LiteningII is not ATFLIR in DCS: Hornet.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Since ATFLIR is mentioned on Hornet roadmap, the LiteningII TPOD is not part of ATFLIR system. It is there as place holder until ATFLIR is implemented.

I am curious what the differences are. Why in real world is SniperXR not used on Hornets? I don't expect Sniper, SniperXR in DCS. It is a very classified, very powerful pod. It is almost F-35 DAS in a pod, and has many TARPS features for reconnaissance work.

May be the export variant, Pantera and PanteraXR at some point.

[jojo]

ATFLIR is WIP.

 

Litening 2 was already present in game (A-10C and Harrier 2) and is also in use for several Hornet users (Marines amongst them).

 

It's there waiting for ATFLIR, but I think we will have the choice. No reason to remove Lietning once ATFLIR is ready.

[Schmidtfire]

ATFLIR is not WIP. It is planned after Early Access (2021 and onwards)

[Harlikwin]

ATFLIR is not WIP. It is planned after Early Access (2021 and onwards)

 

Realistically. The current litening implementaion has almost nothing to with what an actual thermal imager looks like IRL. Its wrong, full stop. The ATFLIR was supposed to come with an improved thermal model that maybe just maybe might actually render images like you might see through actual thermal systems. Then they might actually model issues like locking pods on stuff and things like jitter or sensor resoltuion or gimbal limits and so forth. But the current system is more or less on the ace combat level.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Airhunter]

Realistically. The current litening implementaion has almost nothing to with what an actual thermal imager looks like IRL. Its wrong, full stop. The ATFLIR was supposed to come with an improved thermal model that maybe just maybe might actually render images like you might see through actual thermal systems. Then they might actually model issues like locking pods on stuff and things like jitter or sensor resoltuion or gimbal limits and so forth. But the current system is more or less on the ace combat level.

 

That.

 

Thermal image aside the Tomcat's LANTIRN is currently probably the most realistic and complete TGP rendition in DCS:

[launchedsquid]

Yes, Litening is just a place holder because we wanted some form of TPOD a bit quicker.

 

The reason that Hornets don't use sniper pods is because the Navy don't own them.

 

My understanding is the difference between ATFLIR and Litening II is the ATFLIR is lighter and the US Navy own them.

[BarTzi]

. The ATFLIR was supposed to come with an improved thermal model that maybe just maybe might actually render images like you might see through actual thermal systems.

 

To be fair, that's not entirely true.

 

FLIR rendering is a platform update. It will also affect the LITENING and AGM-65 series for example.

ATFLIR might be the technology demonstrator within DCS for a short period of time (or it might not. There's no reason to tie a platform update to the release of a sensor). All of the targeting pods will get to the same level either shortly after or at the same time the FLIR update drops.

 

To me, having the right TGP is more important than what goes behind the scenes when the image is processed.

[Harker]

Harlikwin is right. The reason they stated for the delay of the ATFLIR (the LITENING II was given in the meantime) is that the ATFLIR was supposed to come with new FLIR implementation. I agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, the one is a core difference that's supposed to be sim-wide and the other is essentially just an interface in the cockpit and a 3D model.

But anyway, right now, I'd take a handheld FLIR glued to the canopy frame, if it came with a proper FLIR implementation.

[Kang]

I'm not so sure about that. Having the two properly separate, at least for now, seems like a good idea if you want to avoid borking up quite a lot of module's functionality while working out the kinks in a new FLIR implementation.

Throw the ol' Litening II at the masses, keep work up on the all-new system that everyone can easily recognise by the usage of ATFLIR, then, one day, spread the properly working interface to more applicable places.

[Harlikwin]

That.

 

Thermal image aside the Tomcat's LANTIRN is currently probably the most realistic and complete TGP rendition in DCS:

 

Not surprising, I honestly have never used the LANTRIN on the cat. Guess I'll have to go take a backseat ride one of these days. But given the overall attention to detail that HB typically delivers I'm not surprised. The TPOD on the Jeff is also more realistic than the litenting as well IMO.

[Harlikwin]

Harlikwin is right. The reason they stated for the delay of the ATFLIR (the LITENING II was given in the meantime) is that the ATFLIR was supposed to come with new FLIR implementation. I agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, the one is a core difference that's supposed to be sim-wide and the other is essentially just an interface in the cockpit and a 3D model.

But anyway, right now, I'd take a handheld FLIR glued to the canopy frame, if it came with a proper FLIR implementation.

 

I'm fairly sure there are more differences between the ATFLIR and the Litening than just Navy vs Marines. There are also like 4 versions of the litening each with increasing capability and better sensors.

 

Overall DCS does not do a good job modeling any sensors at this point. The NVG implementation is somewhere between bad and terrible IMO but that's a post that I've made several times before.

 

The issues with the TPOD aside from actually rendering a convincing thermal picture include lots of technical details that most people don't even think about. Everything from image quality, magnification, actual sensor resolution (which for Litening 2 IIRC is a 512x512 thermal sensor and like a 1k visual CCD) All the way to detection distances using Johnson criteria. Then there are the issues of being able to stabilize the image, particularly at longer distances. And then there are of course downstream issues of how accurately your pod can actually generate targeting coordinates especially at extended distances. Or for LGB's a major issue was laser spot "jitter" that was a major issue for earlier gen pods. I know DCS just has a magic 8 mile range for all lasers, but its hardly realistic as its a function of laser power, jitter, and atmospheric conditions as well as seeker head sensitivity. And none of that is modeled not even remotely. Even relatively simple things like gimbal limit issues are not modeled aside in the A10C IIRC. Right now as modeled on the hornet and harrier, the pod is all seeing all knowing all stable and can magically generate target coordinates from infinite distances. Which of course leads to unrealistic tactics and implementation from DCS pilots.

 

Here is a link to some real world problems with the litening II and its early integration on the harrier. I was told by 9L earlier I could post stuff like this since its public and open source so not 1.16, if not lemme know. But I did check with him a while back.

 

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6123&=&context=utk_gradthes&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.bing.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dlitening%252Bharrier%252Bintegration%252Btenesse%2526form%253DEDGTCT%2526qs%253DPF%2526cvid%253D028eee111efc4810b409f0b34e8d775b%2526cc%253DUS%2526setlang%253Den-US%2526plvar%253D0%2526PC%253DNMTS#search=%22litening%20harrier%20integration%20tenesse%22

 

All that being said, I think its not a simple set of problems for ED to solve and it will take time, beyond the "rendering" issue. But I hope they actually try to model some of the limitations of Tpods in some sort of more generic API that everyone can use. And fix the NVGs too :)

Edited May 7, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

Harlikwin said:

I'm fairly sure there are more differences between the ATFLIR and the Litening than just Navy vs Marines. There are also like 4 versions of the litening each with increasing capability and better sensors.

 

Overall DCS does not do a good job modeling any sensors at this point. The NVG implementation is somewhere between bad and terrible IMO but that's a post that I've made several times before.

 

The issues with the TPOD aside from actually rendering a convincing thermal picture include lots of technical details that most people don't even think about. Everything from image quality, magnification, actual sensor resolution (which for Litening 2 IIRC is a 512x512 thermal sensor and like a 1k visual CCD) All the way to detection distances using Johnson criteria. Then there are the issues of being able to stabilize the image, particularly at longer distances. And then there are of course downstream issues of how accurately your pod can actually generate targeting coordinates especially at extended distances. Or for LGB's a major issue was laser spot "jitter" that was a major issue for earlier gen pods. I know DCS just has a magic 8 mile range for all lasers, but its hardly realistic as its a function of laser power, jitter, and atmospheric conditions as well as seeker head sensitivity. And none of that is modeled not even remotely. Even relatively simple things like gimbal limit issues are not modeled aside in the A10C IIRC. Right now as modeled on the hornet and harrier, the pod is all seeing all knowing all stable and can magically generate target coordinates from infinite distances. Which of course leads to unrealistic tactics and implementation from DCS pilots.

 

Here is a link to some real world problems with the litening II and its early integration on the harrier. I was told by 9L earlier I could post stuff like this since its public and open source so not 1.16, if not lemme know. But I did check with him a while back.

 

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6123&=&context=utk_gradthes&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.bing.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dlitening%252Bharrier%252Bintegration%252Btenesse%2526form%253DEDGTCT%2526qs%253DPF%2526cvid%253D028eee111efc4810b409f0b34e8d775b%2526cc%253DUS%2526setlang%253Den-US%2526plvar%253D0%2526PC%253DNMTS#search=%22litening%20harrier%20integration%20tenesse%22

 

All that being said, I think its not a simple set of problems for ED to solve and it will take time, beyond the "rendering" issue. But I hope they actually try to model some of the limitations of Tpods in some sort of more generic API that everyone can use. And fix the NVGs too

 

even worse. the newer Litening 2 G4 has 1K ( 1024x1024 p) FLIR  res. the L2 AT( the version in DCS) FLIR imaging only is supposed to have 640 x 512p

Edited March 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

even worse. the newer Litening 2 G4 has 1K ( 1024x1024 p) CCD res. the L2 AT( the version in DCS) CCD imaging only is supposed to have 640 x 512p

 

Kev,

 

Any idea on what the AT pod magnification or magnified fov is? If we know know that its pretty straightforward to use Johnson criteria to figure out detection, identification, and recognition ramges for various objects. Using either the flir or ccd sensor. Though i imagine they have different magnification ranges as they cant use the same lens systems.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

Kev,

 

Any idea on what the AT pod magnification or magnified fov is? If we know know that its pretty straightforward to use Johnson criteria to figure out detection, identification, and recognition ramges for various objects. Using either the flir or ccd sensor. Though i imagine they have different magnification ranges as they cant use the same lens systems.

 

 

Both modes are described as having TWO FOV modes and digital zoom. ( levels 0-9)

 

for CCD Wide FOV is 3.5 x 3.5 degrees, and for WIDE FOV FLIR 4 X 4 degrees. For Narrow FOV both types are only 1 x 1 degrees.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

Both modes are described as having TWO FOV modes and digital zoom. ( levels 0-9)

 

for CCD Wide FOV is 3.5 x 3.5 degrees, and for FLIR 4 X 4 degrees. For Narrow FOV both types are only 1 x 1 degrees.

 

Interesting.

 

So assuming we have 640x512 sensor and then either the 3.5x3.5 fov or 1x1 fov.

 

For something the size of BTR80 viewed from the side (yes aspect changes this somewhat but not a ton) of 25.3ftx8ft. So you will have to accept my back of the envelope calculations.

 

For the low mag case you are basically at "detection range" at 10miles slant range with a target size of 5x1.3 pixels (i.e. something is there, provided you have the contrast to see it). In the high mag case you get a 17.5x4.4 pixel image which fits "recognition criteria" i.e. an APC is there. At 20nm at high magnification you will see a 8.7x2.2px which is well within in the "detection" range of "something is there". And at 30nm you should see a 5.8x1.4 pixel image which is kind of on the edge of detectable. This is assuming basically a very high contrast environment. I.e. BTR in the middle of the desert with nothing around it. So its the optimal case. Parked at the edge of treeline or in a cluttered environment, or "oh the horror" using camouflage, the ranges would be nowhere near this.

 

I think with DCS and the litening is better than that, however the other issue is the overall draw distance gets to be a thing at very long ranges. I.e. targets get rendered before things like tree's and clutter is what I observe at long range which makes target detection vastly easier.

 

Not to mention generating accurate targeting coordinates for JDAM's at extended ranges.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Eldur]

Yes, Litening is just a place holder because we wanted some form of TPOD a bit quicker.

 

However that's absolutely no excuse for slating the ATFLIR to come AFTER the thing leaves early access, which they just did.

[jojo]

Why do we need ATFLIR ?

 

 

 

 

 

Because it can track birds in flight :megalol:

 

[Harker]

I think with DCS and the litening is better than that, however the other issue is the overall draw distance gets to be a thing at very long ranges. I.e. targets get rendered before things like tree's and clutter is what I observe at long range which makes target detection vastly easier.

That's very much an issue. The draw distance should be generally defined and LODs should be used for longer distances instead of outright hiding the object. You can't hope to have any sort of camouflage if it only shows up within 10 NM. I was doing BDA for a campaign mission the other day and I was supposed to see if there were any targets left. It was supposed to be difficult, because I'd have to look through various destroyed vehicles, smoke etc. But the target was the only thing that showed up on my TPOD outside of 10 NM...