[CORRECT AS IS] Current ATRK/PTRK logic

[nickos86]

Hi,

 

Perhaps I'm missing the idea of "why" it was implemented the way it was... but in my mind it make no sense.

 

At the moment, if i want to track a moving target i have to anticipate where it would be, put the tracking gate and wait for it to enter. If it change direction- i need to restart the process (which take crutial time). If I want to track the third vehicle in a column - i can't. It's very hard to put on the target itself... More likely it will "lock" the vehicle before/after. The offset cursor make no sense as well - no benefit what so ever.

 

I know no other system that works this way. All work like the "A10 TGP" - slew the cursor to the target and it start tracking. That make sense...

 

Look at minute 9:28 in the following video:

Note how the offset cursor moves the camera pov while track is kept (btw, track= an updated TGT point for the mission computer... at the moment the TGT waypoint won't change while the target is moving, resulting in a wrong drop point calculation to LGBs).

 

ED, can you please provide document/information regarding why it was implemented the way it was? It make no sense and actually make the point track inefficient.

Same for ATRK but there it's less important.

[DLEGION]

absolutely agree.

i dont know if its real or not, but for sure doesnt make any sense.

[dorianR666]

same

i absolutely cannot imagine it works like this one the real plane, someone must have misunderstood the documentation or something

 

 

perhaps when you designate an offset and press SCS <direction>, it should move the reticle but stay in the same submode instead of cycling to the next? that would make so much more sense and actually make point track usable (and offsets actually very practical). its incomprehensible to me, why moving the reticle is coupled with submode change.

Edited August 22, 2020 by dorianR666

[LastRifleRound]

same

i absolutely cannot imagine it works like this one the real plane, someone must have misunderstood the documentation or something

 

 

perhaps when you designate an offset and press SCS <direction>, it should move the reticle but stay in the same submode instead of cycling to the next? that would make so much more sense and actually make point track usable (and offsets actually very practical). its incomprehensible to me, why moving the reticle is coupled with submode change.

 

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. If it's the same as the Harrier implementation, the documentation states that you can't slew it without holding TDC depress. This way it isn't ambiguous when you want the system to attempt a track.

 

Also, the laser should follow the offset cursor and it does not.

 

Finally, the offset cursor should be ground stabilized on TDC depress and isn't.

 

Again, this is according to Harrier documentation. No idea if it's the same in the Hornet, but that set up does seem more intuitive and the Harrier and Hornet share a lot of symbology and functions.

 

Note there's a whole slew of versions of LITENING. The new ones can carry their own SAR radar and have color cameras!

Edited August 25, 2020 by LastRifleRound

[Fri13]

Also, the laser should follow the offset cursor and it does not.

Finally, the offset cursor should be ground stabilized on TDC depress and isn't.

 

Again, this is according to Harrier documentation. No idea if it's the same in the Hornet, but that set up does seem more intuitive and the Harrier and Hornet share a lot of symbology and functions.

 

If that is from the real Harrier NATOPS, then it sounds far more useful than what LITENING II is on the Hornet.

 

Note there's a whole slew of versions of LITENING. The new ones can carry their own SAR radar and have color cameras!

 

Yes, all kind but one could think that the basic logic and functionalities wouldn't change so much that you have suddenly completely different logic for targeting, tracking and designation.

[LastRifleRound]

I think until they simulaye some of the limitations of the litening, none of this matters. There's no reason to use any track mode except the occassional fsst ground mover. The slewable INR mode stays right where you aim it, and you get no loss in image quality at max zoom. The track modes as implemented are an annoyance best avoided.

[Shimmergloom667]

Yes, all kind but one could think that the basic logic and functionalities wouldn't change so much that you have suddenly completely different logic for targeting, tracking and designation.

 

That is the case, though, just look at neither the A-10s integration having an offset function like in the Hornet, nor the Viper having one.