Loving the TPOD

Been waiting a long time to use this with the Hornet and it is great fun. Watching targets get destroyed in the FLIR zoomed in is just quality.

Can't wait to get the ATFLIR.

Many thanks!

What’s the difference between the Atflir and the TPod?

As far as I know.

• A substantial increase in target detection/recognition range
  
• Pinpoint accuracy and assessment from longer standoff ranges
  
• Superior EO/IR imagery
  

Taken from the Raytheon website.

As far as I know.

 

• A substantial increase in target detection/recognition range
  
• Pinpoint accuracy and assessment from longer standoff ranges
  
• Superior EO/IR imagery
  

 

Taken from the Raytheon website.

You mean that ATFLIR is superior over the LITENING, based on that points? Because Im not sure, I think that ATFLIR and LITENING have similar capabilities and we even won't get the difference.

You mean that ATFLIR is superior over the LITENING, based on that points? Because Im not sure, I think that ATFLIR and LITENING have similar capabilities and we even won't get the difference.

I see what you mean. However, in that case all they are going to do is change the name and let you put it on a different pylon?

Is that what your saying? because it sounds like they are working on something a bit more than that.

I think one of the main things is going to be about the amount of information it can deliver to the pilot. Just look at anything online using that tech and you will see what I mean.

I think the current Tpod released this week is only a stop gap until work on the new system is done, with marked improvement with IR, clarity and performance coming with new Tpod

I have seen some people complaining about its limited capability so far, but I really like it. I'm glad they released it even though it is not done. Its still very powerful. Imagine when we get ground radar and TWS?

I have seen some people complaining about its limited capability so far, but I really like it. I'm glad they released it even though it is not done. Its still very powerful. Imagine when we get ground radar and TWS?

Yep. Ground radar. Not only great for the Hornet but some ground breaking stuff for ED and opens up so much more for other modules.

:thumbup:

I see what you mean. However, in that case all they are going to do is change the name and let you put it on a different pylon?

 

Is that what your saying? because it sounds like they are working on something a bit more than that.

 

I think one of the main things is going to be about the amount of information it can deliver to the pilot. Just look at anything online using that tech and you will see what I mean.

No, I mean in real world LITENING 2 AT and ATFLIR have similar capabilities, they are same generation tpods. But what we will see modelled in DCS, is other thing.

No, I mean in real world LITENING 2 AT and ATFLIR have similar capabilities, they are same generations tpods. But what we will see modelled in DCS, is other thing.

Just have to wait and see. I'm quite optimistic.

Just have to wait and see. I'm quite optimistic.

Yea, I'll be glad If Im wrong and ATFLIR is better :music_whistling:

Just my opinion is based on what I've read about this pods.

TPod works great with the AMG-154!

Does anyone notice the FLIR resolution is much worse on the litening in the hornet than warthog?

This a bug?

Does anyone notice the FLIR resolution is much worse on the litening in the hornet than warthog?

 

This a bug?

If anything, I find it more realistic. I think that the IR picture on the A-10C is a little too clear compared to the real thing.

Does anyone notice the FLIR resolution is much worse on the litening in the hornet than warthog?

 

This a bug?

No, its OK in daytime, but I think that in nightime image is very bad, and its very hard to see where the targets is when its night. I hope night image is WIP still.

If anything, I find it more realistic. I think that the IR picture on the A-10C is a little too clear compared to the real thing.

Agreed. In general I'm very much looking forward to whatever they do the FLIR model to make it actually look more like an actual FLIR image.

Does anyone notice the FLIR resolution is much worse on the litening in the hornet than warthog?

 

This a bug?

I don't know if it's more realistic, like the other guys are saying, but yes, you are correct, the resolution on the Hornet FLIR is worse than the one on the A-10, despite them being the same.

I don't know if it's more realistic, like the other guys are saying, but yes, you are correct, the resolution on the Hornet FLIR is worse than the one on the A-10, despite them being the same.

Wonder if its different on the harrier too. And also wondering "why"

Wonder if its different on the harrier too. And also wondering "why"

I think the devs purposefully applied a blurring filter or something like that to the Hornet's FLIR image, to make look closer to the real thing.

I think the Harrier is more or less as clear as the A-10C, but with a green filter applied. Slightly lighter green than the Hornet's.

I think the devs purposefully applied a blurring filter or something like that to the Hornet's FLIR image, to make look closer to the real thing.

Well the main thing that bugs me that stuff that is hot, is cold, and stuff that should show as hot shows as cold half the time.

I have been able to handle military optronic systems, and we must know how to differentiate between detecting and identifying. At certain distances you can detect a vehicle, but not knowing what vehicle it is (blurred image). I imagine that TPOD will also have its limits. I see it real that at certain distances we are not able to distinguish the units.

I have been able to handle military optronic systems, and we must know how to differentiate between detecting and identifying. At certain distances you can detect a vehicle, but not knowing what vehicle it is (blurred image). I imagine that TPOD will also have its limits. I see it real that at certain distances we are not able to distinguish the units.

The technical term for what you are talking about is called "johnson criteria", which differentiates the ranges at which you can detect and identify things, also known as DRI. You can look up certain stanag docs which talk about how systems like this are tested if you like light technical reading (hope thats vague enough for forum rules, even though they are totally open source).

DRI: ranges, typically Detection is typically possible at significantly longer ranges than R/I with thermal systems, BUT, background clutter in images can make it quite difficult.

1. Detection: Detect a target (i.e. a few pixels ~2-3)

2. Recognition: Tell roughly what it is, a plane, train, or automobile (i.e. alot more pixels usually in the teens or 20's)

3. Identification: Oh that looks like toyota tacoma (ish). (significantly more more pixels depending on what it is)

It does look like ED is throwing a distance based blur filter on the F18 tpod images (I haven't used the lantrin in the f14 but thought they were doing that too). Which I think does help "realism".

I was using the TPOD last night on GAW at night/morning and found that digging out targets in an urban background sucked alot, which it should, even though the images overall looked really wrong to me.

:megalol:TGP . . . TGP . . . TGP, what the heck is a TPOD:megalol:

:megalol:TGP . . . TGP . . . TGP, what the heck is a TPOD:megalol:

Yep, I know. Saying "T" - "POD" sounds much better to me though.

:thumbup:

It does look like ED is throwing a distance based blur filter on the F18 tpod images (I haven't used the lantrin in the f14 but thought they were doing that too). Which I think does help "realism".

I wouldn't have any problem with that, if only they did it with all the Litenings in the game... right now it just makes me crazy that the A-10 has better optics than the Hornet (I was waiting for something like the former...)