OK, I'm going to put my ego down and ask

Don't know if that is accurate, but I also wonder how the Tpod gets its target coordinates when the laser is safed (how does it meassures the distance to a target 5nm away, 3000ft down and on my 5 o'clock position when the laser is safe?).

 

There are so countless bugs in the Harrier and so many missing features, I really have no more trust in Razbam that they will get the things where they should be...

Its so a pitty because it really is such an amazing aircraft...

It gets it´s position by looking at your own position and where the seeker head is pointing to, and a lot of number crunching. Just like in the A-10, F-14 and soon to be in the Hornet.

The Laser is there to refine your result, not to make it happen.

If you lost all your trust, then maybe you should consider to just let it go?

Sometimes it´s better to just move on.

Walk away and never look back.

Start fresh with another module.

With so many modules listed in your SIG you should find one that has your trust and does entertain you, right?

As I said, I don't know how things work in real life, and I also did not said that something is wrong.

It just feels strange, that without any laser fired for distance meassurement, the Tpod knows exactley how far the target is away.

When useing the Lantirn in the F14, you need to designate (and with that, laser) a target for getting the coordinates, distance and release cue.

Have not looked at this detail while driving the A10, will do that next time.

The Harrier is a very unique plane with great abbilities, I just don't want to let him go.

Beside that, I paid the full price for it and did my part with that. Razbam sold a full module in early access, so its now (since over a year) their turn to do what they got paid for in advance.

As I said, I don't know how things work in real life

Why do you post so many bug reports then? Make a littile bit of effort, read the manual and think twice before you post here about your problems with the module. 90% of Harrier's topics are saturated with the rubbish problem reports. If you dont know how things work in real life, do your research, ask for help, don't report it as a bug.

So I'm sure you can point at those bug reports I did, which are just a lack of personal knowledge and not bugs?

Or was your post just trolling because you have not been able to read anf follow the whole thread?

... read the manual ...

Please, give us a link for it...

It gets it´s position by looking at your own position and where the seeker head is pointing to, and a lot of number crunching. Just like in the A-10, F-14 and soon to be in the Hornet.

The Laser is there to refine your result, not to make it happen.

If you wouldnt mind can you post an actual source for this claim? I have never come across an actul piece of documentation that backs this up.

If you wouldnt mind can you post an actual source for this claim? I have never come across an actul piece of documentation that backs this up.

AV-8 Tactical Manual Volume 1 (A1-AV8BB-TAC-000), 1-385 (page 457 on), describes the operation of the TPOD on the AV-8B.

Rule 1.16 precludes posting detailed information.

... read the manual ...

Please, give us a link for it...

Glorious :lol:

AV-8 Tactical Manual Volume 1 (A1-AV8BB-TAC-000), 1-385 (page 457 on), describes the operation of the TPOD on the AV-8B.

 

Rule 1.16 precludes posting detailed information.

Hi Ramsay,

I've read the whole section on the TPOD before, and once again. And I cannot find any reference to:

"

It gets it´s position by looking at your own position and where the seeker head is pointing to, and a lot of number crunching. Just like in the A-10, F-14 and soon to be in the Hornet.

"

If I'm missing a specific page ref just PM me. But as far as I can read, the TPOD pulls INS data from the harrier to do its own alignment and it updates it based on that. The issue is that how does the tpod know if plane is at position XYZ and is pointing at angles theta and omega where the ground/tgt is? There is 0 information on that in the tac man unless I've missed it. At some point that ray from INS position XYZ does intersect the ground sure but how does the TPOD know where that is. Possibly its the same as the ARBS using angle rate tracking to get an optical range from point XYZ (also why the ARBS is cool), but there is nothing in that tac-man that says the TPOD does do that (it would also be rendundant), you could get the same/better result with a LRF that would give you a range to ground or also a worse solution using the ins position relative to DTED (which level?) data, which again isn't mentioned at all (and realistically this easily could be done with the DMT since it provides the same angular information so I kinda doubt that the TPOD does it).

I've read the whole section on the TPOD before, and once again. And I cannot find any reference to:

"It gets it´s position by looking at your own position and where the seeker head is pointing to, and a lot of number crunching. Just like in the A-10, F-14 and soon to be in the Hornet."

The statement is a simplification to avoid over complicating things and falling foul of rule 1.16

TL;DR:

Target position and height is calculated when the target is designated by the aircraft systems. This data and the difference between the A/C CMD LOS and TPOD LOS is used to display the designated target's co-ordinates and/or the offset between the designated target and the TPOD's aim point.

Detail:

Ramsay, sorry to be "a bit thick" as you brits like to say.

"Target height is not displayed without a aircraft system designation, which is (presumably) used to calculate MSL height."

What do you mean by aircraft system designation?

Without 1.16ing it, the problem is the same bombing triangle issue known since WW1.

How is the TPOD getting either:

1. Slant range to target?

2. Or height over target/ground?

I can't find any text that entire section that answers those 2 rather simple questions.

1. Might be

a) angle rate change range finding (like the ARBS) with some sort of error rate

b) LRF built into the pod, likely with a lower error rate

c) possibly using DTED data. with an error rate directly proportional to the INS error as well as the error of the DTED data depending on which DTED level (resolution) is used for it. I did read that the real harrier INS has something like up to a 1km/hr error rate with a constant GPS realignment.

2. Using either Radar or baro alt, and then assuming flat ground to get Height over target/ground. which would of course have large errors if the ground wasn't flat.

It is clear to me one way it might be actually coded in game, the games knows the harriers XYZ position (perfect since we don't model drift), then it uses a ray from where the sensor is pointing, and when that ray hits the ground the game reports the target X'Y'Z' position (again perfect since we don't model errors in sensors). Of course it doesn't work anything like that IRL.

Also, Lantrin per the video is using a LRF to get the slant range to the target/ground.

I cannot progress any further with the Harrier, until I get a new stick / HOTAS. As my Saitek X52 Pro is worn after all these years and slewing is hard with worn parts. So, I cannot blame any module for problems until I get the new stick and see whether it is me, the stick, or the aircraft code. I do have to say that it take slots of practice and then remember the commands and have the manual and cheat sheets next to me. And if one flies more aircraft, then remember each aircraft. I have improved my flying the Harrier with tons of practice, and really like it. The weapons are good and fun, and deadly. MY problems are the worn stick and if I press the wrong key, all of the locking target work I did is gone, all because of one wrong keypress. So, I took those commands/key presses and put them in a place on my stick where it is much harder to use. When I get the new stick I have my eyes on, I will then see if it is me of the aircraft that is hard to fly and kill with.

The videos make it look so easy, but often when a video is made.. the videos and training videos are very slow to get to the point, don't actually show some of the key presses, and when trying to re-create what I learned in the video, cannot replicate the same.

I don't use track-ir, as I found it to hard because of my physical issues with body movements that are to quirky for the track-ir. So, I cannot see behind things and around corners in the aircraft like those with 3d view and track-ir. So, the video just show people spending too much time hemming and hawing,,, and then clicking around too fast.

I do really like the harrier. I worked with the harrier that flew in the Falklands war. They would come over the base I was stationed at in Germany before the war. The pilots made them look very easy to fly, and never saw a conventional landing by one in real life, they only flew to land and take off vertical, only a few feet from me. Always smooth and each move was deliberate and without error.

I can't wait to someday, hopefully this year have the new stick setup and try the aircraft, but expect the new Hotas and Pedals to be around $800.00 USD , and good by old worn out but well taken care of Saitek. Good bye plastic Junk and screwy buttons.

Ramsay, sorry to be "a bit thick" as you brits like to say.

 

"Target height is not displayed without a aircraft system designation, which is (presumably) used to calculate MSL height."

 

What do you mean by aircraft system designation?

 

Without 1.16ing it, the problem is the same bombing triangle issue known since WW1.

 

How is the TPOD getting either:

1. Slant range to target?

2. Or height over target/ground?

 

I can't find any text that entire section that answers those 2 rather simple questions.

 

1. Might be

a) angle rate change range finding (like the ARBS) with some sort of error rate

b) LRF built into the pod, likely with a lower error rate

c) possibly using DTED data. with an error rate directly proportional to the INS error as well as the error of the DTED data depending on which DTED level (resolution) is used for it. I did read that the real harrier INS has something like up to a 1km/hr error rate with a constant GPS realignment.

 

2. Using either Radar or baro alt, and then assuming flat ground to get Height over target/ground. which would of course have large errors if the ground wasn't flat.

 

It is clear to me one way it might be actually coded in game, the games knows the harriers XYZ position (perfect since we don't model drift), then it uses a ray from where the sensor is pointing, and when that ray hits the ground the game reports the target X'Y'Z' position (again perfect since we don't model errors in sensors). Of course it doesn't work anything like that IRL.

 

Also, Lantrin per the video is using a LRF to get the slant range to the target/ground.

Hi guys,

I find this topic interesting, please take the following in the good faith it is intended (and also am trying not to break famous rule 1.16). I goggled something like "how does a targeting pod calculate lat long coords" and one of the top results is a Master's thesis from the University of Tennessee which seems to contain some useful and relevant information. Much more useful than the tactical manual. I won't link to it (even though that probably doesn't break any rule), but you will know it when you see it.

Cheers!

P

Hi guys,

 

I find this topic interesting, please take the following in the good faith it is intended (and also am trying not to break famous rule 1.16). I goggled something like "how does a targeting pod calculate lat long coords" and one of the top results is a Master's thesis from the University of Tennessee which seems to contain some useful and relevant information. Much more useful than the tactical manual. I won't link to it (even though that probably doesn't break any rule), but you will know it when you see it.

 

Cheers!

 

P

Dude you are my hero, and this is a good example why rule 1.16 is sometimes a bad joke, a lot of this information is not classified in the least. I'm off to read yet another masters thesis...

ETA

Turns out the Tpod just uses angle rate ranging and for more precision it uses the LRF... No "magic" math DTED solution which if you think about the various potential INS inaccuracies (layed out in the article) it wouldn't work very well. Of course this isn't actually modeled in our harrier.

Moreover it means the current CCIP implementation is basically an arcade mode.

I flew yesterday with the A10C:

Just slewing the Pod gives you coordinates and alt.

Once you are lasing (NWS button) these coordinates change immediately.

Seems to me legit and implemented correct. The Tpod knows where the aircraft is located and knows where he looks at and, with a map in the background, what altitude the point should have.

Useing the laser for designating the correct slant rage, coordinates will be updated to the correct ones.

As it seems that the A10c implementation is correct, it seems now more for me that, once again, the pod in the Harrier is very "gamish" and not good done. It would be nice if Razbam could fix that, or even say somethig about that situation...

Tpod infers slant range by assuming tgt altitude is the same as ground level underneath aircraft. It combines this with gimball depression and solves the resulting trig equation. Basically it does this almost how the ARBS calculates a firing solution.

This assumption is removed when target is lased as actual slant range is known at that time.

Not sure if the a10c uses it's elevation maps when tpod designate is used without laser. If it does it would be more accurate than the harrier in this regard.

Tpod infers slant range by assuming tgt altitude is the same as ground level underneath aircraft. It combines this with gimball depression and solves the resulting trig equation. Basically it does this almost how the ARBS calculates a firing solution.

 

This assumption is removed when target is lased as actual slant range is known at that time.

 

Not sure if the a10c uses it's elevation maps when tpod designate is used without laser. If it does it would be more accurate than the harrier in this regard.

Thats the understanding I've come to. Basically the TPOD uses angle rate ranging just like the ARBS, or Laser for slant range/HOT. I don't think there is any inaccuracy of angle rate ranging actually modeled in either the TPOD or the DMT/ARBS at the moment, so there is no advantage to actually using the more accurate LRF to get a slant range to the target. And the various issues with LRF's aren't actually modeled either.

IF the A10C does that I haven't found any documentation on it. But I don't think its necessarily more accurate due to INS inaccuracy.

The major advantage of angle rate ranging is that its a relative measurement, meaning that your INS doesn't have to be perfect/its not effected by INS inaccuracies. The plane "knows" its at position XYZ (even if its wrong), and relatively speaking the target is left 30 degrees, down 30 degrees and a slant range of 4000 feet (or relative coordinates X'Y'Z'). Therefore the absolute coordinates could be off by hundreds or thousands of meters but since its the relative position of the target and harrier thats important for the actual weapon delivery calculation thats what matters. And its what made the harrier a premier attack aircraft at the time.

IF you bring in absolute measurements i.e. actual geo-spatial coordinates, then your INS has to be "perfect" or whatever inaccuracy you have in your INS system is directly translated to inaccuracies in your target coordinates which is what the aforementioned graduate thesis is all about. Which is also why JDAM has a relative tgt mode as well as absolute coordinate mode. Currently all we get on the hornet is the absolute coordinate mode. Not sure on the A10 but I think its the same.

And at the end of the day its all academic since I don't think the harrier models any INS inaccuracy at the moment, nor does it model sensor/range inaccuracy. So the harrier always knows exactly where it is, and the knowledge is perfect, as is the range estimation. It wouldn't really be that hard to model on simplistic level, just add a random amount of error to those measurements, maybe relate it to time traveled for the INS (unless using IFA) or the rate of angle change for the TPOD/ARBS. But I'm sure the gamers would complain since that would make their life more complicated and they couldn't put mk82's into a barrel.

Thats the understanding I've come to. Basically the TPOD uses angle rate ranging just like the ARBS, or Laser for slant range/HOT. I don't think there is any inaccuracy of angle rate ranging actually modeled in either the TPOD or the DMT/ARBS at the moment, so there is no advantage to actually using the more accurate LRF to get a slant range to the target. And the various issues with LRF's aren't actually modeled either.

 

IF the A10C does that I haven't found any documentation on it. But I don't think its necessarily more accurate due to INS inaccuracy.

 

The major advantage of angle rate ranging is that its a relative measurement, meaning that your INS doesn't have to be perfect/its not effected by INS inaccuracies. The plane "knows" its at position XYZ (even if its wrong), and relatively speaking the target is left 30 degrees, down 30 degrees and a slant range of 4000 feet (or relative coordinates X'Y'Z'). Therefore the absolute coordinates could be off by hundreds or thousands of meters but since its the relative position of the target and harrier thats important for the actual weapon delivery calculation thats what matters. And its what made the harrier a premier attack aircraft at the time.

 

IF you bring in absolute measurements i.e. actual geo-spatial coordinates, then your INS has to be "perfect" or whatever inaccuracy you have in your INS system is directly translated to inaccuracies in your target coordinates which is what the aforementioned graduate thesis is all about. Which is also why JDAM has a relative tgt mode as well as absolute coordinate mode. Currently all we get on the hornet is the absolute coordinate mode. Not sure on the A10 but I think its the same.

 

And at the end of the day its all academic since I don't think the harrier models any INS inaccuracy at the moment, nor does it model sensor/range inaccuracy. So the harrier always knows exactly where it is, and the knowledge is perfect, as is the range estimation. It wouldn't really be that hard to model on simplistic level, just add a random amount of error to those measurements, maybe relate it to time traveled for the INS (unless using IFA) or the rate of angle change for the TPOD/ARBS. But I'm sure the gamers would complain since that would make their life more complicated and they couldn't put mk82's into a barrel.

I know there's a youtube video out there showing the improvement in accuracy for the A10 with the laser vs without with the same bombs and the same type of target (dumb bombs of course). The Viggen models this sort of thing, too, with the PLAN mode, since this uses HUD designation which is the same principal. If you wait until radar ranging is available, your bombing solution is far more accurate. Not sure what magic is under the hood there, but there you go.

You're bang on about the INS. If it's degraded all your solutions, even with accurate slant range will suffer. The Harrier doesn't model INS drift at all (even if it did, you'd have to take it out of IFA to observe drift) so I don't think we'd ever encounter it.

Good to know on the A10 module, I fly it once in a great while but I'm far from an expert. I do fly the viggen alot and the INS/errors are definitely modeled so it absolutely can be done.

As for IFA, the error based on the paper is ~10-20m or so (enough for a bomb to miss or be out its effective blast radius, and the error with the tpod is greater than the INS error for many reasons listed in the paper. And 100m or more without for short flights, and per the "spec" its "up-to 1km/hr" in just INS mode. And yes of course you can use IFA, but you can't if your GPS is being jammed, which isn't exactly unknown. If your scenario is dropping bombs on mud huts in a permissive environment IFA is great. Doing "modern air combat" against a near-peer force its likely you are working in a GPS jammed/denied/spoofed environment.

Not sure if the a10c uses it's elevation maps when tpod designate is used without laser. If it does it would be more accurate than the harrier in this regard.

I also don't know if the A10c assumes her own height, or the height from a map. I just wanted to point out that the A10c has coordinates when slewing, but you need to laser for getting correct coordinates. Which seems legit to me.

Unfortuantely, this leads to the Harrier is once coded disappointing and rushed...

A10c as the Harrier uses GPS for their own coordinates, so there should be no discussion about INS drift etc..

Unfortuantely, this leads to the Harrier is once coded disappointing and rushed...

thats why they should never do Early access. there are always idiots on the Internet

I also don't know if the A10c assumes her own height, or the height from a map. I just wanted to point out that the A10c has coordinates when slewing, but you need to laser for getting correct coordinates. Which seems legit to me.

Unfortuantely, this leads to the Harrier is once coded disappointing and rushed...

 

A10c as the Harrier uses GPS for their own coordinates, so there should be no discussion about INS drift etc..

The way the INS and sensor systems work is that the INS is the source of information to the FCR, and then INS uses the GPS to update itself in some modes. INS is more than XYZ, its also heading, roll/pitch, airspeed etc, all of which are needed for a firing solution. Also, GPS isn't magic, it has positional errors as has been noted, and it can be jammed or spoofed if you are actually operating against someone with that capability like another nation state that can operate fighters.

Thanks to all the suggestions on this thread I'm now good at targeting single targets with Maverick, however I'm struggling in understanding the most effective routine if I want to ripple a salvo of Mavericks.

Remaining on the Maverick guidance after firing first salvo means uncaging again and then the designator acts really erratically, while going back to TV requires time.

Is there any suggestion about the most effective routine to fire more than one Maverick at multiple targets ?

The ARBS takes an INS and a DMT reading every x seconds (probs more like 0.05s or something).

Azimuth and angle are easy, just use the DMT readouts.

Slant range to the target is calculated by using the DMT angles at point A and point B.

Altitude source (GPS, BARO or RADALT) can then be used to get an absolute target elevation, obviously with the inaccuracies that BARO and RADALT incur.

Still waiting for this to be implemented properly - IMO this set of systems is what makes the night attack harrier very interesting from a technical standpoint. Would love to have a glitchy contrast lock on the DMT.

The ARBS takes an INS and a DMT reading every x seconds (probs more like 0.05s or something).

Azimuth and angle are easy, just use the DMT readouts.

Slant range to the target is calculated by using the DMT angles at point A and point B.

Altitude source (GPS, BARO or RADALT) can then be used to get an absolute target elevation, obviously with the inaccuracies that BARO and RADALT incur.

 

Still waiting for this to be implemented properly - IMO this set of systems is what makes the night attack harrier very interesting from a technical standpoint. Would love to have a glitchy contrast lock on the DMT.

Oh I know how it works in principle IRL. My question is why does the in game CCIP still work, when the ARBS is off/not locked? Or when its locked onto something other than the target (like the top of a hilltop, when your target is 3 miles away on the valley floor. It should give you a very wrong solution in those cases.

And yeah the DMT contrast lock being "glitchy" is something I've heard/read a fair amount about I'm just not sure how it could be done in game. Same thing for the DMT sensor resolution vs the TPOD sensor. But those are more minor points I'm willing to live with.