correct as-is ATFLIR maximum zoom vs Litening TGP

[Viper 13]

I can only select zoom level 2X  at narrow field of view on the ATFLIR, while on the Litening I can select 9X
This gives the Litening TGP a much greater viewing distance
Is the zoom level on the ATFLIR that much worst IRL or a DCS bug?
2 screenshots of maximum zoom of both TGP pods

[Tholozor]

This is how it is on ATFLIR. It can only do 1x and 2x on medium and narrow FOV. Size-wise it's much smaller compared to LITENING.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Tholozor

[MrReynolds]

I've just done this VERY thing with taking shots and even video from different ranges etc and agree!

 

I had 5 waypoints, and with the ATFLIR not being on the centre pylon 2 of them were even masked.

Coupled with the need for an Asynchronous loadout I'll be passing on the new pod for now.

 

I guess if you're CAS you may need the wider field of view (then again you'll be masked more often)......

[Bunny Clark]

That's partly because the current implementation of Zoom on the Lightening looks too good. The Zoom 1-9 levels on Lightening are all digital zoom, so the image at Zoom 9 should appear quite pixelated. 

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

That's partly because the current implementation of Zoom on the Lightening looks too good. The Zoom 1-9 levels on Lightening are all digital zoom, so the image at Zoom 9 should appear quite pixelated. 

 

Precisely, DCS doesn't really model different "kinds" of zoom, or limitations of optics/digital zoom and so forth, nor sensor resolution limits. A long range, you might see something that your sensor can detect as 3-4 pixel blob, and no matter how much say "enhance" "enhance" "enhance" in digital world  Its still gonna be a 16 pixel (blob) with the rough shape of the original object. 

 

I'd guess in OP's litening image it would look like minecraft B1...

Edited April 14, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Zarma]

Was going to ask the same question about the zoom capacity. Thanks.

[toilet2000]

The LITENING zoom as said previously is WAY over modeled. In reality it's a digital zoom with integration (making it a bit better than pure digital zoom) when using zoom levels. Max full-resolution zoom should be Narrow FOV at Zoom 1.0.

On top of that, the LITENING AT actually has a better narrow FOV compared to the ATFLIR according to docs I could find. I think it's 1x1 deg FOV vs 1.5x1.5 deg FOV.

[sk000tch]

On 4/14/2021 at 3:18 PM, Harlikwin said:

On 4/14/2021 at 11:21 AM, Bunny Clark said:

That's partly because the current implementation of Zoom on the Lightening looks too good. The Zoom 1-9 levels on Lightening are all digital zoom, so the image at Zoom 9 should appear quite pixelated. 

 

Precisely, DCS doesn't really model different "kinds" of zoom, or limitations of optics/digital zoom and so forth, nor sensor resolution limits.

 

 

Please don't state conjecture as fact. These forums are riddled with answers to questions that begin with "It should" or "airplane Y does this so..." Just because you have experience with something kind of like another, does not equate to knowledge of the other. I recognize you know about pixels, and, you have evidently both zoomed in on your camera phone or in photoshop beyond where actual pixel data exists.

 

However, these systems have nothing in common with the pods. The MFDs in the legacy hornet are low res, depending on what pod and what mode  you are in there are usually many more levels of zoom data there before you would haver the problem you're talking about. Moreover, the pods we have in the sim cannot be compared in any meaningful way to RL pods. There's a few reasons for this, including it being very difficult to compare a pod zooming into detail of a rendered relatively low res environment vs. a pod  zooming into a real world very high rez environment, the factors that contribute to loss of clarity or often optical or environmental in nature and aren't sim'd in DCS. Moreover, image processing and stabilization plays a HUGE rule in how an image appears yet it doesn't show up in pure stats. As a result, its impossible to compare apples to apples. What pods specifically are we talking about? Litening II with 320 or ER with 600 rez flir?  What about atflir? Is it after LRU upgrade and software suite? Our litening pods don't have basic gen 3 functionality like multiple target cuing, so it must be a II. What about Sniper XR? The first HTS dual pod compatible targeting pod of any kind was Sniper, and only then it was, iirc (<-- see what I did ithere when i wasn't sure?) release 7 and S-3. So if they go with that, we've got multi-target cuing, auto target recognition and threat categorization with vastly increased accuracy coordinates, the full suite of NTISR .... actually, guarantee this won't be in game but we will be able to ID an ak-47 from 60k ft slant range right? *crickets*

 

Actually in fairness if that's the sniper version then litening should be G4, or at least G4 kit upgrade right? 1024x1024 Flir, amazing CCD and the NIR/IR laser imaging? That's what the rafael got with its AVP so aren't we.... Yes, we should definitely get G4 right? 

 

I'm not trying to rub any noses in piss its just this place has a way of creating and then spreading misinformation. I don't know how much it affects the game design, but it doesn't take much for some nonsense to get repeated as fact. So please, i beg, unless you really know what you're talking about please hold off on comments like the Litening pod is simulated "too well." Its just not true, its not even close. Even if it were true optically, its missing so much stuff that it doesn't make up for. And even if you had lots of experience using the pods, as many do, you would likely agree that comparing a simulated pod to a real pod is harder than it sounds. Even if at a specfiic time we can document that the apparent zoom is higher than it should be, what matters is the whole package that sums to the pods' effectiveness. And asking those questions, it really matters exactly which pod and when you're talking about.

Edited April 16, 2021 by sk000tch

[QuiGon]

On 4/15/2021 at 12:18 AM, Harlikwin said:

 

Precisely, DCS doesn't really model different "kinds" of zoom, or limitations of optics/digital zoom and so forth, nor sensor resolution limits. A long range, you might see something that your sensor can detect as 3-4 pixel blob, and no matter how much say "enhance" "enhance" "enhance" in digital world  Its still gonna be a 16 pixel (blob) with the rough shape of the original object. 

 

I'd guess in OP's litening image it would look like minecraft B1...

 

 

Sounds like you have never used the LANTIRN TGP in DCS, which does exactly that! If you zoom in on the LANTIRN you get a mess of pixels.

So no, it's not true that DCS doesn't model this. It's just specific TGPs like the LITENING, that don't model this.

Edited April 16, 2021 by QuiGon

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, sk000tch said:

However, these systems have nothing in common with the pods. The MFDs in the legacy hornet are low res, depending on what pod and what mode  you are in there are usually many more levels of zoom data there before you would haver the problem you're talking about.

 

We are not talking about the MFCD alone. We are talking about the POD limitations itself.

 

The TGP LItening has a 640x512 resolution camera. You can not get any better than that by any means. 

It has two optical magnifications, Wide and Narrow. That is the best it can get. Using either one will give you a ~500 x 500 pixels video as it is cropped to square and utilize some stabilization etc.

 

Now that is only at the its best possible scenario. Each digital zoom level shrinks it. There are digital processing to be done, but it is nothing amazing. Blur is blur no matter how you try to deconvolute it when you don't know exactly what was done for the blur or if you need to do it in real time. 

 

A 9x zoom level in a Litening gives you at best case scenario a 52 x 52 resolution video. 

That is blur. That is blur on blur and just blobs everywhere. 

 

That doesn't even count the original video being soft because all the atmospheric problems it need to see through. The military targeting pod is not better than even a binoculars. You can go look using binoculars around places and you see that at various times things just gets soft. Even when you can look from high altitude down, problems are there. Nothing you can do for it. And when you enable FLIR, that is soft on soft. In DCS that is as sharp and detailed as any other video you ever see. Thermal imagery is not something that is high detailed at that level of cameras. And you take that already soft video and you capture it with a digital zoom processing and you get soft video to output. 

 

Now that video is to be outputted on a low resolution display. Again own pixelated quality instead sharp 1024 x 1024 as now. So you get pixels and you get soft. 

 

4 hours ago, sk000tch said:

What pods specifically are we talking about? Litening II with 320 or ER with 600 rez flir?  What about atflir? Is it after LRU upgrade and software suite? Our litening pods don't have basic gen 3 functionality like multiple target cuing, so it must be a II. What about Sniper XR? The first HTS dual pod compatible targeting pod of any kind was Sniper, and only then it was, iirc (<-- see what I did ithere when i wasn't sure?) release 7 and S-3. So if they go with that, we've got multi-target cuing, auto target recognition and threat categorization with vastly increased accuracy coordinates, the full suite of NTISR .... actually, guarantee this won't be in game but we will be able to ID an ak-47 from 60k ft slant range right? *crickets*

 

The AV-8B Harrier just received from Razbam in 2.7 update the Litening 4th gen (2008) pod. It is best there is now. It has a 1024 x 1024 FLIR and CCD. Multi-Target capability etc. 

 

4 hours ago, sk000tch said:

Actually in fairness if that's the sniper version then litening should be G4, or at least G4 kit upgrade right? 1024x1024 Flir, amazing CCD and the NIR/IR laser imaging? That's what the rafael got with its AVP so aren't we.... Yes, we should definitely get G4 right? 

 

Nope, G4 is from 2008, Viper is from 2007 and Hornet is from 2005.

Because ED doesn't want to provide a more realistic modules where compatible systems becomes available when mission year is newer, it means that you are always stuck to specific year no matter how realistic something would be to be available.

Like example these targeting pods are independent systems, where they do all the work and feeds just the video to cockpit and receive the basic control inputs. All the fancy stuff the pods does is in the pod itself from tracking to datalinks to everything. It is plug and play basically. 

 

4 hours ago, sk000tch said:

I'm not trying to rub any noses in piss its just this place has a way of creating and then spreading misinformation. I don't know how much it affects the game design, but it doesn't take much for some nonsense to get repeated as fact. So please, i beg, unless you really know what you're talking about please hold off on comments like the Litening pod is simulated "too well." Its just not true, its not even close.

 

It is simulated too well. That is a fact. You are looking a perfect world rendition without any atmospheric limitations -> through a perfect optics -> that has no technical limitations for its resolution -> without any required digital processing to "enhance" some of the characteristic in sake of others -> outputted on a high resolution and clean virtual display.

 

There is a major difference to look in a perfect conditions captured 1024 x 1024 video with perfect stabilization on a perfectly rendered 1024 x 1024 display and looking something that starts as 52 x 52 pixel video that is played on 640 x 640 display (or what ever).

 

Finding stuff with those old targeting pods is soft on soft on soft. It is trying to make out what you are looking and trying to assume things that "They say it is next to the building, so that must be it" and not getting clear picture that what it really is. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFj6f9L827A

 

Even when those are recorded on a 8 tape, you can assume the quality based to what is the pure digital quality via the symbology. The youtube compression does nothing to quality, but it is so easily seen how 3-5 nmi ranges are blur without even digital zooming. Go further and the FLIR becomes even worse.

 

This is reason why Sniper pod is so major upgrade to these old pods as it is so easy to get better from so low quality to begin with.

And in DCS that is not the case. We have perfect quality where you can count almost every finger soldier has from a 10 nmi distance using maximum digital zoom. 

 

4 hours ago, sk000tch said:

Even if it were true optically, its missing so much stuff that it doesn't make up for. And even if you had lots of experience using the pods, as many do, you would likely agree that comparing a simulated pod to a real pod is harder than it sounds. Even if at a specfiic time we can document that the apparent zoom is higher than it should be, what matters is the whole package that sums to the pods' effectiveness. And asking those questions, it really matters exactly which pod and when you're talking about.

 

We have just received the 2.7 update for new clouds. It was just a first step of many in the whole system, but one major part is coming that is the humidity simulation. As well we are getting a new FLIR simulation. We are going to get far better modeling of the optical challenges. Like right now we don't even have proper laser beam simulation. We don't have the reflection rules, angles or anything. Some had artificial 8 nmi (or was it 18...) length for the beam, so if you were out of that range then beam ended in air and weapons hit there in air. 

But you can point laser from opposite side of the vehicle and weapon can impact to it from another direction because it doesn't care what is the line of sight as long there is no building (AFAIK) or terrain between. Like a common JTAC laser designators has like in excellent conditions a max 3-5 km designation range and 5-10 km laser ranging range. Battery lifetime is counted in minutes when in use, not in hours. Add some heat waves, dust, moisture etc and those ranges drops quickly to much shorter ranges.

 

We just have totally unrealistic targeting pods quality. It is worked for. The F-14 own pod is far better simulation already but even it requires little nerfing. 

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Sounds like you have never used the LANTIRN TGP in DCS, which does exactly that! If you zoom in on the LANTIRN you get a mess of pixels.

So no, it's not true that DCS doesn't model this. It's just specific TGPs like the LITENING, that don't model this.

 

 

Nah, thats fair, I have used the lantrin and its one of the better done pods IMO. 

 

I think the other thing folks don't get is that there were many versions of the Litening or any of the newer pods.

 

[Harlikwin]

14 hours ago, sk000tch said:

 

Please don't state conjecture as fact.

 

I'm not trying to rub any noses in piss its just this place has a way of creating and then spreading misinformation. I don't know how much it affects the game design, but it doesn't take much for some nonsense to get repeated as fact

 

 

Some of your post is nonese, some of it is reasonable. 

 

I'm not conjecturing anything. Its a fact that TGPs have CCD's or Flir sensors, and that is fundamental to the basic image they can create, and that then can be further digitally processed by "digital zoom".

 

The problem as Fri, Bunny, and I have pointed out that the devil is in the details, which pod, which FOV, how well stabilized is it etc all matter in the end. Add to that DCS is an "Evolving" ecosystem, where 1 pod is done better/differently than another. TBH, the HB pod does a pretty good job of trying to show the limitations of the technology, and to some extent the Deka pod. Don't even get me started on how "well" the DMT/ARBS is "modeled" on the harrier right now.

 

As to the Litening thing, a while back, I roughed out the Johnson Criteria (I'm sure you know what this, or will google it to sound smart) for these various pods, just to see if DCS was even in the ballpark. And as it turns out, the Litening on the Hornet was too good, and thats not even bringing up problems like atmospheric distortion into it. Or other DCS isms, like the fact at range the targets were "drawn first" and then the rest of the scene, so you'd have people flying further out to acquire targets since they basically were easily visible from 40miles on a blank background, but hard to find at 10nm due the rest of the scene getting drawn too. No conjecture there either.

 

At the end of the day ED is going to have to figure how to handle things like TGP's in an API sort of way as well, just like they did for the radar (and really lets hope they do a better job than with the radar stuff).

 

At a basic level It will have to know how to render an image at various optical zoom levels, account for the resolution of the pod sensor(s) (usually different for CCD vs FLIR at least in the past), also account for the properties of the output screen (CRT vs LCD or whatever). (also would be nice if there was a seperate "analog" model for earlier scan type systems. It would be nice if there were some atmospheric effects from haze/scattering, and bonus points for simulating the differences there between Vis, MWIR and LWIR. And then some sort of "digital" zoom model. 

 

Then you start to look at things like stabilization, and also what would be nice would be a generalized contrast locking algorithm for use on different planes. And then after that you can start adding the "fancy" features on to of that. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

17 hours ago, sk000tch said:

 

Please don't state conjecture as fact. These forums are riddled with answers to questions that begin with "It should" or "airplane Y does this so..." Just because you have experience with something kind of like another, does not equate to knowledge of the other. I recognize you know about pixels, and, you have evidently both zoomed in on your camera phone or in photoshop beyond where actual pixel data exists.

 

However, these systems have nothing in common with the pods. The MFDs in the legacy hornet are low res, depending on what pod and what mode  you are in there are usually many more levels of zoom data there before you would haver the problem you're talking about. Moreover, the pods we have in the sim cannot be compared in any meaningful way to RL pods. There's a few reasons for this, including it being very difficult to compare a pod zooming into detail of a rendered relatively low res environment vs. a pod  zooming into a real world very high rez environment, the factors that contribute to loss of clarity or often optical or environmental in nature and aren't sim'd in DCS. Moreover, image processing and stabilization plays a HUGE rule in how an image appears yet it doesn't show up in pure stats. As a result, its impossible to compare apples to apples. What pods specifically are we talking about? Litening II with 320 or ER with 600 rez flir?  What about atflir? Is it after LRU upgrade and software suite? Our litening pods don't have basic gen 3 functionality like multiple target cuing, so it must be a II. What about Sniper XR? The first HTS dual pod compatible targeting pod of any kind was Sniper, and only then it was, iirc (<-- see what I did ithere when i wasn't sure?) release 7 and S-3. So if they go with that, we've got multi-target cuing, auto target recognition and threat categorization with vastly increased accuracy coordinates, the full suite of NTISR .... actually, guarantee this won't be in game but we will be able to ID an ak-47 from 60k ft slant range right? *crickets*

 

Actually in fairness if that's the sniper version then litening should be G4, or at least G4 kit upgrade right? 1024x1024 Flir, amazing CCD and the NIR/IR laser imaging? That's what the rafael got with its AVP so aren't we.... Yes, we should definitely get G4 right? 

 

I'm not trying to rub any noses in piss its just this place has a way of creating and then spreading misinformation. I don't know how much it affects the game design, but it doesn't take much for some nonsense to get repeated as fact. So please, i beg, unless you really know what you're talking about please hold off on comments like the Litening pod is simulated "too well." Its just not true, its not even close. Even if it were true optically, its missing so much stuff that it doesn't make up for. And even if you had lots of experience using the pods, as many do, you would likely agree that comparing a simulated pod to a real pod is harder than it sounds. Even if at a specfiic time we can document that the apparent zoom is higher than it should be, what matters is the whole package that sums to the pods' effectiveness. And asking those questions, it really matters exactly which pod and when you're talking about.

 

 

What that other users stating wasn't conjecture.  Purely talking about the pods capabilties not limitations when used from an aircraft with a older generation perhpherals . So 1024x1024 CCD, and x640x512 FLIR. WE alsso see it does have 0-9 Levels of Zoom. This means it would not be earlier than an Litening 2  ER.

 

ED might not be able to do all the data linking capabilities included, right, but slewing to  a flights TGP target mark over LInk 16 or SADL afaik is something that would have been possible with the AT version.

So what we do have is supposed to be a Litening 2 AT on the F/A18. This is also the same pod On the A10C and F16C. 

 

Now whilst resolution itself isn't a indicator of which pod we have due to how pod rendering is currently done the G4 besides having a 1024x1024 FLIR you can differentiate because it has additional modes along with 16 levels of zoom. ( IE see Razbam Harrier)  So this is how we know for sure that we dont have the Litening 2 G4 on ED's modules.

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Santi871]

TXDSG has absolutely nothing to do with the targeting pod.

[Kev2go]

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

We are not talking about the MFCD alone. We are talking about the POD limitations itself.

 

The TGP LItening has a 640x512 resolution camera. You can not get any better than that by any means. 

It has two optical magnifications, Wide and Narrow. That is the best it can get. Using either one will give you a ~500 x 500 pixels video as it is cropped to square and utilize some stabilization etc.

 

Now that is only at the its best possible scenario. Each digital zoom level shrinks it. There are digital processing to be done, but it is nothing amazing. Blur is blur no matter how you try to deconvolute it when you don't know exactly what was done for the blur or if you need to do it in real time. 

 

A 9x zoom level in a Litening gives you at best case scenario a 52 x 52 resolution video. 

That is blur. That is blur on blur and just blobs everywhere. 

 

That doesn't even count the original video being soft because all the atmospheric problems it need to see through. The military targeting pod is not better than even a binoculars. You can go look using binoculars around places and you see that at various times things just gets soft. Even when you can look from high altitude down, problems are there. Nothing you can do for it. And when you enable FLIR, that is soft on soft. In DCS that is as sharp and detailed as any other video you ever see. Thermal imagery is not something that is high detailed at that level of cameras. And you take that already soft video and you capture it with a digital zoom processing and you get soft video to output. 

 

Now that video is to be outputted on a low resolution display. Again own pixelated quality instead sharp 1024 x 1024 as now. So you get pixels and you get soft. 

 

 

The AV-8B Harrier just received from Razbam in 2.7 update the Litening 4th gen (2008) pod. It is best there is now. It has a 1024 x 1024 FLIR and CCD. Multi-Target capability etc. 

 

 

Nope, G4 is from 2008, Viper is from 2007 and Hornet is from 2005.

 

 

I think its merely a matter of what they have documentation on. TBH even the A10C II module which is a much more modern suite that earlier one ( scorpion HMD was not a thing until suite 7b, which was circa 2013) still has the Litening 2 AT, and not the G4.

 

 

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Nah, thats fair, I have used the lantrin and its one of the better done pods IMO. 

 

Better done in DCS or as in reality? (Well, for the era).

 

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I think the other thing folks don't get is that there were many versions of the Litening or any of the newer pods.

 

Why I would like to see more of those as optional loadouts.

 

Like why did Razbam need to remove the 2nd gen variant from 1999 to replace it with 4th gen? Like why not maintain both?

 

It would have kept nice things for various missions. Especially when one get to compare the video quality and controls.... Not to forget software tracking capabilities etc.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The problem as Fri, Bunny, and I have pointed out that the devil is in the details, which pod, which FOV, how well stabilized is it etc all matter in the end. 

 

I don't remember where I read it, but someone commented that he one contacted ED about the targeting pod limitations in gimbal speed, stabilization etc. He said he was a civilian engineer working those targeting pods. And that he offered to ED a public information (not classified as secret) for the systems. Saying that the current gimbal speeds are way too fast, accurate and responsive.  That gimbal wouldn't stay in target at such maneuvering rates as now or maintain lock etc.

 

So as you say "devil is in the details" as that part of details is what makes simulators interesting.

The challenge, the designs, the technology, the future improvements and benefits.

 

When a 1996-1999 targeting pod works as well as 2019 one, there is lot of things wrong right there.

 

This is what drives people from Flaming Cliffs to DCS World, the attention to details as in bad and good.

 

That is what makes cold war era so interesting as technology was made back then. All of the space races and fighter development etc. 

 

Like just few days in 2.7 and it is amazing experience to fly CAS in scenes where you have terrible visibility on ground. When you need to get close inside a thunderstorm as your sensors are useless. Visibility is bad and you need to do the job. Then you climb up from the clouds to sunshine, and everything feels like you don't want to go back.... 

 

Now if we would have targeting pods limitations, challenges etc, it would make one appreciate more the more modern systems as it would show how it was in the past.

 

Edit: "Don't even get me started on how "well" the DMT/ARBS is "modeled" on the harrier right now."

 

Damn you.... How again it hurts to see so amazing system be modeled so terribly wrong... So badly that Harrier should be part of FC3 package instead DCS branded.

 

It would be so amazing if one would really need to use DMT to get a lock on target properly with all challenges, or use the INS mode correctly by requiring proper visual corrections. And then get to fly so ARBS does it calculations.

 

So many things would need to get right to be capable deliver accurate bombs that was Harrier huge benefit over hornets and vipers and all.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Fri13

[Swift.]

21 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Better done in DCS or as in reality? (Well, for the era).

 

 

Why I would like to see more of those as optional loadouts.

 

Like why did Razbam need to remove the 2nd gen variant from 1999 to replace it with 4th gen? Like why not maintain both?

 

It would have kept nice things for various missions. Especially when one get to compare the video quality and controls.... Not to forget software tracking capabilities etc.

It wasn't the pod that changed, it was the jets software interface. When they say 'Litening G4' they mean 'Software such as would be found on a Litening G4 jet'. The pod remains the same ED-vision thing

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Swiftwin9s said:

It wasn't the pod that changed, it was the jets software interface. When they say 'Litening G4' they mean 'Software such as would be found on a Litening G4 jet'. The pod remains the same ED-vision thing

 

Please don't hurt me by telling me that they have not even done the new pod properly...

Please say that they succeeded in it, as next time I take Harrier up in the air I want to check the new marvelous targeting pod...

 

I throwed towel out already by first thing testing the TDC Action mode from special settings and then going to use DMT/TV and they didn't even model the TDC Action properly. Same speed all the time regardless anything. Like why to add a such feature back when it doesn't work? 

I then checked was the clock zulu time fixed.... and exited as couldn't really take it anymore.

 

So unique airframe. So special and unique targeting system. So unique flight capabilities....

 

All at the level of Su-25T...

 

Well maybe everything changes once new FLIR system is added by ED....

[Harlikwin]

34 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Better done in DCS or as in reality? (Well, for the era).

 

 

Why I would like to see more of those as optional loadouts.

 

Like why did Razbam need to remove the 2nd gen variant from 1999 to replace it with 4th gen? Like why not maintain both?

 

It would have kept nice things for various missions. Especially when one get to compare the video quality and controls.... Not to forget software tracking capabilities etc.

 

I mean they actually tried to replicate what a "line-scan"/stripe whatever you want to call it imager looked like versus what modern 300x300 or whatever CCD/microbolometer type setup looks like, plus at least some of various problems with TGP's then.

 

Yeah, I actually wish Raz kept the old pod, but it may be complex to maintain multiple pods/systems. Thats my guess.

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Fri13]

37 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

I think its merely a matter of what they have documentation on. TBH even the A10C II module which is a much more modern suite that earlier one ( scorpion HMD was not a thing until suite 7b, which was circa 2013) still has the Litening 2 AT, and not the G4.

 

So could we see a G4 or something in A-10C II? 

 

I wish we could have the older targeting pod for hornet, the Nite Hawk or what ever was.

Something more proper for the year than what was just now added in 2.7...

 

Like just offer it as optional one. Three pods for Hornet would be nice thing.

 

Nite Hawk

Litening II

ATFLIR

 

Each with their own characteristics and times.

 

[Kev2go]

29 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

It wasn't the pod that changed, it was the jets software interface. When they say 'Litening G4' they mean 'Software such as would be found on a Litening G4 jet'. The pod remains the same ED-vision thing

 

A software update wont suddenly upgrade the Pods  sensor/hardware capabilties....

 

 

Externally there is almost no real way to discern a Litening 2 AT from a G4. its stuff on the inside that has changed.  I mean some Litening pods have different exterior shading, but things can get confusing when you considering that a totally new pod doesn't have to be bought. Older pods can and have gotten get the hardware and sensors replaced and refitted to newer pod standards

 

 

AS an Analogy A Finish or Swiss F/A18C Hornet you can say looks the same a a USN Legacy Hornet on the outside , but internally the cockpit avionics and systems are much more upgraded. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

23 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

It wasn't the pod that changed, it was the jets software interface. When they say 'Litening G4' they mean 'Software such as would be found on a Litening G4 jet'. The pod remains the same ED-vision thing

 

Litening G4 was a whole new pod, which had significantly upgraded capabilities to the earlier ones. Notably It had SWIR capability, and a 1024x1024 sensor which well is about 4x as many pixels as the previous 640x512 ones. Plus the Day system on the G4 was a color CCD. Not to mention its laser was far longer ranged... Etc etc...

 

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

So could we see a G4 or something in A-10C II? 

 

I wish we could have the older targeting pod for hornet, the Nite Hawk or what ever was.

Something more proper for the year than what was just now added in 2.7...

 

Like just offer it as optional one. Three pods for Hornet would be nice thing.

 

Nite Hawk

Litening II

ATFLIR

 

Each with their own characteristics and times.

 

 

Nighthawk was reputedly terrible... I wants it....

But I'm not sure it is "correct" for our version of the hornet at any rate. They were rapidly replaced by better pods.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

10 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Litening G4 was a whole new pod, which had significantly upgraded capabilities to the earlier ones. Notably It had SWIR capability, and a 1024x1024 sensor which well is about 4x as many pixels as the previous 640x512 ones. Plus the Day system on the G4 was a color CCD. Not to mention its laser was far longer ranged... Etc etc...

 

 

Nighthawk was reputedly terrible...

 

 

It was but i can understand people wanting it for gulf war/90s era feel.

 

And a Nitehawk wasn't yet fully retired in the timeframe of our DCS Hornet. In fact during the early years of the ATFLIR adoption they were still in short supply an unable to meet the demand for the Super Hornets ( which they were prioritized for) let alone adequately supplied to the  Legacy Hornets. So ATFLIR's were far and few between, within those particular year(s).

 

Its one of the reasons why the USMC decided to buy Litenings . Aside from the price, they were available to be delivered at a faster pace in larger quantities.

 

So a Nitehawk pod wouldn't totally out of place circa 2005.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Kev2go said:

 

It was but i can understand people wanting it for gulf war/90s era feel.

 

And a Nitehawk wasn't yet fully retired in the timeframe of our DCS Hornet. In fact during the early years of the ATFLIR adoption thye were still in short supply an unable to be given to all Super Hornets ( which they were prioritized for) so for Legacy Hornets ATFLIR's were far and few between, within those particular year(s).

 

Its one of the reasons why the USMC decided to buy Litenings . Aside from the price, they were available to be delivered at a faster pace in larger quantities.

 

So a Nitewhawk pod wouldn't totally out of place circa 2005.

 

 

Thanks for that clarification. I know it was being phased out at that point, just never sure who was flying with what then.