Currently the game features the following targeting pods:
TIALD
PDLCT/CLDP
Damocles
ATLIS II
K/PZS-01
Mercury
Litening II
Lantirn
Pave Spike
LANA FLIR
And I have lately been quite into these systems. I notice that however a lot of information on them is somewhat hard to find, especially for the some more obscure and older pods. I think Gaijin has the same problem.
As a result, one of the most important attributes of these pods are standardized. That being the FoV setting. Currently only several pods use their real life FoVs, that I know of. These being Damocles (although not exactly), TIALD (more or less), ATLIS II and (recently) Lantirn. The others use the same zoom setting as TIALD, which I think was the first pod added and thus was taken as standard.
I do have sources for Litening, I have made a bug report on it as well but sadly it seemed to have flown under the radar: Community Bug Reporting System
This report would also introduce two more Litening versions to the game, Litening AT and Litening III.
I however can not find much info on the other pods in the game. And I would love to know more about their specifications. So if anyone has some nice info on the other pods, that would be great.
Lastly, another nice attribute is still missing in the game. That being roll stabilization. Many pods are missing this feature and it would be very nice to have. Although I think the devs do know about this, they just don’t know how to implement it or it’s just very low priority.
If similar changes are reflected across the board its fine by me. Its not like the US doesn’t have more capable strike aircraft with more capable pods that could be added.
Yes ATLIS II is correct at 6°-0.5° FoV. But Damocles is only half correct, according to its datasheet should only have a wide FoV of 4°x3° and narrow FoV of 1°x0.75°.
In WT Damocles has 12°-0.75° FoV and is actually overperforming in its wide FoV, BUT I agree with this for gameplay reasons. A 3° FoV is way too zoomed in for a wide view. That’s why I hope, if Litening II gets fixed to a minimum 1° FoV, it too retains the wide FoV of 12° instead of the correct 4°. The Litening pods on the F-16C, F-16D Barak and AV-8B however can get their 24° super wide FoV setting instead though, as they mount more advanced versions of the Litening pod.
From my experience TIALD pods (Harrier Gr7 is my main platform) have an issue with lock on range. They cant stabilize onto the ground beyond 20km (I dont know if this is correct or not) but most notably, wont lock onto ground targets beyond 10-13km. Which considering you have AGM-65Ds that can theoretically hit a stationary target at 20km, is quite a pain. Especially in SB and how deadly the SPAA are. That extra 5km-10km would be highly beneficial.
Targeting pods also have the extremely annoying quality that they use the “Altitude” unit of measurement and not “distance” unit of measurement. Or better yet, their own unit of Measurement. I prefer my alt set to ft, but this would mean getting my range to target in the TIALD pod in ft as well, which is awkard to use. So have set my alt to km for now.
The 20km limit seems to be just a standard limit. It can be a bit annoying for sure when trying to just stabilize on the ground beyond Pantsir range. I just tested a bit with the Lantirn, I could get a 15km lock max on clear weather against the 2s6. On other weather settings, it depends a lot on cloud coverage. If clouds are in the way, even a little bit, you can not lock. So if you are at the edge of a cloud or just a thin cloud, you just can not lock anything or your lock range is greatly diminished even if the FLIR can pick up everything just fine.
Yeah, clouds being this hard wall is really annoying. Was attacking a convoy the other day in SB. A wisp of cloud was between me and hte target. Could very clearly see the target, just the faintest hint of a cloud in front of me, but it wouldnt let me lock, in the end about 5km I had to break off to try and avoid the incoming SPAA fire (i failed and was destroyed)
They definetly need to refine how pods lock onto targets. they are blocked by anything and are really glitchy when 2 targets are close by
I do currently. On average in SB, to lock onto a ground target, such as a tank in a battlefield, on a clear sky I have to be well within 10-13km before the game lets me lock onto the tank. I have never been able to get the pod to lock onto targets at those kinds of ranges. It might be SB being SB, but I dont know why that would make any difference.
I think the 15km are a game limitation, since I also cant get a tracking lock of the ADM-65Ds beyond 15km, and since the Pantsir exists it should be increased.
I never achieved a lock beyond 15km (I mean I honestly dont know if its like that in a match since I dont like to play top tier britian anymore but I dont think its different in test drive). I also dont use the sight stabilization key since its very annoying to stab, unstab, stab, unstab. I do use it once but then I use the “Activate target point” since it doesnt unstabilize you.
I did try it tho (like I said before in test drive) and it didnt change anything for me.
Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
We also require these for Primary and Secondary sources where applicable;
You need to provide the following information about the source:
Title and if applicable: publication date, document number, ISBN;
Author or organisation;
Image of the cover;
Images of all the referenced pages and their page numbers;
References for photographs;
Mil-websites don’t fall into this category apologies.
What about the attached documents? It includes a source by SPIE, authored by an employee of northrop grumann as well as a brochure by northrop grumann of the Litening AT. Would this at least be suffcient for the pod on the F-16C?
I’ve now acquired an additional source in “Jane’s Electro-Optic systems”, would this qualify together with the SPIE source as two secondary sources? If so, should I update the old report or create a new one?
