen in videos even from around "mid 2000'S we have a good comparison to to show the differences. Of all things lacking We really auht to have those coordinates listed on the screen, becuase it seems even the spanish one can still display them as another user posted earlier , but simply in different part of the FLIR page

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4345352&postcount=133

 

Remember the A-10C was born via a contract. We cant speak about the Harrier as it is RAZBAM, and as we stated, 3rd Parties can have a bit more freedom depending on the situation.

[Kev2go]

Remember the A-10C was born via a contract. We cant speak about the Harrier as it is RAZBAM, and as we stated, 3rd Parties can have a bit more freedom depending on the situation.

 

 

 

So your saying you dont have the flexibility to use open sources to your main documentation make tweaks to make to look more like the USMC Litening pod? IN this case its been shown even SAF L2 shows coordinantes.

 

 

Im not buying it, especially as the story keeps changing and we have been mislead

[Kev2go]

Repeating my previous question:

 

How do we know that the pictures/video on the first page are from USMC Litening II Pod?

 

USMC has used more advanced Litening ER and AT pod versions since 2003. It is possible that the comparison is faulty and that the USMC source are from more advanced versions of the Litening pod.

 

The only fundemental difference that i can think of between ER and AT is datalinking and recorder capabilities. Same sensor suite otherwise the same.

 

the Litening 2 pod we have on the Hornet is ( or was) supposed to be the AT version.

 

100% certainty it is not the initial l2 pod ( pre ER) as it had a much worse resolution and did not have as much zoom. ER after all stood for extended range. 2 FOV plus 9 zoom levels is the ER and AT are capable of. This is what is in common all across the board in the A10C, F16C, harrier and Hornet. Although no TGP DL sharing, that may be only because the Hornet is still EA. A10C certainly is the AT version you can share information from TGP with other A10's. This was the model we had been lead to believe was being used for the Hornet, because it was already present on the A10C with only tweaks being made for the differences in its interfacing for the specific platform.

 

Considering "more advanced versions" like the Litening 2 G4 were not put on the market until 2008 and from what i have been able to gather not adopted for usmc until as late as 2012. Those images still of USMC TGP IRRC that were used in the other thread by this same OP were from pre 2008 footage. Thus we can deduce that they are not " more advanced" than ER or AT versions

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4255869&postcount=25

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4340336&postcount=16

Edited May 24, 2020 by Kev2go

[SDsc0rch]

...

 

 

Im not buying it, especially as the story keeps changing and we have been mislead

 

dude... there are SO MANY more polite non-condescending and less adversarial ways to get a point across and get sympathy for your request............

 

sad

 

smh

[Bunny Clark]

So your saying you dont have the flexibility to use open sources to your main documentation make tweaks to make to look more like the USMC Litening pod? IN this case its been shown even SAF L2 shows coordinantes.

 

 

I'm not buying it, especially as the story keeps changing and we have been mislead

From what we know, ED has to walk a fine line between national laws (Russian MoD), other national governments (mostly the USA), international laws (ITAR), private corporations (Boeing, ect), and individual air arms (USAF, ect). At every level they seem to have regulations or agreements on what can and cannot be modeled, and what documents they are and are not allowed to use. It's possible that on a granular level any agreement ED has with Boeing to develop the Hornet may or may not have any bearing on Northrop Grumman and LITENING development, for example. To make matters more complicated, third party developers are only subject to some of the same restrictions ED is, and have their own relationships with organizations at different levels. It's not remotely surprising that this results in a somewhat convoluted and difficult situation to both explain and understand. I'm guessing even NineLine doesn't have the full picture of the contracts and politics that dictate these things behind the scenes.

 

I wish ED were more open about the restrictions they are under, but it's probably prudent that they are not, and it's possible they simply aren't allowed to be.

[nighthawk2174]

Because there are many things you cant confirm with video recordings, I shouldn't have to point that out, but it should be backed up with actual documentation.

 

As for SME's, and no offence to anyone, but many of the SME's ED deal with will 100% not commet on weapon systems except maybe in vague terms (unless a signed and agreed to contract was in place allowing the discussion of a specific system), and "SME' giving users detailed information on classified or protected systems, I would have to question quite a bit, and I also suggest being very careful, obviously we have seen users and devs get in trouble in the past pushing the limits.

[/Quote]

 

With the SME's you don't need to ask for details just be like is this what it looked like roughly? As a user said above as well you don't have any flexibility to use other souces even if they may not be 100% accurate to help fill in the blanks?

Edited May 25, 2020 by nighthawk2174

[Wizard_03]

There we go according to video at 3:13 Coordinates and Bullseye confirmed!

 

 

 

[cabzi]

There we go according to video at 3:13 Coordinates and Bullseye confirmed!

 

 

+1

 

So the openly available information outside of Spanish documentation was good after all. The whole thing seems like an another example of poor communication between devs and the community managers.

[NineLine]

Yeah, we didn't want to say anything till we knew it was coming for sure.

[nickos86]

I think that writing down "this features are currently in review" is easier than "there are no documents that implicate it shouldn't be there". The community will argue much less knowing the idea is not dismissed no matter how much is being written here.

 

I'm really glad you'll push this features. They'll help make the 18 a much more cooperative plane in MP ground attack scenarios. Many of us (including myself) enjoy this very much.

 

Thanks!

[med-taha]

I think that writing down "this features are currently in review" is easier than "there are no documents that implicate it shouldn't be there". The community will argue much less knowing the idea is not dismissed no matter how much is being written here.

Well said

[Wizard_03]

Yeah, we didn't want to say anything till we knew it was coming for sure.

 

 

I'm just happy its gonna happen. I Appreciate all you guys.

[obious]

Can I just ask, with the delivery/release of the ATFLIR for the Hornet, will be get VV and angle of bank etc indicators (ie similar to what Wags just demo’d in his YT video for the A/G radar) that folks were expecting with the LITENING (ie these things in the centre of the screen as an overlay rather than to the bottom left)?

[Swift.]

Can I just ask, with the delivery/release of the ATFLIR for the Hornet, will be get VV and angle of bank etc indicators (ie similar to what Wags just demo’d in his YT video for the A/G radar) that folks were expecting with the LITENING (ie these things in the centre of the screen as an overlay rather than to the bottom left)?

 

AFAIK the ATFLIR we are getting will be the USN version. So it will look as you expect it to.

[NineLine]

I think that writing down "this features are currently in review" is easier than "there are no documents that implicate it shouldn't be there". The community will argue much less knowing the idea is not dismissed no matter how much is being written here.

 

I'm really glad you'll push this features. They'll help make the 18 a much more cooperative plane in MP ground attack scenarios. Many of us (including myself) enjoy this very much.

 

Thanks!

 

At the time, it was the correct answer. Thanks.

[nickos86]

At the time, it was the correct answer. Thanks.

 

Gotya. Thanks!

[_mu110_]

Not entirely sure what is meant by "bullseye." Does that refer to the north arrow symbology or a different indication of the actual bullseye point?

[Kev2go]

its good to hear wags confirm additional features discussed here namely coordinates are going to make it in!

[Ramsay]

Not entirely sure what is meant by "bullseye." Does that refer to the north arrow symbology or a different indication of the actual bullseye point?

 

Not sure myself.

 

In the DCS A-10C, the TGP display has an arrow that points north.

 

In the AV-8B (~2003), the arrow points to the Target Point i.e. you might be searching for threats, know where friendlies are and told "target 300m north", etc. or want to pass on similar info.

 

In video of the Litening II in use on the Spanish EM-18M, the arrow perhaps points to a waypoint (with direction/distance 207° / 17.6), rather than north.

 

At guess we'll be able to do the same for ground attack as we do for A2A and set one of the waypoints as a reference bulleye.

[amalahama]

Hi,

 

Is the LST modeled?

[Tholozor]

Yes, with TDC assigned, press Cage/Uncage to command LSS (or press the corresponding OSB on the FLIR page). The pod has a different search pattern compared to the U.S. LITENING. Instead of scanning in a wide, sweeping pattern to the left and right, it scans a narrow area centered around the pod's LOS. During the scan, you can toggle the scan FOV between wide and narrow.

[amalahama]

Yes, with TDC assigned, press Cage/Uncage to command LSS (or press the corresponding OSB on the FLIR page). The pod has a different search pattern compared to the U.S. LITENING. Instead of scanning in a wide, sweeping pattern to the left and right, it scans a narrow area centered around the pod's LOS. During the scan, you can toggle the scan FOV between wide and narrow.

 

Hi, it's not fully complete modeled yet. In Spanish Hornets, LST mode presents in both HUD and SA the search area where the seeker is looking at. I haven't seen those helpers in DCS yet

[deadpool]

On 5/23/2020 at 8:49 PM, Ahmed said:

What I wonder is how the F-16's HTS is going to turn up.

More: When ^^

 

On 5/23/2020 at 10:44 PM, hein22 said:

 

Yeap, you're right. However, how sure are we about how it should work in that regard? Maybe signal intensity isn't something the RWR wants to show the pilot. Are we certain that IRL it is that way? We'll never know.

According to this book: https://books.google.de/books?id=RjZTqYTEADYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false American RWR are suggested to be programmed also for mission profiles. It sounded in the book as if high altitude missions would classify threats that can't reach that high differently then when flying a mission with lower level altitude parts.

I am not sure if modern RWRs aren't connected to altimeters etc. to make those decisions more or less fluidly, but the book at leasts suggests a pre-programming of such a kind before the mission starts.

 

On 5/25/2020 at 12:33 AM, Bunny Clark said:

From what we know, ED has to walk a fine line between national laws (Russian MoD), other national governments (mostly the USA), international laws (ITAR), private corporations (Boeing, ect), and individual air arms (USAF, ect). At every level they seem to have regulations or agreements on what can and cannot be modeled, and what documents they are and are not allowed to use. It's possible that on a granular level any agreement ED has with Boeing to develop the Hornet may or may not have any bearing on Northrop Grumman and LITENING development, for example. To make matters more complicated, third party developers are only subject to some of the same restrictions ED is, and have their own relationships with organizations at different levels. It's not remotely surprising that this results in a somewhat convoluted and difficult situation to both explain and understand. I'm guessing even NineLine doesn't have the full picture of the contracts and politics that dictate these things behind the scenes.

 

I wish ED were more open about the restrictions they are under, but it's probably prudent that they are not, and it's possible they simply aren't allowed to be.

Don't forget the folks on the forums here that want "balance" and such.