[FIXED] TPOD and Maverick video simultaneously impossible?

[Fri13]

 

A1-AV8BB-TAC-000

Page 1-367

 

NOTE:

Because TPOD video is provided as maverick emulation, maverick video is not available when TPOD video is selected.

 

Based to that, we shouldn't be able have a TPOD video and Maverick video (laser or FLIR) simultaneously open on both MFCD's. Pilot would be required to choose which one to be shown at the time.

 

If Harrier is like the F-16 etc, avionics would only be able handle one Maverick video at the time. 

 

If someone can provide information that Harrier can handle a two Maverick video feed simultaneously, or that TPOD is not anymore emulating Maverick video, then it could be different.

 

Based to the manual AFAIK, with even the older Litening AT is not mentioned to be used simultaneously but you need to switch the TPOD video off when Maverick video is shown (and it will automatically appear when uncaging the Maverick to left MFCD). 

 

So process to launch Maverick slaved to TPOD target would be:

 

1) Find target with TPOD / Create Target Designation with TPOD.

2) Select Maverick weapon

3) Uncage Maverick

--- TPOD Turns Off ---

--- LMAV/IRMAV video appears on Left MFCD --- (appears automatically to Left MFCD from any page, or to right MFCD if STORES page is open in it)

4) Push Sensor Select Switch Up

--- INS -> IRMV --- (Maverick seeker slaved to TD direction)

5) TDC Action initiate Maverick Track

6) Master Arm On

7) Release to launch Maverick.

 

There is as well interesting part in 2.15.1.11 Sensor Integration:

 

"On Day and Night Attack aircraft the ARBS/LST sensor mode can be integrated with the AGM-65E Laser Maverick to acquire a target at increased range and azimuth.....

...When MAV/IRMV is selected, LST correlated and Laser Maverick video displayed, pressing the target designate button replaces the Laser Maverick video with the DMT display. When MAV/IRMV is selected, LST correlated and DMT video displayed, pressing the target designate button replaces the DMT video with Laser Maverick video"

 

So the Maverick video can as well replace the DMT video. 

 

Edit: And if someone wonders that how to then use a Laser Maverick with the TPOD for designation if the TPOD video can not be open same time as Laser Maverick video is, answer is on the Page 1-413 as a NOTE (it is for Litening AT, but safe to assume that Litening v4 is with same limits, safety features etc).  

 

"If a laser is armed or firing (or the training laser dry firing), the TPOD page may be exited for up to 15 seconds before the laser is automatically safed. This is a programmed grace period to provide uninterrupted laser firing when the TPOD page is exited during weapon selection for weapon release or due to inadvertent sensor selection, and thereby allows the pilot time to reselect the TPOD page for continued laser firing"

 

So pilot would be required to be able acquire a lock, launch Maverick and return to TPOD in 15 seconds after Uncagin the Maverick and receive its laser feed. Meanwhile the TPOD would continue tracking the target and firing the laser on it while pilot utilize maverick.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

@myHelljumper Any information about fix?

[ddwg72]

The wiring you are referencing in A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 is no longer applicable.  You are using an old manual where many things are not like they are now.  For instance, wiring was changed when the harrier was wired to center pylon.  It used to be only mountable on 3.  Then they went to 2 and 6 and now the standard is center.

 

A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 was written 30 years ago and only had minor updates which are over 18 years. 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, ddwg72 said:

The wiring you are referencing in A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 is no longer applicable.  You are using an old manual where many things are not like they are now.  For instance, wiring was changed when the harrier was wired to center pylon.  It used to be only mountable on 3.  Then they went to 2 and 6 and now the standard is center.

 

A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 was written 30 years ago and only had minor updates which are over 18 years. 

 

Please provide the newer than 2011 manual...

 

 

[ddwg72]

Well according to your documentation you cannot carry the tpod centerline.  The upgrade for the harrier happened around 2013sh to allow the tpod to carry center line.  If you look in the tac you are using and 400 that floats around you can see the tpod was only carried on certain pylons.  You can also see many pictures of the harrier carrying it on other pylons.  There have also been other upgrades not referenced in that NFM. 

 

NFMs are not the end all for documentation as people think.  There are a lot of changes, other documentation and instruction you get once you hit the fleet and make it to your squadron. 

 

Also all recent documentation is still classified.  Generally it is 20 years before something gets released to the public.

Edited June 29, 2021 by ddwg72

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, ddwg72 said:

Well according to your documentation you cannot carry the tpod centerline.  The upgrade for the harrier happened around 2013sh to allow the tpod to carry center line.  If you look in the tac you are using and 400 that floats around you can see the tpod was only carried on certain pylons.  You can also see many pictures of the harrier carrying it on other pylons.  There have also been other upgrades not referenced in that NFM.

 

Doesn't matter. Unless you can provide the evidence that it has been changed, then it stands as evidence shows. It doesn't matter how old the evidence is if you can't provide a newer one that specifically states it to be changed.

The TPOD position is anyways irrelevant for the functionality of it using the maverick video feed, so you are using a strawman argument. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ddwg72 said:

NFMs are not the end all for documentation as people think.  There are a lot of changes, other documentation and instruction you get once you hit the fleet and make it to your squadron. 

 

So? When the newer manuals do not state changes in the older manuals they are replacing partially, then there is no change. 

 

1 hour ago, ddwg72 said:

Also all recent documentation is still classified.  Generally it is 20 years before something gets released to the public.

 

So?

Our Harrier is about H4.0 and not about H6.0 etc. 

Unless you can provide documentation as evidence to show the otherwise, then stated stays as fact. 

[ddwg72]

Guess I don't know anything with all that time in 3rd MAW.

 

 

 

 

[Kappa]

7 minuti fa, ddwg72 ha scritto:

Guess I don't know anything with all that time in 3rd MAW.

 

 

 

 

 

It is clear that you know things, but can you provide documentation? Or at list be more specific...

 

You aren't telling us how it work.

You aren't telling us who you are and how you know it.

 

Also, since this Harrier version is modelled in DCS, documentation shouldn't be classified, right?

[ddwg72]

Actually had a whole thing up here but forget it.  I assume we should never see you on a server with TPOD center pylon/APKWSs/GBU54s, ect.. as they are not in the NFM and according to some if it is not in an old NFM it must be wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by ddwg72

[Ramsay]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Our Harrier is about H4.0 and not about H6.0 etc. 

Why do you assume that, since the DCS AV-8B now carries a 4th gen TPOD, GBU-54, APKWS, etc.

 

A cursory glance at the 2015 Marine Aviation Plan (page 44) shows the inclusion of the 4th gen TPOD and GBU-54  suggest some elements of H6.1 (2015) are now modelled in DCS.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ramsay

[Fri13]

59 minutes ago, Ramsay said:

Why do you assume that, since the DCS AV-8B now carries a 4th gen TPOD, GBU-54, APKWS, etc.

A cursory glance at the 2015 Marine Aviation Plan (page 44) shows the inclusion of the 4th gen TPOD and GBU-54  suggest some elements of H6.1 (2015) are now modelled in DCS.

 

It is problematic as Harrier is "Frankenstein", at least how Razbam has stated it to be. They have mixed some of the H6.0 features but are leaning mainly to H4.0. 

And we have more information about H4.0 than about H6.0 (2011) or newer.

 

But we need evidence about what is changed since the last known technical specifications that LITENING using the MIL-STD-1760 as from the start has been chanced somehow it could use TPOD and Maverick video simultaneously. Only things changed is that new pylons were added to be usable, and even before that 5 and 3 were used even when no manual is stating it. 

1 hour ago, ddwg72 said:

Actually had a whole thing up here but forget it.  I assume we should never see you on a server with TPOD center pylon/APKWSs/GBU54s, ect.. as they are not in the NFM and according to some if it is not in an old NFM it must be wrong

 

What evidence that can be confirmed is there for that?

Something, like a video of cockpit with maverick and TPOD simultaneously on both displays?

Documentation that counters the previous manuals information?

 

Personally I have hard time to believe that you couldn't have TPOD and Maverick same time On, that is the point of this thread. But when the existing valid evidence clearly states that it is impossible, then there is not play for assumptions or speculation and it is impossible. Logic as well states that when in a another aircraft (F-16) you can't have multiple Maverick videos same time On from same pylon (avionics support two feeds but from different stations) but just one feed at the time, that there is similar some kind limitation for it.

So if in Harrier the TPOD video is transmitted over MIL-STD-1760 wiring as emulated Maverick video and is the reason for it being available only separately when Maverick video isn't shown, then there must be a evidence that states that in some update for Harrier or to TPOD the emulation has been removed and the Mission Computer receives TPOD video as non-Maverick video emulation. 

 

But if you take the martyr stance and then attack the person with "We should never see you on a server..." fallacy then so be it.

 

We have three evidences stating that it is not possible.

1) Logic

2) Technically impossible

3) Documentation

 

 

What we need is material evidence (videos, photos) to show that it is technically possible, or newer documentation that clearly states the changes that invalidates the old documentation. 

 

Even if the TPOD can be carried on different station because added same required wires to them, it doesn't mean it is not using a Maverick emulation.

Even when the TPOD is now simulated as 4th gen version doesn't mean it doesn't use Maverick emulation like Litening II did.

 

Party testimony is not enough to overcome all other evidence.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Fri13

[ddwg72]

Problem is you are using old evidence considering valid.  We know we are on a newer version which has different capabilities than what is in the NFM.  There is ample evidence we are on a later upgrade (6.2 at a minimum).  As the basis (a new wiring harness, new software (actually multiple updates) and a different pod) of your logic has all changed, your logic conclusion is invalid.  In order to be valid you would have to account for the changes in the therom which you choose to ignore.

[Fri13]

57 minutes ago, ddwg72 said:

Problem is you are using old evidence considering valid.  We know we are on a newer version which has different capabilities than what is in the NFM.  There is ample evidence we are on a later upgrade (6.2 at a minimum).  As the basis (a new wiring harness, new software (actually multiple updates) and a different pod) of your logic has all changed, your logic conclusion is invalid.  In order to be valid you would have to account for the changes in the therom which you choose to ignore.

 

Your argument is that because the only evidence is from older material, then it is all invalid that is in them.

 

Do you have evidence that will state otherwise than the existing evidence say?

 

You can state how there are newer documents and all, but unless they are shown that what they say about the systems in question, they do not mean anything.

 

No evidence to state it different.

 

- If you are wrong in one thing, it doesn't mean that you are wrong in everything.

- If you are right in one thing, it doesn't mean you are right in everything.

 

Because known documentation is older than unknown documentation, it doesn't invalidate older.

 

There is no speculation that what the evidence say, as it is extremely clear about it.

It requires evidence that would specifically show it to be otherwise to invalidate the older documentation.

 

Example:

- a cockpit video of both being used simultaneously.

- a quote from the documentation that can be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ddwg72]

Sorry but the NFM is no longer valid for this as all the components and items have been changed and/or upgraded.  Without recent documentation, it is just speculation that it is the same way.  It needs to come from their SME to be valid as any current documentation would still be classified.  The same goes for other areas of the harrier that have been updated but the publicly available documentation does not reflect it.

 

If you have any documentation of the current version of the Harrier with the upgrades it could be used but then, it would be classified.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by ddwg72

[Fri13]

18 minutes ago, ddwg72 said:

Sorry but the NFM is no longer valid for this as all the components and items have been changed and/or upgraded. 

 

What is your evidence that how they have been changed and by what parts?

 

Quote

Without recent documentation, it is just speculation that it is the same way. 

 

It is not. It is only evidence that matters, until new evidence is shown that invalidates the existing, nothing is speculation in the old.

 

Quote

It needs to come from their SME to be valid as any current documentation would still be classified. 

 

That is invalid claim. All evidence in DCS needs to be based to public information or it is not acceptable. Evidence needs to be verifiable by others.

 

Quote

The same goes for other areas of the harrier that have been updated but the publicly available documentation does not reflect it.

 

So they are fantasy, invalid, incorrect and speculation. 

 

Be it a compass rose in TPOD video or something else like a DESG button or engine thrust or.... SME can't be trusted without evidence.

 

Quote

If you have any documentation of the current version of the Harrier with the upgrades it could be used but then, it would be classified.

 

Unless existing evidence is invalidated with a another evidence, it is nothing that speculation.

 

"Did you know that latest Harrier is H9.1 and it is used for nuclear strike missions by USMC....? Sorry, it is classified but trusty SME explained it just yesterday when the update program was started."

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Fri13

[ddwg72]

well i guess we should take off the 6.2 6.1 and 6.0 updates, new mission computer, new tpod, new map, apkws, 54s, some function of auto filling cas page, ect as they are not in the NFM so must not be real and all speculation. 

[Vakarian]

@ddwg72 You are fighting the windmill here

[myHelljumper]

@Fri13 Could you be a little more respectful of the other people trying to help in this thread ?

Edited June 30, 2021 by myHelljumper

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, myHelljumper said:

@Fri13 Could you be a little more respectful of the other people trying to help in this thread ?

 

In a what way I have been disrespectful?

 

- I have provided evidence from the start. I receive in reply nothing than strawman arguments without any evidence (the usable TPOD stations are different than in manual, hence the evidence is false, even when TPOD station position has no matter and why not to be mentioned).

- I asked politely from the evidences that would counter the evidence that makes it odd, and it is replied with argument from ignorance (we don't know what has changed, but it must have been changed, meaning that provided evidence can't be true) 

- I ask for newer documentation because the evidence is claimed to be from invalidated old one, and I get slippery slope argument (because we use old documentation as evidence that can't be countered by other than claiming it is invalid and if that is not done then everything needs to be removed from the Harrier that doesn't exist in that old documentation).

 

Maybe you @myHelljumper should have more respect toward me who has questioned respectfully the official documentation, provided the evidence that things are incorrect in the current AV-8B Harrier and all I get back is nothing respectful than just fallacies that doesn't help anyone at all. There is no respect in your action to start telling I would need to have "more respect" when I have had full respect all the time. If the opposite can not provide the evidence but purposely makes excuses, try to become martyr and invents claims that can't be proven, then they are disrespectful. 

 

So does the Razbam have evidence (documentation, videos...) that TPOD video should be possible shown same time with the Maverick video?

[myHelljumper]

People are just talking you know ? Having a conversation where you can exchange experience and point of view.

 

No need to be angry :).

[Fri13]

12 hours ago, ddwg72 said:

well i guess we should take off the 6.2 6.1 and 6.0 updates, new mission computer, new tpod, new map, apkws, 54s, some function of auto filling cas page, ect as they are not in the NFM so must not be real and all speculation. 

 

The maps are mentioned and explained.

The APKWS is technically backward compatible and doesn't require any software changes.

The CAS page automatic filling is explained and mentioned.

The new mission computer is mentioned to be performing same tasks as as old one.

The Litening targeting pods are said by manufacturer to be backward compatible because the pod only sends the video (mentioned in the Harrier manuals as well how it works) and use the same old standard for controls (TDC etc), why the old LITENINGg pods can be upgraded to new ones just by swapping them.

 

So do not try to use false claims to make your case.

Please show your claimed evidence that it is possible have TPOD video same time with Maverick video?

 

[Vakarian]

@Fri13 Has it ever occured to you that you might not be allowed to see the evidence you are so hard trying to see? Also, maybe there are people more knowledgeable than you with actual experience on the aircraft and they are under no circumstances obliged to provide you the evidence they have and do not want to do it for their own reasons ? That alone doesn't make their input worthless as you try to paint it, but it should make you think that there is maybe someone else with the access to the data that we cannot get to by simple google search, and that they might be right.

 

Also, I think you mentioned that every document must be publicly available to be used in DCS. That's simply not true. If it is, then it would mean that ED can simply show us the excerpts from the documentation to show us the reasoning why they did something in certain way. The fact they cannot do it should show you that ED can use non-publicly available or non-publicly accessible documentation.

 

I fully appreciate your constant effort in bug reports and trying to get the Harrier in a better shape, but man, you have to understand that maybe you aren't the smartest person here. Have some understanding for the other side too.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:

People are just talking you know ? Having a conversation where you can exchange experience and point of view.

 

No need to be angry :).

 

There is no angriness in this side. I go straight to the point and I don't accept the fallacies or illogical arguments that doesn't help the case at all and I will say straight that they don't help.

If someone's point of view and only content to add to conversation is not valuable, then what they add to search for evidence that Harrier would be correct as it is and not incorrect?

 

The point is this: I must be missing something, as the evidence that I have provided tells the Harrier is incorrectly done. I can not accept that I am correct in that thing and there must be a evidence that shows that TPOD can be same time with the Maverick video - even when the evidence shows otherwise. 

Why I am asking help that someone could provide evidence to counter those. 

 

It is not helpful to make a argument: "There are classified newer documentations, and there must be evidence in it, but we don't know. Hence the evidence you provided is false because it is based to older one". 

 

The problem is that the evidence that I have provided doesn't leave any room for speculation, it is very straight and to the point being a special note for pilots "HEY YOU, KNOW THIS!".

Making a claim that everything that is in the older than latest manual is wrong, is illogical because almost everything that Harrier has now is based to them and hence would be wrong. 

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

@Fri13 Has it ever occured to you that you might not be allowed to see the evidence you are so hard trying to see?

 

Yes, hence such evidence can't be used to make the DCS Module because no one can confirm or deny their correctness and you making the product in first place reveals the classified secret material to the public. 

This is reason why example ED with military contracts is required to not use such classified information for public but needs to rip them off or modify them (like flight performance and such) so they do not follow the real manuals. They can use the NASA testing material or such, but not classified ones for public version. 

 

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

Also, maybe there are people more knowledgeable than you with actual experience on the aircraft and they are under no circumstances obliged to provide you the evidence they have and do not want to do it for their own reasons?

 

Again, please show where I am claiming to move more knowledgeable than others? If so, why I would even make this thread to ask help from those who are? So don't make a strawman argument.

And anyways their experience as evidence is zero unless it can be confirmed by another group to be valid. Party testimonies and spoken behavior is not trustworthy when it is against other evidence. The witness testimonies are least valuable and trustworthy of them all. It is better than nothing when situation is such, but when there is valid evidence to say otherwise...

 

 

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

That alone doesn't make their input worthless as you try to paint it, but it should make you think that there is maybe someone else with the access to the data that we cannot get to by simple google search, and that they might be right.

 

It actually does make it worthless as you say when there is evidence that tells otherwise.

It is not enough to just say "there must be evidence that shows it is otherwise".

 

 

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

Also, I think you mentioned that every document must be publicly available to be used in DCS. That's simply not true. If it is, then it would mean that ED can simply show us the excerpts from the documentation to show us the reasoning why they did something in certain way.

 

If you read and listen example Wags interviews, the specifically states that they use only public documentation for their module development because laws. If they have military contract where they can have specific group accessing some classified material for military simulator version, they can't use it in the public one. They need to remove it (like example how A-10C has system parts removed for that reason) or they need to alter it (like Hornet flight performance) so it doesn't reveal the military secrets and hence they are not anymore relying on such information.  

 

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

The fact they cannot do it should show you that ED can use non-publicly available or non-publicly accessible documentation.

 

Read above.

 

1 minute ago, Vakarian said:

I fully appreciate your constant effort in bug reports and trying to get the Harrier in a better shape, but man, you have to understand that maybe you aren't the smartest person here. Have some understanding for the other side too.

 

Stop strawman arguments. I am nowhere claimed to be smartest. But if you think that I am then I would say you don't know what you are talking about.

You need to understand that when the documentation officially say

 

Quote

"Because TPOD video is provided as maverick emulation, maverick video is not available when TPOD video is selected."

 

And argument to counter that is:

 

Quote

"We know we are on a newer version which has different capabilities than what is in the NFM.  There is ample evidence we are on a later upgrade (6.2 at a minimum).  As the basis (a new wiring harness, new software (actually multiple updates) and a different pod) of your logic has all changed, your logic conclusion is invalid.  In order to be valid you would have to account for the changes in the therom which you choose to ignore."

 

That is not evidence what so ever.

Let's do one by one them through:

 

1) "We know we are on a newer version which has different capabilities than what is in the NFM."

 

Who knows and what they know? "We" don't know that from what are latest capabilities, what has changed in the TPOD video systems.

Because SOMETHING has changed, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING has changed or in this case, SPECIFICALLY THIS has changed.

I think you should agree with that, because otherwise you would never find anything in the Harrier that the old manuals would explain correctly.

 

2) "There is ample evidence we are on a later upgrade (6.2 at a minimum)."

 

As has been said in the Razbam Discord, Harrier is a frankenstein that implements multiple versions, there is even this classic meme from the Razbam statement:

 

 

So someone wants to clarify that what manual version, year or whatever is the "valid and proper" Harrier?

 

 

 

 

And what does Razbam say about SME's?

 

 

We don't go around the second route for the manual correctness etc.

If someone can not provide the validated evidence to counter the official documentation that is crystal clear about the function, then there is no such evidence and the official documentation is 100% valid and correct to be followed to the letter. And that would mean Harrier has incorrect TPOD and Maverick video feeds (as they have already so many things incorrect in the Maverick video - but again someone might come to say that "But you have the old information, the highly classified latest manual must say that it is not so... But you never know is it true or not!" 

 

How many times has Razbam SME's shown to be incorrect? At least four times. Even in the very clear things that are straight from the manual or other sources (like how a exact same function is implemented in other aircraft using that same targeting pod). But many has accepted that is problem in the communication between SME and Razbam worker. A language barrier, a wrongly shaped question, a misunderstanding, a error in the notes, a brain fart while implementing the system, a programming error... You name it. 

 

3) "As the basis (a new wiring harness, new software (actually multiple updates) and a different pod) of your logic has all changed, your logic conclusion is invalid."

 

So how it has changed? How has the TPOD video feed changed that it can be shown with the Maverick video simultaneously?

Because some of the documentation has changed as updates has been done, it doesn't mean that everything has changed.

Example because H4.0 update added capability to use 10 Target Points instead just 4. It doesn't mean that H4.0 update changed how the SSS switch selects DMT/TV mode. Or does it?

Because the manual including the H4.0 or H6.0 updates are mentioning how some of the systems been changed, it doesn't mean that everything has changed from parts that the manual doesn't mention and so on the old one would have all information incorrect.

That argument is "because 1% is incorrect, then 100% is incorrect".

 

4) "In order to be valid you would have to account for the changes in the therom which you choose to ignore.""

 

So what I am ignoring really? What changes in the manual?

That claim is "Because you ignore the unpresented evidence then your evidence is invalid, because it is invalidated by that a unknown evidence".

 

Again I have acknowledged various versions of the public documentation, how nothing in them has presented any evidence to change the earlier information in them.

How can I then be ignoring evidence that is not presented, doesn't exist than just as assumption that there must be a such change because some other changes has been done in some other systems?

 

If there is no evidence to show otherwise, then the existing evidence is valid.

Personally I don't like it, but as the evidence clearly states such, then so be it.

 

 

[Vakarian]

In all this wall of text in which you try to sound smart, you are basically saying people that operate the aircraft or have first hand experience have no idea because you have some manual which is DECADES old that says something that contradicts what that person said. Really open minded from you.

 

With that in mind, I withdraw from this argument. I don't have time to sit for hours and analyze every single sentence you said. You are a good person and you try to do something good, but in most cases you tend only support your arguments with out giving 1% chance that you might be wrong.