Could you perhaps also review my report on Litening that I linked? Or did you mean Litening already and not TIALD?
I meant TIALD, but regarding your report.
These sources do not meet the standard for secondary sources
Extra sources for Litening III:
Litening Targeting Pod - Defense Update:
The South African Air Force
See the rules for secondary sources;
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 got a good clip of the TIALD not locking on at long range:
This is fairly standard in SB at least. This was it being good. I’ve had issues with getting it to lock until more like 10-11km before.
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?
Jane’s is not accepted by the devs sorry.
Would this not fall under " Authored works (secondary source) : Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’)"? It’s a reference book in this case, not an article.
Or has Jane’s just simply been “banned” by the devs as a source. Shame, I suppose the SPIE source only ever counts as secondary as well right?
Yeah due to the number of things Jane’s has gotten wrong it’s not accepted as a source anymore apologies that section isn’t clear on that.
Does anyone else have the problem where the generation of thermal is worse in test drive or custom battles? I have this problem on F-16D Barak. Litening II becomes gen 1 and I can’t switch to thermal view while using GBU-15(V)2/B. In normal battles it works, just in test drive and in custom battles they are glithced.
I suspect on the F-16C and F-16D, you either don’t have the NVD modification unlocked or just uninstalled. The higher pod resolution is fixed to the NVD mod on those. Not sure if that’s intentional but I actually think it isn’t now anymore (even though one of my bug reports got closed, confirming it’s intentional). Because they tried fixing it by explicitly adding the 500x300 TGP resolution to the NVD mod (which didn’t work, luckily… lol). In test flights using reference, it will load you in with a fully spaded plane so that’s why it works there.
Another way of seeing it is that the NVD mod “upgrades” the Litening II pods on the F-16C, D and AV-8B+ to Litening AT and III standard (which have higher resolution). But it’s probalby not intended. But then again, why are the F-16C and D running around with obsolete pods for their variants anyway, at the very least the F-16C with its JHMCS is post 2003+ when Litening AT was standard.
I don’t have problems with the locking that much, sometimes it flies off when trying to lock, which is annoying, but otherwise I can still use the targeting mode when locking, for a lack of a better word. I suspect you might have too many functions bound to the same button which makes it act weirdly, but I am not sure.
1 Like
I never even thought that the night vision mod would affect the thermal resolution, that is really odd, I had it researched, but I never bothered to buy it as it seemed pretty useless.
Also about the locking, I’ve asked around more and I figured out the cause. I was checking controls up with someone else and they were using Activate Target Point to lock onto vehicles, which meant that it wouldn’t destabilize the sight. It worked perfectly fine for a while but it started giving me troubles with locking and unlocking targets. I used to run Sight Stabilization before and after switching back my keybinds to that it works completely fine.
Thanks for the help tho, I guess my rant about it was for no reason xd.
It’s only useful in this case on the F-16C, F-16D and AV-8B+ due to the way their NVD mods are set up. Also on the A-6E btw, though it’s a premium so usually you will run all mods on it. On all other planes however, you can leave them off to save you some repair costs.
Glad to hear your problems have been fixed. Have fun with the targeting pods, gotta be one of my favorite systems.
I’ve updated my report with new sources, that hopefully do count. Could you take a look at it?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Arrx2Sm0fVIv
If it’s not too much of a bother, I also have another report. It’s off topic but as it’s about a modelling error on the SEP. But it would be great if the devs would be made aware of it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rbbcnukD31yu
just a question, do u know how much the atlis zoom in by? i just have been trying to compare it to other targeting pods but cant find a good source. my guess is a max of 35x but idk
Which one do you want to know, in real life or in-game?
It has FoVs of 6°-0.5° (last time I checked these were the real life values too), which is about a 12x-150x zoom in game, I think it’s the highest zoom pod we have in game.
Here, I made a spreadsheet even:
1 Like
Unfortunately the ATLIS one will need to be nerfed from 0.5 to 1.0, might make a report on it soon. The CLDP should be buffed to what the nerfed ATLIS will be at 1.0.
One of these days TIALD might actually be modeled as Gen 2 (sad noises)
Also you missed the Jaguar Gr1A off the list that uses TIALD.
Change to TIALD 400 pod instead TIALD A on Harrier GR.7, and TIALD 200 pod for Tornado GR.1
Now Jaguar GR.1A equipped TIALD A or TIALD 100 pod ?