Jump to content

Targeting Pod Choice


Kev2go

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team

Just to update, I have talked to the mystery man, and any documentation is not legally shareable, and in this case not something we can use. The video shared to us, while a good video has no info on any specifics to what the aircraft being shown actually is. I will leave this open, but we would need legally shareable documentation to proceed with any changes. I know it sucks, and I know some documents are out there that can be used, but in this case, this one is not. 

  • Like 1

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jazjar said:

I can't find anything open source (Internet search) that says the Litening has a multi-target tracker.  What version of the pod is it?  Litening AT or something newer?

"The newest version, LITENING AT, is in production and will begin fielding in 2003. It further extends target detection and recognition ranges, improves the target coordinate generation accuracy, and provides multi-target cueing." https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199176/litening-iierat/

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
6 minutes ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

"The newest version, LITENING AT, is in production and will begin fielding in 2003. It further extends target detection and recognition ranges, improves the target coordinate generation accuracy, and provides multi-target cueing." https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199176/litening-iierat/

We are not doing the AT, we are doing the II. 

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 5/18/2022 at 5:52 PM, jazjar said:

I can't find anything open source (Internet search) that says the Litening has a multi-target tracker.  What version of the pod is it?  Litening AT or something newer?

The Litening AT certainly has Multi-Target Cueing options, namely MTCM and MTCA.

EDIT:  I can see llOPPOTATOll already answered this.

 


Edited by Blaze1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • ED Team

Hi, 

tag updated on the title of this old thread. 

thank you 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
  • 4 weeks later...

I think this needs to be addressed.

 

It seems the F-16 requires more documentation/evidence to implement stuff than other ED modules. With the recent news of the F-16’s litening being removed for the Lantirn due to lack of evidence, JDAM’s having an impact error zone that just isn’t being implemented right but will do one day I guess, MAV’s having to be bore-sighted and so on and so on, the list is bigger. yet none of these items are implemented on other ED modules and in fact ED said they do not have the required documentation to to properly implement MAV’s on the F-18 such as bore-sighting so why are MAV’s not being removed from the hornet for the same reason the litening TGP is being removed for the viper?

 

in the end implement whatever realism you want but just have a standard between the modules.


Edited by Blinky.ben
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 hour ago, Blinky.ben said:

I think this needs to be addressed.

 

It seems the F-16 requires more documentation/evidence to implement stuff than other ED modules. With the recent news of the F-16’s litening being removed for the Lantirn due to lack of evidence, JDAM’s having an impact error zone that just isn’t being implemented right but will do one day I guess, MAV’s having to be bore-sighted and so on and so on, the list is bigger. yet none of these items are implemented on other ED modules and in fact ED said they do not have the required documentation to to properly implement MAV’s on the F-18 such as bore-sighting so why are MAV’s not being removed from the hornet for the same reason the litening TGP is being removed for the viper?

 

in the end implement whatever realism you want but just have a standard between the modules.

 

The standard is that we create our modules based on available non-controlled documentation/information on a per aircraft basis. You cannot compare one module to the next as each has different levels of available, non-controlled documentation/information. Further, you cannot compare a system in one aircraft to another because they may be implemented differently (often due to different mission computers and software). Everything we do is based on the standard to create the most realistic simulation possible within the bounds of valid documentation/information, not in comparison between aircraft or based on speculation. 

  • Like 9

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tholozor said:

TGP on the Viper is not being removed; LITENING is being replaced with LANTIRN.

Which will be incorrect. Stateside, yes as some non-deployed units had to rely on old stock LANTIRN. In the combat theater, it was LITENING. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NineLine said:

The standard is that we create our modules based on available non-controlled documentation/information on a per aircraft basis. You cannot compare one module to the next as each has different levels of available, non-controlled documentation/information. Further, you cannot compare a system in one aircraft to another because they may be implemented differently (often due to different mission computers and software). Everything we do is based on the standard to create the most realistic simulation possible within the bounds of valid documentation/information, not in comparison between aircraft or based on speculation. 

You're also making a game, and aircrafts should have the same standards at least for common things, like weapons or TGP.

We all like the full fidelity modules and to have the most simulation as posible, but when it comes to these things is really weird some aircraft are just plug and play and/or have some beneficial features just because there're no information. 


Edited by Ignition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
29 minutes ago, Ignition said:

You're also making a game, and aircrafts should have the same standards at least for common things, like weapons or TGP.

We all like the full fidelity modules and to have the most simulation as posible, but when it comes to these things is really weird some aircraft are just plug and play and/or have some beneficial features just because there're no information. 

 

If the systems are exactly identical and we know that for a fact, sure. If we do not have any evidence of that, no. 

  • Like 1

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

It does seem like there are different standards.  Sometimes it seems like the Hornet team and the Viper team don't talk to each other.  Ironically, that was probably true back in the 70's and 80's when they developed the real life meatspace jets.

Well i think there is many from the hornet team that got transfered to the viper team, which is probably why we have seen so much progress being made the last year. My understanding for example the maverick boresighting, is that documentation isnt available for the same process in the hornet

Varzat_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
46 minutes ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

It does seem like there are different standards.  Sometimes it seems like the Hornet team and the Viper team don't talk to each other.  Ironically, that was probably true back in the 70's and 80's when they developed the real life meatspace jets.

The Hornet and Viper are different, and I can assure you they talk to each other. 

34 minutes ago, VarZat said:

Well i think there is many from the hornet team that got transfered to the viper team, which is probably why we have seen so much progress being made the last year. My understanding for example the maverick boresighting, is that documentation isnt available for the same process in the hornet

No, there was a short period after the Viper released that we have some transfer over to help, they have long since returned, we have even had some new hires in that area. 

  • Like 2

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tholozor said:

It's not a question of stateside vs. deployed, it's about the data ED is able to acquire/use within legal limits.

Where's the accuracy then? A-10 has the LITENING. Isn't the pod data the same? Or was that also interpolated?
Why choose the Blk50 is they cant make it accurate? Seems the cart was placed before the cart and like the 4 HARMs and Triple AGM-65 racks, they'll once again back pedal on accuracy because they planned poorly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...