AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod Discussion

[felixx75]

11 minutes ago, RyanR said:

Once the ATP is more finalized/betterized, mission designers can just limit the Litening pod entirely from the allowed ordnance. As it is, the ATP is probably real close to that point. 

-Ryan

What I suggested above was not so much for me, but for the players who want to hold on to the high and rather unrealistic image quality of the Lightning Pod.

As far as I'm concerned, I could do without the Lightning completely and use a Lantirn as an "older" alternative instead.

But yes, of course your method works much more easily (and already does).

[Nedum]

1 minute ago, szymixzmb said:

@Nedum Good points, I compared to what I could, makes sense with compressed video however if it's not compressed I do not think it will change the quality massively. If you take a look at Naro X4 at original, you can see how blurry the picture is, to be honest in that case DCS picture looks better but maybe it's because of the contrast.

I totally agree with aliasing that should be corrected and a different way of making picture worse should be found like grain effect for example.

I think you're very much mistaken
And it wasn't just transferred once, but at least twice.
The first time onto the jet's magnetic tape and at least a second time when uploading.
Even with the first transfer to the F-16's on-board data tape, subtleties are lost. This effect is squared during the second upload. And this is also clearly visible if you look at the only high-resolution image of an original recording (last row, right image).
The sharpness of the overlay almost comes close to that of the sniper pod from DCS, but the details to be recognized are many times higher than in DCS. Just look at how razor-sharp the shadows are. 
What the video shows us has nothing to do with what the !!analog!! camera system of the original can really do.
You can extrapolate all this by comparing the sharp original image with the overlay of the video.
If I calculate the ratio in my head, the original should be at least 3 times sharper than what we can see in DCS.
Knowing the size and resolution of the MFD of the F16 and you know the PPD of the MFDs.
PPD is the magic term.
I'm willing to bet that what we can currently see in DCS is nowhere near the PPD of the MFD of the F16.

And the analog cameras of the original Sniper have a much higher resolution as the F16 MFDs.
https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

As I said before, it looks like one have missed some parts badly in his calculations. I hardly doubt, by math, the DCS Sniper Pod show us what the original can do, if I am looking at the original razor sharp image picture.

[fisadev]

@NineLine My post that was merged here, was talking about something different to what most people are discussing in this post:

- I was reporting that the sniper has less magnification than the litening
- Here people are debating about the resolution of the sniper vs litening

Magnification is how big things are seen. Resolution is related to how much detail you can see. They're of course related, but they're two different things that can be right or wrongly simulated independently.

Regardless of the resolution debate (very valid!), I still think there's also a separate issue with the magnification, because AFAIK the sniper should have equal or greater magnification than the litening.

[felixx75]

14 minutes ago, fisadev said:

Regardless of the resolution debate (very valid!), I still think there's also a separate issue with the magnification, because AFAIK the sniper should have equal or greater magnification than the litening.

Your assumption that there is a problem with the magnification of the Sniper Pod is based on the assumption that the Lightning Pod is implemented correctly. I would rather assume that the Sniper Pod is implemented correctly and the Lightning incorrectly. In addition, a very high (certainly digital) magnification at some point no longer brings any added value, because the image quality is then so poor that you can no longer recognise anything. This is not even taken into account in the current Lightning Pod.

[fisadev]

4 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

Your assumption that there is a problem with the magnification of the Sniper Pod 

I'm not assuming that, it can be very well a problem in the litening magnification. Which again, is a separate issue from how good the resolution is on its digital zoom.

[szymixzmb]

30 minutes ago, Nedum said:

I think you're very much mistaken
And it wasn't just transferred once, but at least twice.
The first time onto the jet's magnetic tape and at least a second time when uploading.
Even with the first transfer to the F-16's on-board data tape, subtleties are lost. This effect is squared during the second upload. And this is also clearly visible if you look at the only high-resolution image of an original recording (last row, right image).
The sharpness of the overlay almost comes close to that of the sniper pod from DCS, but the details to be recognized are many times higher than in DCS. Just look at how razor-sharp the shadows are. 
What the video shows us has nothing to do with what the !!analog!! camera system of the original can really do.
You can extrapolate all this by comparing the sharp original image with the overlay of the video.
If I calculate the ratio in my head, the original should be at least 3 times sharper than what we can see in DCS.
Knowing the size and resolution of the MFD of the F16 and you know the PPD of the MFDs.
PPD is the magic term.
I'm willing to bet that what we can currently see in DCS is nowhere near the PPD of the MFD of the F16.

And the analog cameras of the original Sniper have a much higher resolution as the F16 MFDs.
https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

As I said before, it looks like one have missed some parts badly in his calculations. I hardly doubt, by math, the DCS Sniper Pod show us what the original can do, if I am looking at the original razor sharp image picture.

I think only the original image can tell us the truth. If only somebody has it

[Ivandrov]

1 hour ago, Nedum said:

I think you are showing exactly the opposite with your comparison pictures.
1. the video of the original you are referring to is very heavily compressed.
You can see this very clearly if you look at the overlay. It definitely doesn't show the sharpness of a 720p video, and I'd wager not even 320p
2. In the last row, you've put the original on the right-hand side.
Here the overlay is almost as sharp as in DCS and you can clearly see how bad the picture of DCS Sniper Pod is in comparison.
The aliasing alone should scare anyone.
3. if you look closely at both PIP images, you will notice that everything in the PIP of the original is the same size as everything around it.
The image of the DCS Sniper Pod changes the size massively.
The buildings there are smaller, but the fine structures are almost twice as thick.

It looks to me as if the heavy compression from the original video was not taken into account when developing the DCS Sniper Pod.
And something else doesn't seem to have been considered.
The cameras in the original Sniper Pod are !!! not!!! digital. They are analog.
With the same "resolution", an analog camera will always be able to display a much more detailed image.
I hope the sharpness of the image and the details are adapted to this fact.
If not, one have really missed the mark.

 

I don't agree with points 2 and 3 here.

 

The Aliasing does not look like intentional ailasing in the pod image rather it just looks like game engine Ailasing. I.E. something you are not fixing without increasing performance requirements even more.

I can't see what you mean by the thickness changing between the PiP images. I'm looking at the water tower legs in the DCS image and it looks about the same thickness as it crosses from the tv to the thermal image.

[supersylph]

If there is no problem with clarity, I think what we actually lack is a richer infrared effect.

[dmatt76]

I did some comparison Sniper vs Litening, extreme conditions:
- 17 000 ft
- 20 miles
I really can think of any reason of using the Sniper. I don't know if the Litening is unrealisticly overpowered or the Sniper is reduced alot in its capabilities for some reason.

This is a direct comparison with FLIR max zoom and  TV vs max XR, so... why bother with Sniper? No reason at the moment... It seems useless.

Edited Thursday at 09:11 PM by dmatt76

[Kev2go]

16 hours ago, Ivandrov said:

XR mode is not just digital zoom. It is also an image processing technique as evidenced by the unique way it interacts with slewing of the pod and time it takes for the clearer picture to come in.

 

Again, the level of digital zoom available is completely up to whoever programs the software in the pod or aircraft. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the pods themselves.

 

IRL, the 4x-9x range in the LITENING would be mostly useless as the pixelation would be terrible.

Even the 4x in the Sniper also seems pretty useless from the one screenshot I have seen of it.

 

if using anything past x4 zoom was useless why did the engineers even bother giving later models of the litening 2 even more digital zoom ( x16 on L2 G4 versus x9 on L2 AT) versus improving digitally enhanced zoom to look less pixelated within the existing 1 -9?

[Ivandrov]

8 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

if using anything past x4 zoom was useless why did the engineers even bother giving later models of the litening 2 even more digital zoom ( x16 on L2 G4 versus x9 on L2 AT) versus improving digitally enhanced zoom to look less pixelated within the existing 1 -9?

You don't really "improve" digital zoom. You can process the zoomed image to get back lost detail, or you can increase the base resolution of whatever you are applying the digital zoom too.

The later pods have a higher display resolution which makes higher levels of digital zoom more useful. Modern consumer cameras can have available digital zooms well above even that as the base image they take is so high resolution that even the zoomed in image is still HD.

For the pod that we have, the 9x zoom means a final pixel width and height of about 29x29.

Edited Thursday at 09:06 PM by Ivandrov

[Kev2go]

5 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

You don't really "improve" digital zoom. You can process the zoomed image to get back lost detail.

The later pods also have a higher display resolution which makes higher levels of digital zoom more useful.

For the pod that we have, the 9x zoom means a final pixel width and height of about 29x29.

 the CCD/ TV image quality of litening 2 G4 didnt improve based on public sources. IT was already 1024x1024 on litening 2 AT. with L2 G4 the  FLIR resolution was improved to 1024x1024 to match the CCD resolution. so i dont see how allowing additional zoom levels would not keep the images blurry to the point of uselessness unless there is some under the hood  similar to xr type processing going on.

Edited Thursday at 09:05 PM by Kev2go

[szymixzmb]

What we need now is the comparison of real life sniper image without compression otherwise that's an endless discussion. ED will not change something because "we think".

From my perspective the DCS image compared to the compressed video is better so probably a little bit adjusted for compression but @Nedum states that it should be much better.

Probably the last image I posted is this most real we can get image but it is only from 4.9 NM. However it shows that there is not so much difference between TV and IR cameras in real life. In DCS PIP shows bigger difference.

Edited Thursday at 09:16 PM by szymixzmb

[Ivandrov]

24 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 the CCD/ TV image quality of litening 2 G4 didnt improve based on public sources. IT was already 1024x1024 on litening 2 AT. with L2 G4 the  FLIR resolution was improved to 1024x1024 to match the CCD resolution. so i dont see how allowing additional zoom levels would not keep the images blurry to the point of uselessness unless there is some under the hood  similar to xr type processing going on.

Don't forget the display resolution of the actual screen you are viewing it on. 256x256 was the number I heard last for the DCS pod but that might have been for the Spanish LITENING II that the Hornet has which is where the 29x29 final digital zoomed at 9x comes from.

There's a thesis paper floating around on the forums here somewhere that explains that the AT does in fact incorporate some techniques to help with the image degradation of the digital zoom, so. Naturally as these techniques improve, the digital zoom becomes more useable. But there is no upper limit to how much digital zoom you could apply to anything really. (I guess at the most extreme you can have it zoom all the way down to one pixel, just because you wanted to.)

If you want you can ask Northrop engineers whether they were bumping the digital zoom levels just because they could to get sales and the people writing the paycheck don't know any better other than "number bigger therefore better" 

Edited Thursday at 09:34 PM by Ivandrov

[YoYo]

35 minutes ago, dmatt76 said:

I did some comparison Sniper vs Litening, extreme conditions:
- 17 000 ft
- 20 miles
I really can think of any reason of using the Sniper. I don't know if the Litening is unrealisticly overpowered or the Sniper is reduced alot in its capabilities for some reason.

This is a direct comparison with FLIR max zoom and  TV vs max XR, so... why bother with Sniper? No reason at the moment... It seems useless.

That's why I say that what was supposed to be the best choice in DCS has become useless. The avionics and features are all great with AN/AAQ-33, but the optics aren't what they should be. since it is currently impossible to downgrade AN/AAQ-28, I propose that at least in this respect the image should not be worse, so that it would be a compromise.

[Kev2go]

26 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

Don't forget the display resolution of the actual screen you are viewing it on. 256x256 was the number I heard last for the DCS pod but that might have been for the Spanish LITENING II that the Hornet has which is where the 29x29 final digital zoomed at 9x comes from.

There's a thesis paper floating around on the forums here somewhere that explains that the AT does in fact incorporate some techniques to help with the image degradation of the digital zoom, so. Naturally as these techniques improve, the digital zoom becomes more useable. But there is no upper limit to how much digital zoom you could apply to anything really. (I guess at the most extreme you can have it zoom all the way down to one pixel, just because you wanted to.)

If you want you can ask Northrop engineers whether they were bumping the digital zoom levels just because they could to get sales and the people writing the paycheck don't know any better other than "number bigger therefore better" 

the 4x4 MFD is supposed to be 524x524 not 256x256.

https://www.astronautics.com/pdf/product_brochures/F-16_4-Inch_MFD.pdf

 

even so like these videos others have posted of MFD recordings ( so not stretched from recording software) i wouldn't be able to tell they were 500 something pixel image. when you have small displays you dont need as high resolution.  anyone who has actually tried to sport any noticable difference for thier nakeyed  between 1080p and 1440p on thier 7-8 inch smartphone screens will know this is true.

 

 

[Ivandrov]

23 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

the 4x4 MFD is supposed to be 524x524 not 256x256.

https://www.astronautics.com/pdf/product_brochures/F-16_4-Inch_MFD.pdf

 

even so like these videos others have posted of MFD recordings ( so not stretched from recording software) i wouldn't be able to tell they were 500 something pixel image. when you have small displays you dont need as high resolution.  anyone who has actually tried to sport any noticable difference for thier nakeyed  between 1080p and 1440p on thier 7-8 inch smartphone screens will know this is true.

 

 

But you definitely would be able to tell if you digital zoomed it in by 9x and started looking at a 57x57 image instead. Digital zoom of that degree makes a massive difference at this lower end of resolutions. I'm quite used to how bad even the 2x digital zoom on the -14 and the -15E LANTIRN pods are.

Edited Thursday at 10:07 PM by Ivandrov

[jojojung]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb YoYo:

That's why I say that what was supposed to be the best choice in DCS has become useless. The avionics and features are all great with AN/AAQ-33, but the optics aren't what they should be. since it is currently impossible to downgrade AN/AAQ-28, I propose that at least in this respect the image should not be worse, so that it would be a compromise.

In my opinon the Litning pod should be downgraded. There is no other option in my opinon. The perfect picture though all digital zooms and slew movements is far unrealistic for the AN/AAQ-28.
I think realism was the main aspect which differents DCS from other sims like warthunder etc. 
Sorry for the old eyes or the planes which dont have the sniper pod. But the F16 has its limits as every other planes has this limites. And the F16 should have the most advanced pod in DCS with the AN/AAQ-33. I we all agree with that.
To leave a less capaple pod IRL overpowered in this game because some people would be furios is the wrong way when you say "as real as it gets".
DCS should be a simulation and when it must be downgraded because of DCS is progressing this is the way to go. If you dont want it, there are many other sims that dont have this claim!

[Kev2go]

59 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

But you definitely would be able to tell if you digital zoomed it in by 9x and started looking at a 57x57 image instead. Digital zoom of that degree makes a massive difference at this lower end of resolutions. I'm quite used to how bad even the 2x digital zoom on the -14 and the -15E LANTIRN pods are.

even without using any of x1-4 level of zoom on the Sniper pod. the image quality on Narrow FOV still feels lackluster.  In its current implementation The only quality image IMO is with XR processing mode but it requires an area or point track and multiple seconds for the image to process so it cannot be slewn around all the time without the image looking like a blurry mess. 

Edited Thursday at 10:51 PM by Kev2go

[Ivandrov]

These look about the same to me, with the Sniper actually having more magnification in it's standard narrow mode without digital zoom.

[Kev2go]

5 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

These look about the same to me, with the Sniper actually having more magnification in it's standard narrow mode without digital zoom.

 

Snipers TV mode has better resolution then its FLIR yes but it only has 1 FOV if you don't count the additional XR processing. which is unfortunate.

 

Edited Thursday at 11:09 PM by Kev2go

[Ivandrov]

16 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

Snipers TV mode has better resolution then its FLIR yes but it only has 1 FOV if you don't count the additional XR processing. which is unfortunate.

 

I don't find it unfortunate. It's typically how I use these dual mode pods, is that IR is for finding hotspots, and TV is for figuring out what that hotspot is.

So, wide IR to find spots, and I zoom in with the TV mode. Which means for me the PiP mode is lovely.

[Kev2go]

49 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

I don't find it unfortunate. It's typically how I use these dual mode pods, is that IR is for finding hotspots, and TV is for figuring out what that hotspot is.

So, wide IR to find spots, and I zoom in with the TV mode. Which means for me the PiP mode is lovely.

For me PiP mode is a gimmick that adds unessesary complexity

 

Lack of a wide fov in tv mode makes it less usefull for  loitering overtop targets for CAS. This something rl pilots have said litening 2 is better at. 

 

Except of course without the degraded image there is no incentive to use sniper over litening  except maybe or a2a or if you really want multi target track.

Edited Friday at 12:14 AM by Kev2go

[Ivandrov]

I like its overall functionality better. So I wish to use the Sniper over the LITENING.

[Wawar]

Yeah, we are weighing what it will do for those that want optics simulated more accurately for the older TGPs, and others that want to keep the older TGPs the way they are. An option would be nice, but it could then snowball from there. So, we will weigh options. However, the optics of the AAQ-33 are accurate, and have no plans or need to adjust those.
The most common issue we see with customer use of the AAQ-33 is not taking advantage of the NARO field of views, remembering to first stabilize in Point, Area, or INR, and then using XR processing. 
 

Hi team. Great job on the ATP, it's a real pleasure to see that sensor limitations are properly represented on your new TGP. Now that you've got the ATP modeled with fidelity, I imagine the presence of the Litening is no longer desired, insofar as the Litening was a low fidelity placeholder?

It would indeed be nice to see the same fidelity work carried out on previously modeled TGPs ... (A10 Litening, ATFLIR) The best would be to have a modeling standard accross all DCS modules, of course.

Great job on the ATP in any case, thanks!