F-14 Tomcat: History, Performance & Discussion

[CalvinAz]

Magnification at the sensor matters for image quality. By magnifying the image (for the sensor), you can get away with a less detector element dense array (the limiting factor for such detectors, especially older), as you’re spacing apart the details over a larger area.

But apart from that, yes it indeed bears no information for the magnification of the image from the pilot’s pov. So I think this can be bug reported, to use the FoV values. The magnification values are probably only listed to specify the lenses used or to gauge image quality.

@sudo_su1

(1 / 0.44) / ((5/8) / 1.42) = 5.16

I don’t think this makes any sense. I believe what you’re doing here is essentially comparing the 1" with another 1" detector where you only consider 5/8th of its size, all assuming same focal length. If focal length is the same, to fill the 5/8th detector, the FoV would not be 1.42° anymore. In any case, detector size has no impact on magnification, only FoV and focal length. And since the TCS uses most likely two distinct lenses for WFOV and NFOV, thus different focal length, the 2.5 ratio between magnification at the sensor is achievable.

Honestly I don’t even know if I am making sense rn, it’s a bit late again for me. But if you want to bug report for the TCS, I think these are the only relevant images:

Spoiler

You can also find these in a DCS forum post somwhere, there are some more pages (9 more), but they’re not as relevant I think. AFAIK the rest of the document isn’t available online unless you buy it.

[tripod2008]

We should have the numbers somewhere

https://mil-spec.tpub.com/MIL-C/MIL-C-85437B/MIL-C-85437B00001.htm

“That offers a 10:1 Nominal improvement in resolution”

“NFOV = 7.7 Mrad | WFOV = 24.7”

“525 Scan lines per frame, Unity (1:1) camera scan aspect Ratio”

[sudo_su1]

@CalvinAz

Magnification at the sensor matters for image quality.

While I do think the “4x-10x” figure is a performance figure (I.e. the ratio of the distance that objects can be identified through the system vs naked eye), specifying such a figure as “magnification at the sensor” which I literally have not seen specified for any TGP, seems very odd …

Because that alone tells you virtually nothing about “image quality” as what matters more would be aperture size etc …

I.e. what matters the most is the amount of light you are letting in
You can then take that light and focus it on a small low pitch sensor or a large high pitch sensor of the same resolution and get the same image …

@CalvinAz

The magnification values are probably only listed to specify the lenses used or to gauge image quality.

I think the second part is correct
I think it’s a performance figure … I.e. if you can identify an object at 1nm with naked eye you can identify the same object at 10nm through the system …

[sudo_su1]

@tripod2008

“That offers a 10:1 Nominal improvement in resolution”

Nice, I missed that part

So my assumption was correct:

@sudo_su1

Or perhaps they factored in the limitations of the Vidicon and CRT display (and the image quality loss in the whole system) as well, and the “10X” figure is a performance figure rather than actual magnification.
I.e. With this system you can identify stuff at 10x the distance that you can with naked eye.
Which would explain why going from 1.42 WFoV to 0.44 NFoV takes you from “4X magnification” to “10X Magnification” instead of: 1.42 / 0.44 * 4 = 12.91

[sudo_su1]

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c0HtEJPi8n3l

Spoiler

@David_Bowie @Gunjob

I did not use the FoV of Maverick as a basis to calculate the zoom or FoV of the TCS

The IRMV was just an example to show that “Magnification” can vary for the same FoV and is not a good metric for adjustment.

But not only I provided a direct source for the FoV (which is what the game uses) of TCS, but also the source explicitly states that the “10X” figure (That other sources specify for “Magnification”) is not the actual magnification but rather the amount of improvement in identification range over the naked eye.

Sensor size is completely irrelevant here, as FoV is what matters

0.44 FoV means the MFD is showing a 0.44 deg arc slice of the world. And that’s how the game models TGPs; And that’s how all TGPs provide their specifications …

[David_Bowie]

@sudo_su1

0.44 FoV means the MFD is showing a 0.44 deg arc slice of the world. And that’s how the game models TGPs; And that’s how all TGPs provide their specifications.

If the exact magnification is known, the magnification will take precedence, using FoV is a temporary solution.

[sudo_su1]

@David Bowie

If the exact magnification is known, the magnification will take precedence, using FoV is a temporary solution.

And I explained why the “exact magnification” is not known

10X is not magnification
It’s “Improvement in identification range over naked eye”

B- This is further confirmed by the first source, stating that the “10:1” ratio (or “10X magnification” as specified in other sources) is actually the “Improvement in identification range over unaided eye”; So the “4X-10X magnification” figure is not the actual magnification but rather a performance figure of identification range improvement over the naked eye.
Thus the actual magnification of the system should be adjusted based on the provided FOV values.

Plus this is not an optical tank sight with gunners head against the eyepiece

This is a display hooked to a camera

“10X” figure even if it was magnification, would mean the angular size of the target on the MFD as seen by the pilot with his head in the assumed distance would be 10 times the angular size of the target as seen by naked eye.

Which is also not the case now …

[David_Bowie]

There’s really no particular reason to look at it. The TISEO system, which is almost identical to the TCS, is also known to have a magnification of 4-10x.

• Sierra Hotel: Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade After Vietnam by USAF

The TISEO was an electronic telescope mounted in the left wing of the F-4E. It had 4-power and 10-power magnifications.

[sudo_su1]

@David Bowie

There’s really no particular reason to look at it. The TISEO system, which is almost identical to the TCS, is also known to have a magnification of 4-10x.

“10X” means the angular size of the object as seen by the pilot through the MFD would be 10 times the angular size of the object as seen by his naked eyes.

Again, this is not an optical tank sight with gunner’s head against the eyepiece … This is a camera projected on an MFD.
That’s why TGP documents only give you FoV values and that’s why they should all be adjusted using FoV only (Unlike tank sights)

Does this look like “10X magnification” to you?

Regarding: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c0HtEJPi8n3l

[sudo_su1]

- YouTube

[MythicPi]

Im 99% sure gaijins gonna make the F-14D a premium at this point

[VF21_Freelancers]

Too bad they skipped F-14A late, which has faster top speed :/

[CalvinAz]

I mean it’s hard to correctly model it whilst still being bound to game logic. Though they probably should correct it to real FoV so it looks correct from the cockpit pov at least, it doesn’t take away the fact that in-game we can essentially put our faces to the screen with no loss in resolution by using the sight view. And this would give us an advantage that isn’t available irl if real FoV was modelled, because in-game zoom value on the sight view would then be upwards to 167.5x.

So with that in mind you should compare it like this:

Spoiler

Cockpit view: target 1x magnification
Display in cockpit view: ~3x magnification (disregarded by Gaijin)

TCS view: ~15x magnification turns out

At least for these ranges/target sizes with my FoV/monitor. Derived from fairly rough pixel measurements as well. So give or take 20% or so.

@David Bowie

The TISEO system, which is almost identical to the TCS, is also known to have a magnification of 4-10x.

Is there a bug report for TISEO? Because TISEO in-game on the Kurnass 2000 has only a 1° FoV setting currently if I am not mistaken.

[joshje100]

@CalvinAz

Because TISEO in-game on the Kurnass 2000 has only a 1° FoV setting currently if I am not mistaken.

TISEO on the Kurnass 2000 doesn’t even work. Hasn’t worked in a long time.

[MiG_23M]

@Zannafrancy12

didnt you say there’s no definition for supercruise?

By Eurofighter GMBHs definition, the F-14 supercruises. Do you agree?

[Mytho-GR1]

Really this again

[MiG_23M]

Why is that in response to me and not your antagonistic friend

[sudo_su1]

@CalvinAz

I mean it’s hard to correctly model it whilst still being bound to game logic. Though they probably should correct it to real FoV so it looks correct from the cockpit pov at least, it doesn’t take away the fact that in-game we can essentially put our faces to the screen with no loss in resolution by using the sight view. And this would give us an advantage that isn’t available irl if real FoV was modelled, because in-game zoom value on the sight view would then be upwards to 167.5x.

So with that in mind you should compare it like this:

Sure this means you will get more zoom when you switch to the full screen view, but:

1- That’s an advantage all aircrafts get … And it’s not unique to TGPs either, missile seekers get that as well. And not just in terms of zoom, but also resolution as TV cameras don’t have any resolution limit applied to them.

2- Those magnification figures are based on looking at it from the cockpit, as that view doesn’t exist IRL.

3- In fact if anything, with other systems you usually use the full screen view to find target and guide weapons, but with TCS you rely on the cockpit MFD more often as it’s slaved to radar so you don’t need to manually find targets (Nor is appropriate to do during air to air combat)

4- While you don’t get the full screen view IRL, you can get higher “magnification” by getting your head closer to the MFD.
You could perhaps say the “full screen view” is an analogue to that.

But because TCS is not adjusted properly, even if you bring your head so that the MFD fills your entire field of view, you are getting as much magnification as if IRL you were sitting with your head all the way back.

While other aircrafts get their “proper magnification figure” with pilot’s head all the way back, and can get higher magnification by moving pilot’s head closer.

I mean … It just looks radicicolous! … The cockpit has like 2x zoom!

Spoiler

Here’s Tornado GR4’s internal optics just as an example:

Spoiler

There are many problems with using magnification figures for things like this. E.g. Assumed pilot head position for the 10X figure might not match the assumed head position in the game.

And the 10X figure might not even be true magnification, but rather “ratio of improvement in identification range” which would mean the actual magnification is higher. (Due to resolution limitations and quality loss etc)

So it’s just best to use FoV which is very easy to adjust to match real life.
IRL the MFD shows 0.44 deg slice of the world in NFOV … You make it do the same in the game, and the head position etc become irrelevant …

[CalvinAz]

Most of these points you mention I also originally included in my post but then removed because it was getting too long. So I agree, but this is just how Gaijin reasoned it I guess.

@sudo_su1

4- While you don’t get the full screen view IRL, you can get higher “magnification” by getting your head closer to the MFD.
You could perhaps say the “full screen view” is an analogue to that.

This one particular I also included intially. But then I guessed, I suppose Gaijin could argue that you’re not realistically doing that as you’re firmly attached to your (ejection) seat. I wonder how much free movement you have though.

@sudo_su1

And the 10X figure might not even be true magnification, but rather “ratio of improvement in identification range” which would mean the actual magnification is higher. (Due to resolution limitations and quality loss etc)

Can’t we figure this out though, roughly at least. There is probably some info on the display size itself and then assume some viewing distance (or rather work out the viewing distance given the 4-10x magnification and see if it’s reasonable).

I agree in the end though. I think they should just model it based on FoV only for these type of sights. It keeps things more consistent. But it also just shows that Gaijin doesn’t really care as much for the cockpit view, they’re more about modelling things more correctly for how most people play (so not the cockpit). Still, even with that, magnification numbers are quite rare to find, so they should not use them anyways to keep it in line with other sights. A case of something being gimped in-game because it tries to be more realistic (in one way) than other things.

[MikeyPlayzonYT]

Could someone test if the F-14 can turn and burn like the Aardvark? I’ve been away from my setup all day.