Litening II Pod

[equinox137]

If the US Government actually paid real money for that thing, they need to get their money back. That is all.... :mad:

[BarTzi]

If the US Government actually paid real money for that thing, they need to get their money back. That is all.... :mad:

 

Since this is the version the Spanish air force is using, I think they paid the US government

[equinox137]

yeah, you're probably right

[Shimmergloom667]

The pod is the same, the integration into the planes avionics is different. And honestly I don't get what you are trying to say, the integration works perfectly well.

[VFA41_Lion]

did you have a specific issue or did you just wanna vent?

[Shimmergloom667]

And if it's venting: better stop that and invest a few minutes of your time here

 

[dorianR666]

And honestly I don't get what you are trying to say, the integration works perfectly well.

apart from the fact that point track doesnt update target designation and you cant easily move the tracking box if you miss or lose the target (you have to cycle through all the modes for some unknown reason, with each change having some time delay for some unknown reason).

:joystick::joystick::joystick:

[Swift.]

apart from the fact that point track doesnt update target designation and you cant easily move the tracking box if you miss or lose the target (you have to cycle through all the modes for some unknown reason, with each change having some time delay for some unknown reason).

:joystick::joystick::joystick:

 

Hold up, are you saying that TPOD in hornet might actually still be WIP? I am shooketh.

 

Next thing you'll be telling us that the FLIR render isn't realistic and that the point track logic in DCS is completely different to real life.

[equinox137]

did you have a specific issue or did you just wanna vent?

 

quite a few, but yeah, it's just venting.

 

I've spent numerous hours here.

[dorianR666]

Hold up, are you saying that TPOD in hornet might actually still be WIP? I am shooketh.

 

Next thing you'll be telling us that the FLIR render isn't realistic and that the point track logic in DCS is completely different to real life.

no, this was described by ED as correct behaviour, not WIP. on multiple occasions in fact.

 

go be an ass to someone else, k? i dont come here to be mocked

Edited October 15, 2020 by dorianR666

[Swift.]

no, this was described by ED as correct behaviour, not WIP. on multiple occasions in fact.

 

go be an ass to someone else, k? i dont come here to be mocked

 

You're right, I was needlessly snappy.

 

What I should have said is that a lot of these difficulties you are seeing with PTRK are as a result of the IR renderer in DCS being super simplistic and consequently the PTRK logic not really representative of RL.

 

As for the TGT not updating as the pod moves, idk if it should be like that or not, but I can't see it being a huge problem either way.

[silverdevil]

IR sensors going back to the 80s can identify something hot. For example if there were warm bodies such as deer next to a tree, one could easily see the deer. In DCS a tank hiding in the trees is quite hard to identify. But that said the DCS engine has a hard time duplicating IRL.

[SmilingBandit]

IR sensors going back to the 80s can identify something hot. For example if there were warm bodies such as deer next to a tree, one could easily see the deer. In DCS a tank hiding in the trees is quite hard to identify. But that said the DCS engine has a hard time duplicating IRL.

 

Fixing IR so that it's not just a filter on top of the visual layer is on the roadmap and was supposed to be before the F-18's TPOD but the people spoke and we get this for a while longer.

[Fri13]

IR sensors going back to the 80s can identify something hot. For example if there were warm bodies such as deer next to a tree, one could easily see the deer. In DCS a tank hiding in the trees is quite hard to identify. But that said the DCS engine has a hard time duplicating IRL.

 

Every FLIR has a limited scale it can detect. You can often change that scale in the spectrum but you don't get a full spectrum visibility like in the DCS.

You really will have a hard time to spot things that are hot and what are not hot when scales are set wrong.

 

The DCS is pretty unrealistic as it really does just take the 3D model of the units and makes them super hot compared to anything else. So you will have very easy time to spot vehicles with FLIR.

There is neither modeling for the vehicle crews primary tasks that is to conceal their vehicles from visible, infrared and radar detection.

 

The challenge in various environments like in a Syria is that everything really becomes similarly heated up, so you will not see things so easily glowing that you can just point a FLIR at direction and see all the animals, humans and vehicles pop-up so easily.

 

It is more like a this:

 

The animals fur is as well very good insulator, in a cold weather if it is snowy the surface gets cool, outdoor temperature but between the fur and skin you have the temperature difference and the snow on surface will hide the animal effectively from thermals, as well from visual detection.

 

The FLIR/TIS is nice "night vision" but it still is not like in a DCS that you can just scan the area and easily spot every vehicle and living thing in the area.

 

[silverdevil]

 

It is more like a this:

 

The animals fur is as well very good insulator, in a cold weather if it is snowy the surface gets cool, outdoor temperature but between the fur and skin you have the temperature difference and the snow on surface will hide the animal effectively from thermals, as well from visual detection.

 

 

my experience is from M60A3 before switching to M1A1. the thermal sight in M60 was superior to M1. not sure why. in germany (mostly cold) deer would be on the range and they were quite obvious in the optics. there was no camo provided by snow on them. as a matter of fact i always thought they looked like male lions as most of their heat is lost from the neck area. the plywood targets also stood out because they were on their back before pop-up getting a smidgen of heat from the sun and that little bit would make a difference.

 

[Dragon1-1]

If you know what to look for, living things and vehicles should indeed be pretty obvious in IR, as long as you've set your thresholds right. Especially in cold weather, humans, animals and vehicles would be very visible (buildings less so, if they're well insulated). However, in the summer, you may get a whole lot of other things, as well. Every metal surface, anything black (roads!) and all vehicles regardless of their engine status will get hot in the sun, making for a cluttered picture, especially if you're looking for infantry. On days when air itself is over 40 degrees (not at all uncommon in, say, Persian Gulf), the infrared picture should be severely degraded.

[Rainmaker]

 

my experience is from M60A3 before switching to M1A1. the thermal sight in M60 was superior to M1. not sure why. in germany (mostly cold) deer would be on the range and they were quite obvious in the optics. there was no camo provided by snow on them. as a matter of fact i always thought they looked like male lions as most of their heat is lost from the neck area. the plywood targets also stood out because they were on their back before pop-up getting a smidgen of heat from the sun and that little bit would make a difference.

 

A little bit of an apples vs oranges here IMO. Comparing the two equally is rather difficult. Completely different aspect having a much greater temp scale to variate from looking down a tank sight vs 20K looking directly down at the ground. A lot of times at much bigger ranges that would effectively be OTH from a ground-ground perspective. Couple that with dedicated power requirements, a pod that has to work when it’s -40* F, and a host of other fielding requirements. There is Gen 1 LANTIRN footage out there from ODS to Allied Force, you’ll see that it was nowhere near as good as you are wanting it to have been. The F-117 was probably one of the better iterations, and it was a dedicated system, installed in the jet, with a huge amount of priority devoted to it as it was the only true way for it to get bombs on target. It still wasn’t ‘great’, although ‘great’ for it’s time. The second gen pods that we went to were a huge leap in performance over the original.

 

[Bunny Clark]

IOn days when air itself is over 40 degrees (not at all uncommon in, say, Persian Gulf), the infrared picture should be severely degraded.

Yup, IIR becomes a whole lot less useful in hot conditions. When a sun-baked vehicle is no hotter than the sun-baked sand it's sitting on, IIR looses a lot of its contrast advantage. Many of the places we fly in real life and in DCS (Persian Gulf, Nevada, Syria to a lesser extent) should have pretty severe issues with IIR sensors. There's a reason the USAF developed CCD versions of the Maverick after fighting in Iraq - the D and G IIR sensors just didn't perform well in the desert.

 

 

[Bearfoot]

Yup, IIR becomes a whole lot less useful in hot conditions. When a sun-baked vehicle is no hotter than the sun-baked sand it's sitting on, IIR looses a lot of its contrast advantage. Many of the places we fly in real life and in DCS (Persian Gulf, Nevada, Syria to a lesser extent) should have pretty severe issues with IIR sensors. There's a reason the USAF developed CCD versions of the Maverick after fighting in Iraq - the D and G IIR sensors just didn't perform well in the desert.

 

 

I've read that it is really bad at dawn / dusk due to the thermal transition.

[Harlikwin]

Yup, IIR becomes a whole lot less useful in hot conditions. When a sun-baked vehicle is no hotter than the sun-baked sand it's sitting on, IIR looses a lot of its contrast advantage. Many of the places we fly in real life and in DCS (Persian Gulf, Nevada, Syria to a lesser extent) should have pretty severe issues with IIR sensors. There's a reason the USAF developed CCD versions of the Maverick after fighting in Iraq - the D and G IIR sensors just didn't perform well in the desert.

 

 

TBH the litening we have IMO is actually "too good". But the issue is that, most people expect magic predator vision from thermals, based on 0 experience and hollywood, when in reality its seldom that. And environmental conditions are always a huge consideration. That tank vid posted above is actually a pretty typical example. I mean yeah you can see stuff, but its not like some magic bright beacon of look here. Plus people don't realize several important factors, thermal only sees "skin" temp. So even though your car engine operates at several hundred degrees, its your hood that the thermal sees, which at best is a bit warm. The other factor is that thermal doesn't see "through" anything, so you put a tree/foliage between you and Mr. Tank, you aren't gonna see it. And I'm not even gonna get into emissivity vs reflectivity issues which tend to be very non-intuitive for most folks looking at thermal pictures. I'll let the "Experts" here explain this one... And yes the hand and the ring are the same temp.

 

 

 

 

[Harlikwin]

 

I've read that it is really bad at dawn / dusk due to the thermal transition.

 

Yeah, the Diurnal cycle is a thing, and it can be an issue, but its also environmentally dependent.

[Bunny Clark]

 

TBH the litening we have IMO is actually "too good". But the issue is that, most people expect magic predator vision from thermals, based on 0 experience and hollywood

Oh yah, totally. There are tons of people out there that think thermal imaging can see people walking around inside a building, from space. Hopefully most people around here know better than that, but it's a complex topic that's difficult to understand without experience.

 

I'm hopeful that the new thermal rendering engine, when it actually becomes a reality, will bring much more realistic performance to the FLIR systems we have in game.

 

 

[Harlikwin]

Oh yah, totally. There are tons of people out there that think thermal imaging can see people walking around inside a building, from space. Hopefully most people around here know better than that, but it's a complex topic that's difficult to understand without experience.

 

I'm hopeful that the new thermal rendering engine, when it actually becomes a reality, will bring much more realistic performance to the FLIR systems we have in game.

 

 

Yup, thats the hope.

 

I also hope they update/fix the various NVG inaccuracies.