TGP on fuselage

Not according to wags, as stated in his comment on YouTube video recently.

Which one, please?

Why it would be wanted to be in the cheek? Not about the fuel tank, but is there any benefits for the targeting capabilities, like increased FOV or something?

People who care about the appearance of the loadout will claim that no pod was mounted on station 5 during carrier ops. So to get a more carrier "approved" loadout, we should have that option.

Simply to add the ability for a center tank, allowing for more range (or ability to go gates without compromising internal fuel consumption). That is my only desire for it. Nothing with FOV for me as it would be the same (or somewhat compromised by center bag until jettisoned).

Cheers,

Don

People who care about the appearance of the loadout will claim that no pod was mounted on station 5 during carrier ops. So to get a more carrier "approved" loadout, we should have that option.

Except the Litening was never carrier approved, AFAIK. The USMC use ATFLIR when deployed on the boat. It doesn't mean it couldn't be approved if they wanted to, but from a logistical point of view it is simpler to only carry the ATFLIR aboard, so approcing the Litening for carrier ops is not Worth the effort.

That is my understanding, anyway.

Which one, please?

I have found a comment by Wags on the

Except the Litening was never carrier approved, AFAIK.

You are correct, I meant as a replacement until we get the ATFLIR.

You are correct, I meant as a replacement until we get the ATFLIR.

Heres the real question...

Everyone is complaining about missing features that belong on the aircraft while asking for features that are unnecessary be added. We have a targeting pod that works.

Personally, I don't want ED to waste resources adding a feature that may or may not be accurate for the F-18C we have. Yes there are pictures of F-18s with a TOG mounted on the cheek station. There is also evidence this wasn't done on carriers.

Both arguments are correct. But it's not worth the time and effort to add ithe lightening to the creek station as an interim measure. Especially if it pulls resources away from other things like the ATFLIR.

Heres the real question...

 

Everyone is complaining about missing features that belong on the aircraft while asking for features that are unnecessary be added. We have a targeting pod that works.

 

Personally, I don't want ED to waste resources adding a feature that may or may not be accurate for the F-18C we have. Yes there are pictures of F-18s with a TOG mounted on the cheek station. There is also evidence this wasn't done on carriers.

 

Both arguments are correct. But it's not worth the time and effort to add ithe lightening to the creek station as an interim measure. Especially if it pulls resources away from other things like the ATFLIR.

Agree with some points, and again it’s really not a pressing point for me (as previously stated).

But is it really that hard to do this? Seems a short task for make a mount and change a file. Everything else (the big stuff) is already done... Truly with other aspects currently implemented - it could be a low quality mount to be fair.

On to the newsletter.

Cheers,

Don

Heres the real question...

 

Everyone is complaining about missing features that belong on the aircraft while asking for features that are unnecessary be added. We have a targeting pod that works.

 

Personally, I don't want ED to waste resources adding a feature that may or may not be accurate for the F-18C we have. Yes there are pictures of F-18s with a TOG mounted on the cheek station. There is also evidence this wasn't done on carriers.

 

Both arguments are correct. But it's not worth the time and effort to add ithe lightening to the creek station as an interim measure. Especially if it pulls resources away from other things like the ATFLIR.

So in that logic, we shouldn't have the Litening at all, right ? That was the plan, USN aircraft with ATFLIR, no Litening. They chose to add the Litening as an interim measure because the ATFLIR is/was a long time away.

Playing the devil's advocate here, cause although I would like to see a cheek-mounted Litening, I don't care that much after all.

Anyway, AFAIK what is holding up the ATFLIR is the new shaders for IR Imaging, so I doubt it would be affected.

I have found a comment by Wags on the

, from 2 weeks ago, saying they may add cheek station for the Litening, but that it is low priority. I don't know if there have been more recent comment on that subject.

Thank you, Robin Hood.

Here we go again. F/A-18A+ VMFA-312

exactly.

F/A18A+

not an F/A18C.

It was annouced that only ATflir would be made mountable on cheek stations as based on thier research L2 wasn't being utilized in such position on the F/A18C by USMC only centerline.

Agree with some points, and again it’s really not a pressing point for me (as previously stated).

 

But is it really that hard to do this? Seems a short task for make a mount and change a file. Everything else (the big stuff) is already done... Truly with other aspects currently implemented - it could be a low quality mount to be fair.

 

On to the newsletter.

 

Cheers,

 

Don

I'm inclined to believe if it was as easy to do as you believe...they would have already done it.

:music_whistling:

Why wouldn't it be easy. Do it yourself, go into the .lua and copy the litening from centerline to one of the cheeks.

I'm inclined to believe if it was as easy to do as you believe...they would have already done it.

 

:music_whistling:

Other things that are of current issue - would argue otherwise to that. And if it isn't a priority for them, or it indeed is not something they plan on implementing - then that would be why it hasn't been done yet. :music_whistling:

Why wouldn't it be easy. Do it yourself, go into the .lua and copy the litening from centerline to one of the cheeks.

Yup, just did it as a test earlier before committing to a mutilplayer server (and reverting the .lua) - took less than 30 seconds and didn't exactly know what I was doing to start.

Cheers,

Don

and, based on their research, when will atflir be ready?

to my knowledge, they havent said a time table for the atflir...

Just curious about the difference between the Tpod we have now and the ATFLIR that will go on the cheek station. Will the display look different? Will it be more capable or operate differently in some way from the one we have now?

Just curious about the difference between the Tpod we have now and the ATFLIR that will go on the cheek station. Will the display look different? Will it be more capable or operate differently in some way from the one we have now?

Apparently the ATFLIR has a more magnification, and a more powerful laser desingator allowing lasing of targets from longer distances and/or higher altitudes compared to the Lightening 2 AT.

Although in present day the ATFLIR is kinda dated now, as newer Litening models starting with G4 model introduced in 2008 has better image resolution

( 1024x1024 as opposed to 640 x 512.)

Why wouldn't it be easy. Do it yourself, go into the .lua and copy the litening from centerline to one of the cheeks.

Please show how.

Please show how.

Look at posts #11 and #12 on this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246532