correct as-is ATFLIR maximum zoom vs Litening TGP

[Swift.]

20 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

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. 

 

You know DCS isnt real right? Theres not actually a real pod attached to your jet. Its just a bit of code that allows a view port to be 'fixed' to a weapon pylon which feeds a game view into your MFD. The pods sensor/hardware, as you say, is just ED overlaying a monchrome filter to the raw game view. So Razbam 'upgrading' to G4 consists of nothing more than updating their controls and software interface. 

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Swiftwin9s said:

You know DCS isnt real right? Theres not actually a real pod attached to your jet. Its just a bit of code that allows a view port to be 'fixed' to a weapon pylon which feeds a game view into your MFD. The pods sensor/hardware, as you say, is just ED overlaying a monchrome filter to the raw game view. So Razbam 'upgrading' to G4 consists of nothing more than updating their controls and software interface. 

 

Yeah we are sadly all too aware of that. And are suggesting (or at least I am) that ED figures out some reasonable and systematic way of presenting these sorts of systems and the differences between them in the game. Going from say a 320x200 sensor to a 1024 one should be a life changing experience, and thats not even talking about all the other improvements modern pods have over say a late 90's pod. Or the more primitive analog based imagers like Lantrin and Nitehawk. There is alot of commonality that could be done as some sort of decent API for this for all the 3rd parties. Things like say hey actual contrast locking, instead of the magic "lock anything" memes we have now in various aircraft. 

 

[Kev2go]

42 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

You know DCS isnt real right? Theres not actually a real pod attached to your jet. Its just a bit of code that allows a view port to be 'fixed' to a weapon pylon which feeds a game view into your MFD. The pods sensor/hardware, as you say, is just ED overlaying a monchrome filter to the raw game view. So Razbam 'upgrading' to G4 consists of nothing more than updating their controls and software interface. 

 

then perhaps you should have clarfied that you were talking within the context of DCS software. But in all is said and done. They are representing a Litening G4, and not an older model, which they did at an earlier point.

 

TBH before you respond with " But Hur durr its a 2005 and 2007 hornet not a 2008 or later aircraft" do keep in mind given the A10C II features, its respresented at  timeframe when the Listening 2 G4 would have been available.

 

Again to realistically upgrade the software within DCS to attempt to emulate the real thing you still have to know how it works. I dont know what documentation Razbam came upon that they modelled the G4 wheras ED still sticking to the older AT model for all of thier modules, because if they did they could have just as easily done a later Litening derivative, at least for the A10C II

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[toilet2000]

On 4/15/2021 at 11:11 PM, 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.

 

 

This isn't conjecture. This is info that is found in public documentation, including a Master Thesis made on the inherent limits of the LITENING targeting pod for weapon delivery and accuracy that state the limited resolution available at full zoom. According to said document, the "usable" digital zoom is general zoom level 5.0, above that you lose too much details. This has absolutely nothing to do with DDI/MPCD resolution.

 

Honestly, this isn't something very hard to Google, and before completely throwing out someone's valid point, I'd suggest you do a bit of research.

And btw, it's Rafale (as in gust, translated), not Rafael (a person's name).

Edited April 18, 2021 by toilet2000

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, toilet2000 said:

 

This isn't conjecture. This is info that is found in public documentation, including a Master Thesis made on the inherent limits of the LITENING targeting pod for weapon delivery and accuracy that state the limited resolution available at full zoom. According to said document, the "usable" digital zoom is general zoom level 5.0, above that you lose too much details. This has absolutely nothing to do with DDI/MPCD resolution.

 

Honestly, this isn't something very hard to Google, and before completely throwing out someone's valid point, I'd suggest you do a bit of research.

And btw, it's Rafale (as in gust, translated), not Rafael (a person's name).

 

 

LOL, that doc is in so many ways the gift that just keeps on giving. Its literally the document that flatly states what anyone who actually knows anything about TGP's knows all along, they aren't some magical DCS "here is tonk" machine. They have limitations, and sadly DCS doesn't model them, it just finds "tonk" for bomb... "Is perfekt"

 

[Fri13]

On 4/17/2021 at 12:55 AM, Harlikwin said:

 

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

 

It was in progress to be removed, but only after years later it was really out.

 

Here is example about Marines:

 

"The Marine Corps is at a crucial crossroads in its constant effort to remain technologically relevant. Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod's low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR. However, the Marine Corps should equip its carrier-based F/A-18s with the LITENING AT instead of the ATFLIR, because the LITENING AT is equally capable, less costly, and more quickly available."

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235120937_The_Next_Marine_Corps_FA-18_Targeting_Pod_ATFLIR_or_LITENING

 

That in 2006.

 

What we possibly would have, is about 80-90% using a NiteHawk and 20-10% split between ATFLIR and LITENING AT.

 

Now it is no NiteHawk at all, and everyone flying with ATFLIR in 2005.

 

Players would scream against the idea that they would be limited mostly to NiteHawk and have a horrible visual quality for 10-40 nmi as they are so custom to spotting and launching at all ranges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Harlikwin]

Yeah I'm curious as to the breakdown of the earlier litening variants too. The originals had analog TV cams and a 320 class Flir sensor. 

[Fri13]

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah I'm curious as to the breakdown of the earlier litening variants too. The originals had analog TV cams and a 320 class Flir sensor. 

 

Agree.

 

If, and that is BIG IF, we get a proper FLIR and proper TV optics and all, it means everything will change radically to shorter ranges. (You know all this... So not too say to You).

 

It would make huge difference between aircraft capabilities to operate.

Example:

 

NiteHawk -> LANTIRN -> Shkval -> DMT -> Litening II -> ATFLIR -> Litening G4 -> SNIPER.

 

We would get different experiences and capabilities to fly and operate in digital battlefield. 

 

We already have way too accurate GPS coordinates, no drifting, no jittery etc. If we could get the proper jamming equipment as well, we could jam GPS for aircraft and weapons and deny their utilization and as well force players to fly with INS only.

 

So many options for combat performance is lacking, starting from targeting systems quality.

 

Like AV-8B N/A one major quality is much better accuracy to deliver bombs than radar hornet or harrier or viper. You need a laser guided bomb to get better consisting accuracy.

 

Because targeting systems being modeled to simple manner, we are in situation where everyone are way too effective and capable.

No challenge or no tactics required like should.

 

[sk000tch]

On 4/17/2021 at 5:32 PM, toilet2000 said:

Honestly, this isn't something very hard to Google, and before completely throwing out someone's valid point, I'd suggest you do a bit of research.

And btw, it's Rafale (as in gust, translated), not Rafael (a person's name).

 

ok what they hell... I wrote a response addressing many comments to me but i have one sentence left? I have no idea how this quote system works, so no point by point rebuttal. Probably good actually. My point was, actually my points were twofold. These forums are  overflowing with awful information, much of it made up or pure conjecture, answers to questions that begin with "i think it should" or similar are rampant. I'm glad ya'll read a war college thesis or something, and maybe its a good piece of work -- many are. Nevertheless, extrapolating real world combat effectiveness to DCS isn't going to work well, but hopefully it provided a lot of detail about current or recent past capabilities. Keep in mind if its discussing late model pods it will assuredly not contain a discussion of all capabilities. Anyway, as to resolution - my point was that you can't examine a single characteristic without considering the whole. At least not meaningfully. Real world pods' image quality is a product of physics, lenses, wave mechanics, weather and other atmospheric phenomenon, image processers, software, etc.,. and as I previously explained, they change. LRUs are upgraded continuously, and in some cases  the upgrades can significantly impact utility. 

 

What is the point in focusing on the exact zoom level if the pod is not correctly drawing contrast? If I say I am able to ID an AK at 40k slant range, and perhaps cite the lighting conditions/time of day,  etc., if the game pod does not resolve sufficient detail to make that ID at that specific range, but zooms in further on the blurry image, is the solution to decreases zoom?

 

I don't want to drone on regarding every single reply but my point about undisplayed detail seems to have been misunderstood. It ain't exactly rocket science, but if i'm flying a USMC legacy hornet with a lightning AT, I have a 1024x1024 EOTS that must be downsampled by the MC for the display. Again I know the pilot shit but not the computer shit, but the azimuth/angular resolution of the base image contains detail the display cannot show, thus when zoomed that detail is displayed, without any digital zoom interpolation. Hopefully that makes sense, the radar does something similar btw, but that is for another post.

 

Again though, resolution matters but its one factor among many. The move from bandgap to quantum well imagers was huge, far more important that higher resolution of poor detail FLIR. There is a whole suite of detection related capabilities the pods had by mid-late 2000s that are not simulated. How should that factor in? 

 

Anyway, I said my peace. I don't come around here much so won't do the back and forth nonsense. And toilet2000 I have done my research. I won't boast about RL quals in how many DCS modules or hours, or even anecdotal personal opinions about specific pods. I'm not here to attack anyone or prove anything, quite the opposite actually. I came here for settings info for VR and swung by to answer a few questions, but certainly not get drawn into bickering match. Its either that or leave like so many others did, though I suppose my infrequence use is a less committed version of exactly that. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by sk000tch

[Harlikwin]

On 4/20/2021 at 12:40 PM, sk000tch said:

 

Real world pods' image quality is a product of physics, lenses, wave mechanics, weather and other atmospheric phenomenon, image processers, software, etc.,. and as I previously explained, they change. LRUs are upgraded continuously, and in some cases  the upgrades can significantly impact utility. 

 

What is the point in focusing on the exact zoom level if the pod is not correctly drawing contrast? If I say I am able to ID an AK at 40k slant range, and perhaps cite the lighting conditions/time of day,  etc., if the game pod does not resolve sufficient detail to make that ID at that specific range, but zooms in further on the blurry image, is the solution to decreases zoom?

 

The point most of are trying to make is precisely that we need a better overall system to deal with TGPs and some of their limitations. Again, most of this isn't rocket science. No one expects a full on optical physics simulation out of DCS, but it would be nice to have an approximation of the various issues. I mentioned that a while ago you had a problem/exploit where DCS would draw distant units BEFORE drawing things like foliage/buildings, which led to this absurd fly out to 30-40 miles, FIND the target from there, and Fly in to attack it situation. Whereas no one is picking up a truck from 40mi away in a bunch of clutter IRL they will want to be much closer as its easier to pick things out closer. Other folks have mentioned that the TGP's basically have perfect digital zoom (which doesn't work that great IRL). None of this is classified material, there are various packages that you can use with parameters plugged into them to generate what some image should look like given criteria XYZ.

On 4/20/2021 at 12:40 PM, sk000tch said:

 

Again though, resolution matters but its one factor among many. The move from bandgap to quantum well imagers was huge, far more important that higher resolution of poor detail FLIR. There is a whole suite of detection related capabilities the pods had by mid-late 2000s that are not simulated. How should that factor in? 

 

I mean QWIP's are cool despite their lower efficiency, but they do make a nicer image due to uniformity, and you can easily build multispectral systems with em, but I don't think there were any flying in say 2003-2005 which is the target date for the hornet and Viper. IDK the whole suite of detection capabilities you are alluding to but, I'd like to see a SWIR capability added to the G4 litening that the harrier has, but that whole thing looks like yet another half implemented system that Raz is increasingly famous for.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Harlikwin

[evilnate]

I see the correct as is

 

I was hoping the new ATFLIR would have been at least as useful as the lightening pod.

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, evilnate said:

I see the correct as is

 

I was hoping the new ATFLIR would have been at least as useful as the lightening pod.

 

It's more that LITENING is over-modelled with regards to the digital zoom, rather than ATFLIR being inferior.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[evilnate]

39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's more that LITENING is over-modelled with regards to the digital zoom, rather than ATFLIR being inferior.

 

 

So the answer is to nerf the LPOD digital zoom? I don’t like that option.

[Northstar98]

Just now, evilnate said:

So the answer is to nerf the LPOD digital zoom? I don’t like that option.

 

It's the more realistic option...

 

The zoom factor stays the same, but it's a digital zoom, so it should get more and more pixelated, the further you zoom in (like LANTIRN does on the Tomcat).

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, evilnate said:

 

So the answer is to nerf the LPOD digital zoom? I don’t like that option.

 

Like it or not, its the most realistic option. 

[evilnate]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's the more realistic option...

 

The zoom factor stays the same, but it's a digital zoom, so it should get more and more pixelated, the further you zoom in (like LANTIRN does on the Tomcat).

 

I agree that realism should be the standard. Unfortunately I am not qualified to say what is real and what is not. I’m just a avid DCS enthusiast.

 

If you have first hand knowledge about what is realistic in this regard, okay. If not, it would be great to have some quantitative data to support the argument.

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Like it or not, its the most realistic option. 

 

Let’s see less conjecture and more data!

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, evilnate said:

 

I agree that realism should be the standard. Unfortunately I am not qualified to say what is real and what is not. I’m just a avid DCS enthusiast.

 

If you have first hand knowledge about what is realistic in this regard, okay. If not, it would be great to have some quantitative data to support the argument.

 

Let’s see less conjecture and more data!

 

"From the LITENING II 320x256 FLIR format, an upgrade was made to a 640x512 FLIR (LITENING ER), extended range, fielded in 2001. The new implementation extended the wide (4º) field of view search capability with an additional (super wide 24º) view, and increased the range capabilities of the 1º narrow field of view."

Early versions (LITENING II and AT) incorporated an analog CCD camera, with 762x480 resolution, which was then upgraded to a 1024x1024 format, and more recently to a high resolution COTS color visible-band camera solution using a CMOS array (for G4 Color). Early versions provided an average intensity in the visible band (in black and white, so to speak) while the color version provides independent sampling in red, blue, and green, using a Bayer pattern.

 

0 conjecture just "fakt"...

 

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9828/1/The-eyes-of-LITENING/10.1117/12.2227738.full?SSO=1

 

Once you get out of the "FOV" ranges (optical zoom). Its all down to how "good" the image looks and then how you munge it in digi zoom. 

 

So with our pod the "day" channel will have ~4x as many pixels as the FLIR channel. To see the effect of zoom, go find a 640x512 image, and start zooming "in" by 9x it will look pretty crappy and pixelated, and 1024 (thats like .5 or 1megapixel, your phone camera these days will have like 10-20MP)  image will look better. There is no rocket science here, its just really basic stuff.

 

 

 

 

[evilnate]

@Harlikwin Looks like the II and AT have same CCD resolution? How does that reference support that the lightening pod zoom level should be nerfed?

[Northstar98]

8 minutes ago, evilnate said:

@Harlikwin Looks like the II and AT have same CCD resolution? How does that reference support that the lightening pod zoom level should be nerfed?

 

Because the 9 zoom levels in LITENING (that give it a superior zoom), are digital zooms, i.e they essentially crop and enlarge at the same aspect ratio, this will cause the same zoom level, but it will absolutely murder the effective resolution, making it more and more pixelated the further you go. 

 

So while the LITENING will still be able to zoom to the same degree, the image you'll get at that zoom level should be markedly worse.

 

If I've done this right our LITENING at 9x digital zoom should only have something like a 71x57 resolution with FLIR and 114x114 in TV, going by Harlikwin's numbers above.

 

This is simply how digital zoom works.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, evilnate said:

@Harlikwin Looks like the II and AT have same CCD resolution? How does that reference support that the lightening pod zoom level should be nerfed?

 

So here is a series starting with an unzoomed 640x512 image. So here is what your "digi zoom" should look like on the litening

 

Native, 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x. That "blob" at max zoom is what you are targeting... And in this case its VERY easy to see since its white car on black highway. Imagine finding a "tonk" thats trying to hide, at 8x....

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Harlikwin

[evilnate]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Because the 9 zoom levels in LITENING (that give it a superior zoom), are digital zooms, i.e they essentially crop and enlarge the image, this will cause the same zoom level, but it will absolutely murder the clarity, making it more and more pixelated the further you go. 

 

So while the LITENING will still be able to zoom to the same degree, the image you'll get at that zoom level should be markedly worse.

 

 

Okay, so your saying the image quality should be reduced not the magnification? 

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, evilnate said:

Okay, so your saying the image quality should be reduced not the magnification? 

 

Spot on.

[evilnate]

Okay, I think I understand now. I was under the impression that nerf meant reduction of zoom power but what your saying is image quality. I get it now, and yes I agree. Good conversation!

[Bunny Clark]

The reality is a bit more complicated than that, as the pods don't simply throw the raw image up on the screen. This goes a bit to what sc000tch was saying. I don't know how the inner working of a targeting pod function, but I do know quite a bit about optics, cameras, and image processing. You loose absolute resolution as you zoom in, but that raw image is processed and then up-sampled to a higher resolution to match the display resolution. You'll never make it look as good as a full resolution image, but you can make it look better than an unprocessed crop. Plus there are optical, lighting, and environmental factors which can degrade image quality across the board, but are more noticeable at higher resolutions. 

 

All of this means that, overall, compared to "pure" examples of image resolution scaling like what Harlikwin did, the higher resolution images won't look as good while the lower resolution ones will look better. This will serve to lessen the visible quality disparity between 1X zoom and 9X zoom. But, either way, the Lightening II in DCS right now looks too good at 9X, and I suspect looks too good across all zoom ranges. And while the Lightening II will always have a narrower field of view at NAR 9X it will look considerably worse than the ATFLIR at NAR 2X. 

 

When the USMC was trying to decide between Lighting and ATFLIR for their Hornets they determined that the two had widely similar capabilities. Which is further evidence that the Lightening having significantly better target spotting ability is probobly unrealistic. 

[Harlikwin]

10 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

The reality is a bit more complicated than that, as the pods don't simply throw the raw image up on the screen. This goes a bit to what sc000tch was saying. I don't know how the inner working of a targeting pod function, but I do know quite a bit about optics, cameras, and image processing. You loose absolute resolution as you zoom in, but that raw image is processed and then up-sampled to a higher resolution to match the display resolution. You'll never make it look as good as a full resolution image, but you can make it look better than an unprocessed crop. Plus there are optical, lighting, and environmental factors which can degrade image quality across the board, but are more noticeable at higher resolutions. 

 

All of this means that, overall, compared to "pure" examples of image resolution scaling like what Harlikwin did, the higher resolution images won't look as good while the lower resolution ones will look better. This will serve to lessen the visible quality disparity between 1X zoom and 9X zoom. But, either way, the Lightening II in DCS right now looks too good at 9X, and I suspect looks too good across all zoom ranges. And while the Lightening II will always have a narrower field of view at NAR 9X it will look considerably worse than the ATFLIR at NAR 2X. 

 

When the USMC was trying to decide between Lighting and ATFLIR for their Hornets they determined that the two had widely similar capabilities. Which is further evidence that the Lightening having significantly better target spotting ability is probobly unrealistic. 

 

Yeah I didn't really want to get into the whole image processing part of it, and of course you're right a processed image will look better. But in general you're just stuffing fake pixels in where real ones should be, and at a very basic level you hit Shannon entropy limits nearly immediately. You can't make more "data" out of nothing. So instead of just a heavily pixilated 9x3 "blob" that I show, you just see a more smoothed "blob" with more pixels, but its still gonna look like a blob. And really I chose that pic precisely because of the high contrast between the car and the road as an ideal case. You can still tell "something" is there. And really in that case the 2 or 4x levels of zoom are probably going to be more useful than the 9x because your brain has some level of context for the scene, ok, there is a road that big blob is a big truck, the small blob is a car, by the time you get to 9x is just all blob..

  

Edited April 22, 2021 by Harlikwin