Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

1.)Which version of the litening pod are we using on the A-10C?

2.)Why can't we use rockeyes in the A-10C? they are so much better than CBU-87s. When I dropped CBU-87s on a group of BMP-1s, I used each and every one of my CBU's on them and they didn't pop the BMPs. I then had a F-16 drop Rockeyes on the BMPs, and all it took was a near miss to set the BMPs on fire. I then moved the rockeyes on to T-72Bs, with the same result as with the BMPs, one hit one kill with the submunitions.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

Open-Beta forums to be utilised for reporting Open-Beta related issues only.

 

Moved.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Posted

hmmm... the Northrop Grumman flyer for the Litening AT states that it has a "multitarget cueing capability," as well as a datalink on the pod, and well, a lot better resolution than we are getting now with the current in game pod.

And i'm just trying to say that the CNU-87 is so ineffective against anything with armor. everything up from BMP-1s are protected. is the current in game model to weak?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

LITENING II and LITENING AT are not the same pod, IIRC.

 

The software in the real pod does allow for multi-target cuing and other fun things. In the DCS A-10C we have an older version of the software, but still realistic.

 

The CBUs require tuning, and MK-20's are out because they have been retired and are in fact less effective than the 87 in RL.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

O.K. So here is my understanding. We have the physical litening AT pod, but older software.

 

As for the CBUs, they are more effective in RL, but just need a lot of "fine tuning" in the game. please correct me if I am wrong.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
O.K. So here is my understanding. We have the physical litening AT pod, but older software.

 

LITENING II.

 

As for the CBUs, they are more effective in RL, but just need a lot of "fine tuning" in the game. please correct me if I am wrong.

 

That's about it, yep.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted (edited)

LITENING

Year 1995

FLIR ??? x ???

 

LITENING II

Year 1999

FLIR 320 x 256

 

LITENING ER

Year 2001

FLIR 640 x 512

 

LITENING AT

Year 2003

FLIR 640 x 512

 

LITENING III (EF)

Year 2003

FLIR 640 x 480

 

LITENING G4

Year 2008

FLIR 1024 x 1024

 

The manual lists the LITENING II AT pod at 200 kg and 406mm diameter. All of the LITENING pods since the #1 model have been 410mm in diameter. The II was applied to the A-10A while the AT was applied to the A-10C. This is from deagel.com.

 

What's bolded is what DCS:A-10C should be using as the model in game but I have a suspicion that in fact the older II model is depicted.

Edited by Frederf
Posted

Well it's no wonder then. There are actually two CCDs for TV picture one for narrow and one for wide. The FLIR doesn't have that luxury and the narrow FOV is probably a subset of the grid of the FLIR sensor. At maximum magnification the FLIR image is probably a fractional pixel subset blown up to fill the whole MFCD.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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