@Smin1080p_WT, In the latest dev server update helicopter targets were added to the test drive for ground vehicles, is there any plans to add these to the air test flights too? Would be nice for some variety of air targets instead of just the same MiG-15’s and Sabres.
1 Like
Oh ok, I looked up the SPICE too it looks like a laser guided GBU tbf. Meaning it should’ve been added already.
Maybe a target with maws to test missiles.
2 Likes
The TCS is a TV sensor, it wouldn’t work like an IRST and modelling it as such would be wrong.
Not even just likely. The 18C late will be weaker in full cas than a F-15E flying with it’s lightest CAS loadouts lol.
F-15E can carry 6x mavs with 8x amraam and without the CFT.
Would be nice, along with some different SPAA to flare IR missiles and some aircraft that scald with your BR instead of shooting MiG-15’s with F-15E’s
Why not?
“Slaved to IR / TV sensor” is literally highlighted (in the red box) in one of the previously provided excerpts, and the change in question is really only for the angular tracking component of the associated systems at this point. Not (yet) for independent (bespoke) support of silent missile launch and guidance for IRST modes, even though that is a capability that the system possesses.
EOTS and IRST systems only differ in wavelength anyway there is little difference otherwise. and having some level of functionality provided to the F-14B would be useful considering how poorly it does in a full uptier.
All the report is attempting to do is have the F-14B included in the list of aircraft effected by this change
Primary documentation disagrees.
Cross reference the below excerpt with the video footage, and note the presence of the “tracking gate” as such the system is optically locked on in the footage.
As to why the TISEO (ASX-1 as found on the Kurnass 2000, even though the F-4E should have it as an option, but doesn’t due to Gaijin’s usual franken plane configuration hijinks) is relevant to the TCS;
4 Likes
I guess so. Some modern helicopters have close to better resolution to this and they get WT gen 4 FLIR (which is just 1080p). I know at least if Litening II were to get its real resolution, it would be worse than WT’s gen 1… but irl resolution isn’t everything, unlike WT.
It would still take AMRAAM slot as it either goes on pylon 4 or on centerline where would bag usually be hung as the Hornet doesnt really have range.
One system tracks objects through contrast and the other tracks heat signatures.
The TV tracking has a more limited range and would likely be less accurate the further the target is away, but wouldn’t get affected by flares. IRST has a longer range, but is affected by flares.
I am unsure how well the later electro optical/TV tracking systems deal with this issue, but the early ones would likely also be affected by other objects when trying to track objects from above or even lose their track entirely due to lack of contrast.
Their ability to scan and track might be the same, but just using the IRST scanning for the TCS and other electro optical/TV tracking systems would be wrong.
There is functionally no difference, as both systems track a Contrast signal with the background.
The main differences between the IRSTS (ALR-23) and TCS (AXX-1) outside the likely different wavelength, is that the TCS can pass video output to the various HDD (head down display) units (DD, TID, VDI).
The actual performance requirements of the system in many respects of the AXX-1 were reported to gaijin on the old forums, IIRC by @MythicPi . A long time ago. (and Gaijin’s inaction on it and similar reports, is why they aren’t as active on the bug report front these days )
A copy of the document can be found at;
https://mil-spec.tpub.com/MIL-C/MIL-C-85437B/
Relevant excerpts are included below;
And sure you could run a reverse lookup for a surrogate 5m^2 RCS target (e.g. Tu-160 / B-52) to figure out the difference in range of the systems.
by solving for the range at which the apparent subtended angular dimension of of the wingspan is equal to the requirements of the tracking gate ( half the listed dimension in the excerpt above ).
But it’s not materially that important considering functionality is known. And that it would vary significantly depending on the targeted airframe in question.
2 Likes
Like JDAM kits but with IR seeker instead of GPS
1 Like
Manpads that can pull ?
Saclos that can follow your cursor ?
Smokeless propellant for some missiles ?
Nah that would be too good
I wonder what the catch will be on long range SARH / ARH SAMs
2 Likes
Ok, so I didn’t realise the TCS had some kind of functionality ingame. Of course it should have the same functionality as IRST, but the method of target acquisition and therefore the performance has to differ.
What I’m trying to say here is that they cannot just copy the code they use for IRST and paste it for electro-optical tracking systems, because, again, electro-optical tracking doesn’t work through heat signatures, but rather actual visual contrast.
Heat signatures vary based on temperature of the object that is dissipating the heat, the background temperature and the method of dissipation.
The signature tracked by electro-optical systems depends entirely on the size of the object that is being tracked and only varies depending on the distance between the tracking system and the tracked object.
The search and track functionality would be the same, but the performance would be different, like I said. Electro-optical search and track would have a much more limited range, but it wouldn’t be affected by flares. The background could have an effect, but again, I’m not sure how well these systems can differentiate the objects they track from background objects that have similar contrasts.
To properly model electro-optical search and track they would have to use vehicle size values, rather than the heat emission values they use for heatseekers and IRST. Now, I am not sure how the contrast seekers for some of the SAMs are modelled (if they still use heat signatures and just ignore flares, or if they actually use visual contrast to track the target).
I find equipped Litening on left conformal
Personally, might able equipped Litening pod on station 4 & station 5
But AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR mounted on station 4 only
Litening G4 and TALIOS pod ?
I think that’s 3rd gen according to WT standards (probably in real life as well)
They use larger resolutions ingame for the generations than what the generations offer in real life.
https://thunderview.net/air-thermals/
Thermals that would be 1st generation IRL use a resolution closer to 2nd generation FLIRs ingame, 2nd generation FLIRs use better than 3rd generation resolutions and 3rd generation FLIRs use what I would expect to be (almost) 4th generation resolutions.
It does, but doesn’t really do much of anything useful. All it does the same as the TISEO on the Kurnass-2000 is act like an integrated targeting pod to permit you to Visually-Identify contacts. and as such is practically useless.
Even in SIM since the AWG-9 already had IFF functionality. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of anyone attempting to even use it seriously in in reference to A2A (theoretically has some use for targeting JDAMs these days, to reclaim a station for A2A missiles from the LANTIRN).
None of this is actually modeled in game anyway, it’s all just pre-computed coefficients.
It’s effectively handwaved for existing Electro-Optical Contrast seekers (e.g. AGM-65A/B, AGM-62, GBU-8 etc.)
They have no intent of doing so.
Early US Designed Electro Optical seekers should not be able to lock onto the ground.
“Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.”
Therefore, this issue is considered resolved
Also the E-O Mavericks and similar are all massively overperforming known data (-65A has half the range of the -65B)
2 Likes
Does anyone know how many Golden Eagles are needed to modify the Su-30SM?
That is rather unfortunate, to say the least.
I suppose they could at the very least let you slave the radar to a manually designated target tracked by the TCS.
Considering that many of the planes going forward would be able to make use of EOTS-like systems it seems weird that they do not plan on at least somewhat model these systems properly instead of just leaving them in this fake targetting pod state.