TIALD is supposed to be Gen2 based on the technology the sensor uses. This tech is already Gen2 on CR2. Just waiting on the report being dealt with.
No technology generation is the decider now.
Cool, was this done also part due to the fact finding open-source resolutions would otherwise be nearly impossibe otherwise?
I don’t know the specific reason but I’d imagine it’s to normalise them and also helps as you said where the resolution isn’t known.
On the Tornado GR.4 these are the limits for the TGP:
This is pretty standard, left/right +/- 89° and up/down +29°/-149°.
According to the brochure, it should be +45°/-150°, but the elevation is probalby limited due to airframe anyway and the 1° less thing is probably due to some game limitation making the camera glitchy otherwise. The left/right limits are wrong of course because real life TGPs have a roll axis instead (effectively allowing you to look +/-150° to the right and left as well. Again, game limitation however. Not to mention without the ability to stabilize the image to the horizon, it would be very weird to use.
Also do you know why some pods have different quality thermals then on different planes? Is still MFD resolution simulation? Or should it be bug reported. For instance Lantirn has different resolutions on the F-14B and F-15E/F-16AM, though I am unsure if they ever received sensor upgrades.
The GR.9 had operational emergency clearance to use Brimstone (it wasn’t just for trials), but as you said harrier was retired before Dial Mode Brimstone could be cleared.
4 Likes
Thats sad but understandable, thank you
Sounds like a OP control system that should be altered to be line of sight lock FnF like man in the loop to me xD
Given that the GR.7 has prototype/trial guns on it IIRC I dont really see the issue of having like, 6 FnF Brimstones which would be similar to other planes with 6 FnF mavericks though. Would also allow for them to be tested and balanced against supersonics having them/make the Harriers have their own unique weapon system.
Afterall, the laser brimstone came in because it was an option for the tornado, but obviously, it isnt an option for the Harriers.
In general GR.7s couldn’t use Brimstone or Paveway IV. ZD318 was a particular avionics development airframe that prototyped systems for GR.9
The ADEN25’s had emergency clearance and were production usable guns. Got a whole report on it thanks to @Flame2512
1 Like
If the Gr9 was emergency cleared with it as Flame says above, is the rest of the argument sound enough? xD
Rest of the argument is giving me PTSD hahah.
To be honest, i don’t see the harm in giving the Gr9 placeholder SAL Brimstones if it comes before full brimstones are added to the game. With Gr7 getting 9Ms, it’s hard enough to justify Gr9s addition without them.
1 Like
Not just Tornado GR.4, JAS39 Gripen C equipped Litening III too
But I’m not sure currently F-15I Ra’am equipped Rafael Litening III or retain LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod
Yeah, now knowing this, a lot of Litening carriers in-game are using the wrong/outdated Litening II. F-16C/AV-8B should be using Litening AT, lotsa other planes in other nations should be using Litening III, and this would now actually have effect as this would mean gen 3 thermals for those. Only the ASSTA 1 is currently correctly using the base Litening II I believe, you could argue F-16C/AV-8B too but they upgraded, and I believe only with the ASSTA 3.1 did they get a better Litening.
Also can anyone test the EGBU-24 on the dev server? Particularly its GPS + SALH modes, where after acquiring the laser and then losing the laser if it still continous to guide to the last known spot?
I was looking through some of my files for GBU-24 related things and I just came across the Raytheon brochures again, which clearly say that the Enhanced Paveway III series have a blended dual mode guidance. So basically the laser updates the GPS point, meaning that it should guide perfectly to the last known location if laser energy is lost. This is unlike how any other GPS/IOG + SALH weapon in the game works atm, so I am curious if it’s modelled (probably not) and so I can bug report it or not.
Yes, so does the PW4
Ok interesting, from my testing with IOG + SALH at least, the IOG guidance is lost after picking up laser (and losing it), as how it works on the live server too. Code wise the GPS + SALH are the same as IOG + SALH (but instead they have 0 inertial drift), but maybe somehow for those it does switch back to IOG/GPS?
Are you sure it wasn’t just luck because the bomb was fast and managed to change course in time before turning off laser? Like how I test it is, get within 4.5km (so the bomb is in “POINT” mode) of a target above them, drop the bomb slightly off to the side with laser on, then turn off laser directly after dropping. At least with regular GBU-24, it does not go to the last known spot and just flies off in a ballistic trajectory. Could you test it again this way? It’s not as important now, but if GBU/EGBU-24 seekers could become better, it may be more significant.
Shouldn’t the GPS equipt Paveway & Paveway III variants loft at low altitudes?
Other Raytheon Paveway Brochures
Also some nice LARs / comparisons are included, which we might be able to reverse engineer.