LANTIRN - Questions regarding correct simulation of the shortcommings

[viper2097]

Actually I'm reading the book "Black Aces High" which is as Tomcat lover an absolute pleasure to read. I can only highly recommend it.

 

Beside a lot of interesting things, they also go a bit more in detail with the Lantirn and its shortcommings. I would really like to know if those are alread known by Heatblur, and also if there are any plans to include them:

 

"The penetrator needed extra input from its droppers. Because of a software glitch, the LANTIRN’s automatic calculation of range to the target at the time of drop was wrong. The RIO was required to do a manual laser range prior to release and then adjust several of the LANTIRN’s automatic figures with other manual calculations. Toad had not done that. And Beaker hadn’t caught it. “What happened was he messed up his switchology and he didn’t update our system to get laser ranging prior to release,” said Beaker. “So the system was working just off passive ranging, and it was about a half mile different than what the actual ranging was…. So we actually released the weapon about two thousand feet inside of its minimum range.”"

(from "Black Aces High: The Story of a Modern Fighter Squadron at War (English Edition)" by Robert K. Wilcox)

 

• What software glitch?
  
• As far as I know, the difference between passive ranging and laser ranging is already implemented, but is it as far as a half mile off?
  
• What kind of automatic figures needed to be adjusted with manual/calculated ones?
  

 

"Most important, the lasers the Allies were using didn’t penetrate clouds and were hampered by rain, snow, and sleet. Although wispy or small or both, clouds, rain, hail, and sleet were nevertheless made up of solid matter. And when the laser hit the solid, it reflected back just as if it had hit a concrete wall. The laser didn’t discriminate. The result was that the obstruction broke the lock on the designated target. The bomb the laser was guiding went stupid. Bad weather and the quick changes in temperatures it could cause could also diffuse the infrared, temperature-generated picture on the LANTIRN scope, further degrading the aircraft’s ability to bomb. Crews couldn’t hit what they couldn’t see and didn’t want to target what they were not sure of."

(from "Black Aces High: The Story of a Modern Fighter Squadron at War (English Edition)" by Robert K. Wilcox)

 

• If I understand that correct, the indicated laser range should/could jump around on different values when useing it in rain/snow. Also it could happen that the laser don't reach the surface and the bomb does not get guided.
  
• At the moment, it is possible to even laser trough the airframe when flying inverted, maybe with a new weather engine those things like "laser is not going through clouds" will also be implemented by ED - as soon as the clouds are synced.
  

 

Would be awesome to get feedback from HB regarding those things.

[QuiGon]

 

• What software glitch?

That software glitch might (or might not) have only been present on a specific (software) version of the LANTIRN that they were using at that time.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

That software glitch might (or might not) have only been present on a specific (software) version of the LANTIRN that they were using at that time.

 

He is probably onto something though. Our F-14 is a very early LANTIRN fit prior to PTID/Sparrowhawk and the book is regarding Op Allied Force in 1999 so probably very much the same time frame.

[Home Fries]

Though I could be wrong in this case, I think VF-41 was using 20k LANTIRN pods in 1999. 40k LANTIRN pods were incorporated into the fleet by 2001, so this glitch may have been taken care of with the new pods.

[LanceCriminal86]

Though I could be wrong in this case, I think VF-41 was using 20k LANTIRN pods in 1999. 40k LANTIRN pods were incorporated into the fleet by 2001, so this glitch may have been taken care of with the new pods.

 

 

I thought only the upgraded D models had the 40k laser, from some GWOT stuff I recall reading.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Though I could be wrong in this case, I think VF-41 was using 20k LANTIRN pods in 1999. 40k LANTIRN pods were incorporated into the fleet by 2001, so this glitch may have been taken care of with the new pods.

 

 

I think we could use a sticky for referencing exactly what year / fit our F-14B is and the A will be, also working from memory I think our B model is pre-1999 as we don't have the upgrades from OFP320 or 321.

 

 

 

The jets from the book Black Aces High are also A models so the timeframes/specific fit might be slightly different but I'd expect that the A/B LANTIRN fit for that timeframe was largely identical.

 

 

As a result I would expect our airplane to be subject to all of the limitations mentioned in the book / first post.

[IronMike]

I dont think the software glitch is implemented, but I will ask Grover. However I don't think it should be or that it would be really worth spending time on (Jester lantirn is still a task not fully complete and requires lots of attention, this would only distract from.) While such intricacies are awesome fun for the die hardest of all simmers, for most it would make things more complicated than they are and I think any real RIO would have been happy for the glitch to be gone, rather than wishing it back, so recreating the Lantirn more towards how it was intended to work, I think is legitimate. Even then it has enough shortcomings that make it a not so easy pod to use.

 

 

 

As for the lasers, I think that is a DCS thing. However I think Grover did implement the lantirn not tracking/working/lasing (?) through clouds. I'd have to ask him, here, too.

 

I am not sure if the laser illuminating its target when masked is a bug or a DCS thing, we'll take a look.

 

 

 

 

On a sidenote about years: thinking 1 specific year, month and day is not really a definitive guideline. You can think like this: the B is mid-90s to late 90s or early 2000s, and the A will be late 80s, early to mid 90s. Most Tomcats have been patchwork. You would find systems mixed, Ds flying around with stuff from the A still, As getting upgrades of later system improvements, Bs having a bit of both and so on and so forth. Just going by one Natops of one specific year did not get us far at all. Sometimes they contradict, sometimes they are even plain wrong (because said system either wasnt implemented yet or not anymore, etc), sometimes they just give you 3 different solutions next to each other and you have to guess which one was the right one, and so on and so forth. (A reason btw why one cannot really get far without SME input.) So instead of focusing on 1 specific year, we had to consider a wider gravitational circle of information, if you like, focusing around a certain time period. This would make it simply inappropriate to say it was a B from 1995 and an A from 1989. It would also not reflect on the fact that even within such a year, a B and a B standing next to each other might not have been completely identical. So this makes the choice of what to recreate and whatnot a bit more difficult, leaving you with the best option to simulate what was most common across the board for most of the aircraft. This is the approach we chose. So the best reference will always remain: "the B is mid 90s and the A is late 80s to early 90s". And even so, I would always argue to think the timeframe rather wider than more narrow, as in the end it is about recreating a rich Tomcat-Experience for an inclusive sim environment, rather than painstakingly recreating a specific BuNo. The reason why then certain aspects like Sparrowhawk or PTIDs etc are left out is either lack of data or lack of time and ressources. But if we could, we would always rather try to add more, than less (within reason and reflecting upon the fact that a good sim experience also needs to take playability into account). :)

Edited August 26, 2020 by IronMike

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I'm not trying to stitch you up, but that sounds like even more reason to have a sticky specifying what is in / out?

 

 

 

I agree that there are multiple degrees of scope that need to be taken into account when building a simulator but apart from the usual requests for Sparrowhawk or the DFCS etc there does seem to be a general lack of awareness of what features we read about in a NATOPS etc are considered in scope or not.

 

 

To be clear, this isn't me making a pitch for adding scope or features that have limited benefits, just asking for clarification on what it is in.

[IronMike]

A general list, sure, if you guys like. But I don't think it is necessary to list what software glitch we recreated and which not. We did recreate a lot of fine intricacies, such the INS potentially failing on a cat launch, etc etc... so the list would become anything but comprehensive.

 

The general points should be known, and have been listed in previous updates, nothing has changed in that regard.

 

I think we will do a FAQ at some point soon to address some of the more prevelant questions, as Draconus suggested, I can see how information starts to get stretched thin among a number of threads.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

The idea of listing it presents some interesting questions - its not a Heatblur, or even DCS level problem that at some point you hit a wall of diminishing returns in terms of simulating tiniest of nuances, and also documenting each nuance to the degree that you would find in engineering documents of the real deal.

 

 

Obviously the real item works a particular way at a particular time...because it just kind of does, it exists. And due to the amounts of money involved and the need to train operators to a pretty high standard in order to operate and maintain it you get incredibly deep silos of information on every system at every change. (Only some of which is easily accessible to a motivated and interested, but still general audience like ourselves).

 

 

I was going to suggest a mission statement might help similarly to how the team way back in Fleet Defender prefaced their manual explaining that for their purposes all F-14s are B's, even in the 70s. But I realised there already is one and it was "to make the best F-14 simulation feasible within DCS and current hardware constraints".

 

 

Its just really hard to find some kind of middle ground that defines all of the intricacies of what is now being simulated to a waaaay deeper level than it was 20 years ago, while not just making some exhaustive bullet point list that you can't begin to decipher without reading volume after volume of supporting material.

[IronMike]

To be fair that is basically our manual though. While some very small bits are missing (on Jester for example), everything else is in there, or at the very least, should be.

[Glide]

The LANTIRN on the F-16 had a weather mode for terrain following radar. Not sure if that had any impact on targeting. These electronic eyes were (are?) imperfect. That's why you have a paddle switch dedicated to disengaging the system. There's a dedicated Wx switch on the F-16 up front controls, but I've never heard of it having anything to do with targeting.

 

 

I don't think it's valuable to simulate bad design. These things get fixed over time. You can always enable random system failures to add some realism. Modeling is like restoring a vintage automobile; you pick the one with all the bells and whistles.

[Tyrant07]

The weather stuff and terrain radar was part of the whole LANTIRN system and required a separate pod to work in tandem with the TGP side of the house.

 

AFAIK the F-14 never carried the other pod and just used the TGP. The F-15E did/does(?) use the other pod for terrain radar though.