phil106ci Posted May 18, 2022 Share Posted May 18, 2022 rules, rules, rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted May 18, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 18, 2022 45 minutes ago, phil106ci said: rules, rules, rules They always get in the way of fun. 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted May 18, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 18, 2022 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. 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llOPPOTATOll Posted May 18, 2022 Share Posted May 18, 2022 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/ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted May 18, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 18, 2022 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. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llOPPOTATOll Posted May 18, 2022 Share Posted May 18, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, NineLine said: We are not doing the AT, we are doing the II. Your manual calls it the "LITENING AT" Edited May 18, 2022 by llOPPOTATOll 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted May 18, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 18, 2022 Then its a typo, I will have that updated. Thanks null Typos in a few places. Thanks for the report. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) 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 July 27, 2022 by Blaze1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) The following footage is from a Litening Pod and the video has it labelled as Litening II video from OIF: F-16C targeting pod video from OIF. This version doesn't appear to exhibit the MTC function. Edited July 27, 2022 by Blaze1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furiz Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 Can someone explain this line from Viper Roadmap Current Litening/LANTIRN mash-up targeting pod to true LANTIRN targeting pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted March 29, 2023 ED Team Share Posted March 29, 2023 Hi, tag updated on the title of this old thread. thank you 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 More sharing options...
Blinky.ben Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 (edited) 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 April 20, 2023 by Blinky.ben 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tholozor Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 TGP on the Viper is not being removed; LITENING is being replaced with LANTIRN. 2 REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinky.ben Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Tholozor said: TGP on the Viper is not being removed; LITENING is being replaced with LANTIRN. Yes I meant to say something along those lines. Just slipped through my bad Edited April 20, 2023 by Blinky.ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted April 20, 2023 ED Team Share Posted April 20, 2023 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. 9 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST0RM Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tholozor Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 It's not a question of stateside vs. deployed, it's about the data ED is able to acquire/use within legal limits. REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseJames38 Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 Where was it stated that the tgp’s are being swapped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_SteelFalcon_ Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 9 minutes ago, JesseJames38 said: Where was it stated that the tgp’s are being swapped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignition Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 (edited) 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 April 21, 2023 by Ignition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted April 21, 2023 ED Team Share Posted April 21, 2023 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. 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SickSidewinder9 Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VarZat Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted April 21, 2023 ED Team Share Posted April 21, 2023 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. 2 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST0RM Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts