[Improvement] A true image contrast tracker for TGP and MAV

[Rosly]

In the latest AH-64D update, a true image tracker was announced.

I'm wondering when we will see this implementation be copied to F-16 (even on basic level)
Not asking for something like auto-tracker (which works differently in F-16) but true implementation of contrast tracking.
Currently both TGP and MAV are locking to nearest object which are in view.
After TMS up, the view snaps to closest object in the view, or in case one is not available, TGP lock in point tracking to ground coordinates (sticks to them like a glue even without lasing and range finding) and refuse to lock in case of Mavericks. This is not how this actually works in reality. In reality a true contrast tracker (similar to how it will be implemented in AH-64D) is required to track a point or hot spot in thermal view.

The drawbacks from current solution are quite obvious like:

- tracking moving targets even they are occluded by building or terrain (without switching to INS mode)
- occlusion by plane fuselage or terrain does not cause to lose a track
- mavericks that lock up to something which is not visible on video feed (like cold objects in IR mode which does not produce any contrast)
- artificial limits to Maverick range (~ 8 miles) to simulate some existing limitations that are actually related to range but not directly (like pixel count of the sensor and sensitivity) while at the same time:
- locking to hot targets through the clouds and fog and keeping the tack even they are fully occluded by them
- fog and clouds does not influence on tracking precision

Basically all of this came from fact TGB and MAV are tacking game object (internal logic of a game), and not contrast of an image.
 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Rosly

[TEOMOOSE]

6 minutes ago, Rosly said:

In the latest AH-64D update, a true image tracker was announced.

I'm wondering when we will see this implementation be copied to F-16 (even on basic level)
Not asking for something like auto-tracker (which works differently in F-16) but true implementation of contrast tracking.
Currently both TGP and MAV are locking to nearest object which are in view.
After TMS up, the view snaps to closest object in the view, or in case one is not available, TGP lock in point tracking to ground coordinates (sticks to them like a glue even without lasing and range finding) and refuse to lock in case of Mavericks. This is not how this actually works in reality. In reality a true contrast tracker (similar to how it will be implemented in AH-64D) is required to track a point or hot spot in thermal view.

The drawbacks from current solution are quite obvious like:

- tracking moving targets even they are occluded by building or terrain (without switching to INS mode)
- occlusion by plane fuselage or terrain does not cause to lose a track
- mavericks that lock up to something which is not visible on video feed (like cold objects in IR mode which does not produce any contrast)
- artificial limits to Maverick range (~ 8 miles) to simulate some existing limitations that are actually related to range but not directly (like pixel count of the sensor and sensitivity) while at the same time:
- locking to hot targets through the clouds and fog and keeping the tack even they are fully occluded by them
- fog and clouds does not influence on tracking precision

Basically all of this came from fact TGB and MAV are tacking game object (internal logic of a game), and not contrast of an image.
 

 

 

man..
 

Edited December 13, 2022 by TEOMOOSE

[Rosly]

1 minute ago, TEOMOOSE said:

man..
 

 

Not my fault. There is some DOS right now on the forum page if you didn't noticed.
Got several 500 errors and multiple threads created by itself.
Already removed those.

[DukeAngus]

I second this! it is frustrating beyond belief to try to Lock a target in a field and  have the Mav Lock onto nothing  way over there somewhere.

[WHOGX5]

It's also annoying when you're trying to point track a enormous, glowing warship that covers half of the TGP's field of view, but because you haven't reached the magical max range of the TGP you can't point track it.

[Default774]

3 hours ago, WHOGX5 said:

It's also annoying when you're trying to point track a enormous, glowing warship that covers half of the TGP's field of view, but because you haven't reached the magical max range of the TGP you can't point track it.

The max range of TGP point tracks is determined by ownship altitude

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/310715-tgp-a-a-mode-point-track-range-based-on-altitude-not-contrastvisibilityresolution/#comment-5069517

[WHOGX5]

17 hours ago, Default774 said:

The max range of TGP point tracks is determined by ownship altitude

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/310715-tgp-a-a-mode-point-track-range-based-on-altitude-not-contrastvisibilityresolution/#comment-5069517

Yeah, and that's especially noticeable with AGM-65's. If you're flying at low altitude you might have to wait until you're maybe 6-7 miles from the target before you can even get a lock. At higher altitude you can lock targets almost at double that range.

[Rosly]

@Wags any chance we could see improvements from AH-64 be merged into F-1/F-18/A-10 TGPs?