not planned USMC Version of Litening TGP

It appears that ED have decided to model a Spanish Hornet carrying Litening.

Compare the images of our ingame litening to that of a Spanish hornet:

Spanish:

Ingame: attached

And then reference this video (

And see the numerous attached images showing what the FLIR display should look like for a USMC hornet in mid 2000s.

Images 1-7 are taken from that video. Note:

-All show Litening as recognised by the presence of the cross shaped reticule as opposed to the diamond from ATFLIR.

-All show Coordinates in the top right, and north markers in the top left

-Image 2 and 3 show how the VVI and horizon should be displayed for Litening on a USMC hornet, ie the same as on the radar page in DCS

-In Image 3 and 7 you can see 'RTCL' written on the top of the page, different to the spanish and DCS versions that have it on the right.

-In image 7 you can see the SETUP menu on the bottom right, inplace of the GRAY in Spanish and DCS hornets

Nice thanks for the research i'm kind of surprised how big of a difference that is.

Good research. I hope this will also settle the debate on the North Arrow, which should be present in the Litening display.

And the coordinates. For the love of all that is holy, give us the correct coords display, ED.

Well done on the research man!

And the coordinates. For the love of all that is holy, give us the correct coords display, ED.

Coordinates would be good, as would a North arrow, but I feel we may be waiting til ATFLIR.

Unfortunately I'm considerably underwhelmed by the Pod we've got now. Combined by a very underwhelming and buggy JDAM AUTO mode...the Hornet's lost it's mojo for me. Not a great update for Hornet, despite the expectations.

Why is it that the 10 year old A10C is still the most well fleshed out simulation in the game?

Good job! Hopefully we'll get a response from ED

Using What I have obtained from these videos, I sketched up what I understand the Litening display to look like for a USMC hornet.

RTCL appears to have several options to cycle through, from what I can guess.

The coords Im not too sure about as they are always blurred out, so I took what I have seen from an unblurred ATFLIR footage as their layout.

The GRID option is there based purely on the existence of 'GRID' written next to a blurred coord box on a video.

The codes box next to UFC looks that way in every video I see, save the ones where LST isnt enabled.

The horizon and VVI are as shown in the OP images

SETUP is always there in USMC and USN footage, I assume its a sub page from which various symbols can be added or removed, if its anything like A-10s then it will also have a laser latch option which may explain some of the confusion we had with the initial litening release.

Really can't wait for coordinates and the north arrow. Finally, I can triple bag my hornet and do AFAC for A-10s instead of it being the other way around

Nice that's a whole lot of extra detail over what we have right now!

? wait wut I think the OP pretty conclusively showed that what we got is not what's on american hornets

It may be worth changing the description of the hornet from 'Mid-2000s USMC/USN Hornet' to 'Mid-2000s SAF Hornet' then

I mean what source? The current symbology is so different from the standard US design that I am very confused and skeptical.

I mean what source? The current symbology is so different from the standard US design that I am very confused and skeptical.

? wait wut I think the OP pretty conclusively showed that what we got is not what's on american hornets

The point is, they can't just willy-nilly swap stuff over right now considering the source they have gives them a complete schematic of how everything works.

It's probably a euro version of the Litening pod if I had to guess.

Maybe sometime in the feature...

Hi

 

The Litening is correct based on the open sources we worked from. We work from open sources that give us the best complete overview of a system.

 

thanks

I don’t understand why it is always so hard for ED to accept fault in something and say: “hey, thank you for providing new and more accurate info, we will get to work with this”. Like it doesn’t hurt ED/the Sim/anyone to admit a fault sometimes. The info Swift provided clearly proves more accurate to what ED has been using for the Litening.

Using What I have obtained from these videos, I sketched up what I understand the Litening display to look like for a USMC hornet.

 

RTCL appears to have several options to cycle through, from what I can guess.

 

The coords Im not too sure about as they are always blurred out, so I took what I have seen from an unblurred ATFLIR footage as their layout.

 

The GRID option is there based purely on the existence of 'GRID' written next to a blurred coord box on a video.

 

The codes box next to UFC looks that way in every video I see, save the ones where LST isnt enabled.

 

The horizon and VVI are as shown in the OP images

 

SETUP is always there in USMC and USN footage, I assume its a sub page from which various symbols can be added or removed, if its anything like A-10s then it will also have a laser latch option which may explain some of the confusion we had with the initial litening release.

Good Job dude. How long did that take?? Not very long in the scheme of things.

Why can't a Litening such as this be implemented. It was all from open sources, and looks like vids and documentary evidence we have. Much better than the Spanish franken bird.

ED - just because you have a particular document source, doesn't mean you have to use it 100%. Surely you're allowed creative license to adapt a source for a better fit.

Every flight sim over the last 20 odd years has had to do that at some point. Hell, Jane's F/A-18 had a better, more authentic US NAVY looking TGP page.

The fear is as the systems get more complex, we'll get an ever increasing mix of systems. Makes a mockery of the pure '2005 era USN/USMC Hornet'.

I don’t understand why it is always so hard for ED to accept fault in something and say: “hey, thank you for providing new and more accurate info, we will get to work with this”. Like it doesn’t hurt ED/the Sim/anyone to admit a fault sometimes. The info Swift provided clearly proves more accurate to what ED has been using for the Litening.

Absolutely, and it took about 30 mins to knock up I'll bet.

There's so much pride, stubbornness and inertia in ED sometimes.

Good Job dude. How long did that take?? Not very long in the scheme of things.

 

Why can't a Litening such as this be implemented. It was all from open sources, and looks like vids and documentary evidence we have. Much better than the Spanish franken bird.

 

ED - just because you have a particular document source, doesn't mean you have to use it 100%. Surely you're allowed creative license to adapt a source for a better fit.

 

Every flight sim over the last 20 odd years has had to do that at some point. Hell, Jane's F/A-18 had a better, more authentic US NAVY looking TGP page.

 

The fear is as the systems get more complex, we'll get an ever increasing mix of systems. Makes a mockery of the pure '2005 era USN/USMC Hornet'.

Eh, that way of thinking doesn't really fit in DCS. ED doesn't design things to make it a "better fit", they go for realism above all else. Now, that realism is what is being questioned here, they won't just add the north arrow because we want it, nor should they unless we can prove it's incorrect in game.

Eh, that way of thinking doesn't really fit in DCS. ED doesn't design things to make it a "better fit", they got for realism above all else.

Not in all things

What they outta do is remove LITENING completely since no Lot 20 bird used one in the mid 2000s as no USMC or SAF squadron HAD lot 20 hornets in the mid 2000s all the Lot 20s went to the USN it wasn't until last year that the Marines even got them.

If we wanna get really realistic here

What they outta do is remove LITENING completely since no Lot 20 bird used one in the mid 2000s as no USMC or SAF squadron HAD lot 20 hornets in the mid 2000s all the Lot 20s went to the USN it wasn't until last year that the Marines even got them.

 

If we wanna get really realistic here

Not a bad idea :lol:

Just add ATFLIR (existing 3d model) using the existing FLIR engine. Same thing as now except with correct symbology.

Eh, that way of thinking doesn't really fit in DCS. ED doesn't design things to make it a "better fit", they got for realism above all else.

Jeez....Realism, but with a pod picture that's not authentic to the year, country and service of the aircraft simulated. And a bunch of other systems with glaring ommisions.

This is not about 'realism above all', it's about ED partly covering their own backs for legal reasons and partly a lack of flexibility.