Some Refinements to the Gimbal Sim

[TheCholla]

It's a good question though, it's plausible that the ATFLIR doesn't resolve cloud features the same at 40 or 100 miles. Especially at night.

Where is the cloud sky-line in the original video?

It's unambiguous in your sim because it sees clouds the same all the way to the cloud-sky line.

So are they truly comparable?

 

[Zaine M.]

@purpleivan I noticed you disliked my post, perhaps you can qualify your dislike? Maybe you can tell me what the effective range of the ATFLIR is?

Here I am using triangulation to range the clouds, it doesnt get to 100 NM


Source: https://x.com/LathanielS5437/status/2009516225966358992

 

[Mick West]

You are saying that the manufacturer doesn't understand the limits of their product, or that their product doesn't actually have limitations like "an effective range", and I was asking you what the effective range is, I gave you options based on, your moon comment.

Since it can see the moon near the horizon, I don't see why you think there would be limits on how far away it could see clouds. We are not talking about performance envelopes for specific mission tasks; we are talking about whether something is visible or not. Utterly different things.

I wasn't joking. "The camera reaching its limit of resolving imagery" does sounds like something a Flat Earther would say. It makes no sense in this context (viewing angularly large clouds)

 

[purpleivan]

@purpleivan I noticed you disliked my post, perhaps you can qualify your dislike? Maybe you can tell me what the effective range of the ATFLIR is?

Here I am using triangulation to range the clouds, it doesnt get to 100 NM


Source: https://x.com/LathanielS5437/status/2009516225966358992

Firstly, I don't believe that there is any onus on those using the response tools of the site, when express their opinions on posts, to explain their responses. That's the norm of any site that I've ever used. In fact the rule of thumb on many sites is that bringing up any form of "downvoting" invites further downvoting.

However, in this case I'll make an exception.

My "dislike" of your post, was in response to the tone of it, which at least in part, to my view, was derogatory, both towards Mick West and more broadly, Metabunk. Additionally, my response was "dislike" (which is usually used in response to issues of presentation or tone), not "disagree", so trying to pull me in to your discussion of the effective range of the ATFLIR, is inappropriate. I'd leave that to those with greater knowledge of the subject matter.

 

[Mick West]

It's a good question though, it's plausible that the ATFLIR doesn't resolve cloud features the same at 40 or 100 miles. Especially at night.

Since you have nothing to compare with, how is this a useful question? Of course, it will look different in some way. But why is that relevant?

 

[TheCholla]

It's relevant to know if we see the cloud-sky line or if the clouds fade out, to model the footage based on clouds.

 

[Mick West]

Here I am using triangulation to range the clouds, it doesnt get to 100 NM

How are you using it? I see you moving some sliders and reading some numbers. What two (or three) things are you triangulating? What are those LOS you are intersecting?

I've wasted too much time on this. I'd encourage you to run your math by someone like @TheCholla in private first, as I feel you are also wasting others' time in these long public threads.

 

[Zaine M.]

I wasn't joking. "The camera reaching its limit of resolving imagery" does sounds like something a Flat Earther would say. It makes no sense in this context (viewing angularly large clouds)

I wasn't joking either, noting I already posted about the inverse square law and its application to the IR energy of a distant plane V an F-18 in full afterburner take off from a carrier.

There is only so much the camera can do before it stops resolving features.

My "dislike" of your post, was in response to the tone of it, which at least in part, to my view, was derogatory, both towards Mick West and more broadly, Metabunk. Additionally, my response was "dislike" (which is usually used in response to issues of presentation or tone), not "disagree", so trying to pull me in to your discussion of the effective range of the ATFLIR, is inappropriate. I'd leave that to those with greater knowledge of the subject matter.

Fair point, I appreciate constructive criticism over random dislikes, thank you for your feedback.

How are you using it? I see you moving some sliders and reading some numbers. What two (or three) things are you triangulating? What are those LOS you are intersecting?

I made video on it, approximately half way though i make reference to how I am ranging the clouds.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSBAbrpCX-M


In here I briefly show (as its easier to demonstrate how it works as opposed to writing a novel), that I did work with Open CV, but have gone with user generated feature tracking and how that is implemented,

1. take initial AZ
2. Add calculated azimuth of fov, 3.7 degrees, noting you commented similar 3-4 degrees

3. throw a ray out from the start position with that new angle
4. where end los intercepts that ray, is triangulation
5. take last Azimuth figure, minus off that 3.7 degrees
6. where it intersects that first azimuth angle, is the range to the clouds at the start.

Now that I have done that, I missed the part where I asked about how the clouds were ranged and it was explained.

1. Can you sustain the clouds being around 120 nm away to justify your claim that its effective range is further?

2. can you provide repeatable test that demonstrates the clouds are as far away as is claimed, Ive already illustrated where my figures come from a number of times, and demonstrating the effective range is way beyond what Raytheon represents.

BUT I really want to highlight that I still haven't received any substantial (other than an apparent insinuation?? that "we like clouds to have a dip for pod elevation of 0.05 degrees) as justification to the implementation of the formula (that cant de-rotate go fast)

I've wasted too much time on this. I'd encourage you to run your math by someone like @TheCholla in private first,

Wasted? Continual investigation resulted in the identification for Chilean Navy case resolution, I even provided a link to a speech you gave, about further investigation.

[Edit - referencing and to strike through my reference that mick said the entire gimbal encounter is only 3-4 degrees ]

 

[Zaine M.]

as I feel you are also wasting others' time in these long public threads.

If we could get a straight answer it would be helpful in avoiding long threads.

Instead we are nit picked to the Nth degree, which we have zero issue with (makes it more robust).

Yet, no commentary about how metabunk came to the conclusion that,
1. What looks like pod elevation change is actually a "pilots comfort" additional rotation
2. How the clouds are ranged
3. How Eddie got his elevation as a static figure
4. LBF providing additional documentation on the atflir pod
5. Clarity on the de-rotation of go fast (formula V bank tilt) to determine the correct method
6. Claims that "mundane distant plane fit" and when challenged with the facts, check sitrec, no response.

Not our fault no one understands anything past the talking points.

 

[Zaine M.]

I'm here as an invited guest, you invited me (I wasnt here until that happened), if you want to revoke that invitation, because im NOT metabunk user zaine, let me know and I will respect your wishes

 

[Mick West]

Add calculated azimuth of fov, 3.7 degrees, noting you commented similar 3-4 degrees

I have no idea what you mean here. And if you are noting something I commented, then quote it.

This is the problem with your argument, and I think @TheCholla recognized it — you do a lot of work that sounds reasonable to you, and maybe some of it is, but it's buried in incomprehensible assumptions and leaps of logic.

 

[Mick West]

I'm here as an invited guest, you invited me (I wasnt here until that happened), if you want to revoke that invitation, because im NOT metabunk user zaine, let me know and I will respect your wishes

I want you to explain what you mean in a way that actually makes sense to other people. Based on past experience, I think you find that difficult. It's starting to just be a lot of noise.

@TheCholla, am I missing something here?

 

[TheCholla]

I think @TheCholla recognized it

Not sure what you refer to here.

"Add calculated azimuth of fov, 3.7 degrees, noting you commented similar 3-4 degrees" is the angular distance scanned by the pod (3-4° degrees of the clouds). That @Zaine M. uses for triangulation.

By the way, angular distance that for some reason is significantly too small in Sitrec, about 25% less compared to the vid I'd say, as seen from the shorter sim panorama vs original panorama, and too slow cloud motion. I don't see the justification for it, it's just a matter of stretching the lines of sight to better match the video.

 

[Zaine M.]

Since it can see the moon near the horizon, I don't see why you think there would be limits on how far away it could see clouds. We are not talking about performance envelopes for specific mission tasks; we are talking about whether something is visible or not. Utterly different things.

Yes, you are saying that the effective range for the ATFLIR is 250,000 miles, based on that logic, and despite Raytheon saying its effective to only over 40miles.

Being able to see the moon, does not mean it can not see clouds at that distance. It has an "effective range".

Heres an illustrative example, which is also a joke.

Person 1 - "What is further away, the moon or Australia?"
Person 2 - "Australia is definitely further away, because I can see the moon, I can't see Australia"

That is how I am understanding, your reasoning/ what you are saying about "it can see the moon near the horizon... I don't know why you think there would be limits on how far away it could see clouds"

 

[Mick West]

Being able to see the moon, does not mean it can not see clouds at that distance. It has an "effective range".

Why does that "effective range" not make the Moon invisible?

 

[Zaine M.]

Why does that "effective range" not make the Moon invisible?

Really?

The moon isn't a valid comparison for ATFLIR's effective range in this context because it's a high-contrast, point-like source (reflecting solar IR) that's visible even at extreme distances due to its brightness and lack of atmospheric scattering—similar to how stars are visible but don't require resolving fine details. Clouds, however, are diffuse, low-contrast features that lose resolvable IR energy rapidly with distance (inverse square law), especially at night or through haze. Raytheon's "over 40 NM" spec refers to practical military performance for detecting/tracking resolved targets (e.g., vehicles, structures), not bare visibility of bright celestial bodies. If the pod's effective range truly extended to 120+ NM for clouds, we'd expect documentation or tests supporting that, not reliance on moon visibility as proof.

1. Can you provide a source confirming ATFLIR resolves cloud textures at Gimbal's claimed distances, or
2. Clarify why the moon analogy overrides the manufacturer's limits?

 

[Mick West]

The moon isn't a valid comparison for ATFLIR's effective range in this context because it's a high-contrast, point-like source (reflecting solar IR) that's visible even at extreme distances due to its brightness and lack of atmospheric scattering—similar to how stars are visible but don't require resolving fine details.

The moon is utterly unlike a star. In no way is it a point-like source. And at low elevation angles you have to go through all of the atmosphere before you reach space.

Raytheon's "over 40 NM" spec refers to practical military performance for detecting/tracking resolved targets (e.g., vehicles, structures), not bare visibility of bright celestial bodies. If the pod's effective range truly extended to 120+ NM for clouds, we'd expect documentation or tests supporting that, not reliance on moon visibility as proof.

Why would they care how far away it can see clouds at night?

Physics give no clear reason why you could not see them at 150 miles especially when viewed from 20,000ft.

 

[Mick West]

Stop using AI. If you can't explain it in your own words, there's no guarantee AI is going to understand and explain it.

 

[Mendel]

Any statement made by Raytheon regarding the effective range of ATFLIR has a context. That context has not been cited in this thread. I imagine it to be something like, "ATFLIR can track a fighter at up to 40 nm". This can be understood as a specification or guarantee, not as a limitation.

Understanding this number as a limitation is nonsense, it's like attributing a range to a pair of binoculars.

If you bring up this effective range without sourcing the actual context within which it was determined, you are bringing in unfounded assumptions that may amount to wishful thinking.

 

[TheCholla]

But we see that the cloud-sky line is blurred and not defined, especially in white-hot mode.
How can that happen if there is no limit to where the ATFLIR can see the clouds?

Bottom line is, how was it determined with a high degree of confidence that elevation angle does not vary by more than 0.05° (even 0.025° in Sitrec)?

This is very important.

 

[TheCholla]

And as @Zaine M. repeatedly asked, how was it then determined with a high degree of confidence that the initial angle in cloud motion through the FOV (also called horizons mismatch), is from derotation and not a decrease in elevation angle of the camera?

This is very important too and at the origin of the refinement to the sim.

 

[TheCholla]

The latter (dero explains horizons mismatch) we have shown that there is no evidence for it. The object does not progressively rotate clock-wise with dero. That explains the sim being off versus the original, in terms of cloud motion (too much arching motion, different "katana" panorama out of it, as seen in previous Mick's posts).

Which points to the former assumption (elevation angle is nearly constant), being wrong.

 

[TheCholla]

But it sounds like it's been recognized since now the distant plane is allowed to fly up and down along the lines of sight that result from a larger change in elevation angle.

Personally I got my answers.

 

[Edward Current]

Personally I got my answers.

Maybe the thread can be closed then.

 

[Mick West]

And as @Zaine M. repeatedly asked, how was it then determined with a high degree of confidence that the initial angle in cloud motion through the FOV (also called horizons mismatch), is from derotation and not a decrease in elevation angle of the camera?

I'm sorry, but that seems like paraphrasing. Where exactly was this claim about a "high degree of confidence" made?

 

[TheCholla]

I took it as such since it was added in the sim, but I appreciate the clarification that high degree of confidence was never established.

 

[Mick West]

I took it as such since it was added in the sim, but I appreciate the clarification that high degree of confidence was never established.

I added a flying saucer to the sim. I'm unsure if that's the actual shape of the objects.

Please don't paraphrase or assume "high degree of confidence" unless something is explicitly stated as such. I have a high degree of confidence that the video shows glare that rotates with camera rotation, and I've stated my reasons why several times. I've also stated there some uncertainty as to what is going on in the initial portion of the video.

My interest is in figuring out exactly, or as close as we can manage, what the video shows, and what happened during the time it was filmed.

 

[TheCholla]

My interest is in figuring out exactly, or as close as we can manage, what the video shows, and what happened during the time it was filmed.

Exactly the same here. It's a fun and challenging puzzle and this is not driven by the desire "to believe" on my end, just to figure it out.

 

[Zaine M.]

Any statement made by Raytheon regarding the effective range of ATFLIR has a context. That context has not been cited in this thread. I imagine it to be something like, "ATFLIR can track a fighter at up to 40 nm".

If you bring up this effective range without sourcing the actual context within which it was determined, you are bringing in unfounded assumptions that may amount to wishful thinking.

Just to the claim, i provided an unsupported claim, @Mendel , I did reference an authoritative source, screenshot of the page plus a direct link to it, noting the url has capabilities in it.

Raytheon doesn't say 50, 60, 70, 100 plus miles.


Source: https://x.com/LathanielS5437/status/2009501633525547180


https://web.archive.org/web/20220613161524/https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir

So to be clear, you are asserting that the maximum effective range of the ATFLIR is,
- 120NM?

To the claims that think the ATFLIR doesn't have an effective range for its usage, based on it being able to see the moon and sun, I believe you are making an unfounded claim about the limits on not only, the sensor detecting IR energy, but physics of IR energy, namely the inverse square law, noting at say 150 miles
If we assign an intensity of 1 to clouds at 0.1 miles distance, at 150 miles the radiant intensity received drops to approximately 4.44 × 10⁻⁷ (about 1/2,250,000th).

I do thank you for your input though.

[edit - spelling, context]

 

[Zaine M.]

Please don't paraphrase or assume "high degree of confidence" unless something is explicitly stated as such.

Are you able to provide your opinion about the two methods for de-rotation? As I have asked

But briefly, as there has been a lot on other threads, Is @Mick West agreeing with bank/ tilt method for de-rotation now? or is the formula still preferred?

and you stated you didnt understand,

You'd have to explain again exactly what that is. I don't recall seeing a straightforward explanation. If there was one, can you link to it?

Things get lost mid-thread.

And, again, I explained it

To de-rotate the footage, we remove the planes bank and remove the value for camera tilt. Footage is now in the global up is up position.

So to avoid confusion, or any assumptions, can you please provide a clear, unambiguous opinion?

[edit - context]

 

[Mick West]

To the claims that think the ATFLIR doesn't have an effective range for its usage, based on it being able to see the moon and sun, I believe you are making an unfounded claim about the limits on not only, the sensor detecting IR energy, but physics of IR energy, namely the inverse square law, noting at say 150 miles
If we assign an intensity of 1 to clouds at 0.1 miles distance, at 150 miles the radiant intensity received drops to approximately 4.44 × 10⁻⁷ (about 1/2,250,000th).

You misunderstand the application of the inverse square law here.

An illuminated area, as it gets further away, is reduced in apparent area by the inverse square of the distance. So all the light is compressed into a smaller area.

Hence, the brightness remains exactly the same.

You can verify this by noting that objects at 5 feet away are exactly the same brightness as objects 20 feet away. These yellow Post-it stickers, for example

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...d-temp-to-of-the-gimbal-uap.12486/post-272686

 

[Mick West]

Are you able to provide your opinion about the two methods for de-rotation?

As I've stated many times, the initial rotation has some uncertainty and needs a more detailed analysis, which I don't currently have time for. But I think the basic case for rotating glare is still solid.

 

[Mendel]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220613161524/https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir

ATFLIR can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles

It's not an upper limit.

 

[FatPhil]

To the claims that think the ATFLIR doesn't have an effective range for its usage, based on it being able to see the moon and sun, I believe you are making an unfounded claim about the limits on not only, the sensor detecting IR energy, but physics of IR energy, namely the inverse square law, noting at say 150 miles
If we assign an intensity of 1 to clouds at 0.1 miles distance, at 150 miles the radiant intensity received drops to approximately 4.44 × 10⁻⁷ (about 1/2,250,000th).

You may want to rethink your inverse square law, as you don't have a single point source - the further away they are, the more of them there are:

via: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

 

[Zaine M.]

Absolutely remarkable replies, and thank you all for your time.

Take away,

- Mick is non-committal about the two methods of de-rotation, Formula V Bank/Tilt.

It's not an upper limit.

You quoted me saying exceeding 40 miles, not "it is the upper limit".

Raytheon's "over 40 NM" spec refers to practical military performance for detecting/tracking resolved targets (e.g., vehicles, structures)

To the application of the inverse square law, noting the additional context of, "the limits of the sensor".

I believe you are making an unfounded claim about the limits on not only, the sensor detecting IR energy, but physics of IR energy, namely the inverse square law, noting at say 150 miles

The broader point I was seeking to make, is that the pod is not magical, the IR energy, from low contrast clouds at range would, IMHO, resolve into noise, not cloud definition.

There is only so much the camera can do before it stops resolving features.

Noting that we have, not only a very intense IR signature from the object, high contrast, but, light patterns also involved, with unknown variables alleged from the sensor.

I don't think people are claiming the distant jet is creating those light patterns. They are just fixed regions of the sensor that vary in particular ways, like NUC. It probably just reflects changes in temperature of part of the camera.

Strongly noting, that it is additional to the fact, independent analysis doesnt even put the clouds at that range.

Here I am using triangulation to range the clouds, it doesnt get to 100 NM

(Remarkable no one wanted to tell me they didnt understand my inverse square law comment, but if I say "just remove the planes bank value and the tilt of the camera" no one understands me.)

 

[Mick West]

The broader point I was seeking to make, is that the pod is not magical, the IR energy, from low contrast clouds at range would, IMHO, resolve into noise, not cloud definition.

Based on what? It was just explained to you how you misapplied the inverse square law, and now you seem to be persisting in applying it, or something else, hidden behind "IMHO".

WHY can't the sensor see faraway clouds?

(Remarkable no one wanted to tell me they didnt understand my inverse square law comment, but if I say "just remove the planes bank value and the tilt of the camera" no one understands me.)

Perhaps you need to explain that one better. Inverse square is simply high-school science (with a simple common misunderstanding, which you had). Compound rotations in 3D graphics are hard. "just remove the planes bank value and the tilt of the camera" makes no sense.

 

[Edward Current]

The broader point I was seeking to make, is that the pod is not magical, the IR energy, from low contrast clouds at range would, IMHO, resolve into noise, not cloud definition.

This is something I call the would-pecker fallacy — an argument from incredulity presented as a naïve thought experiment, without the presentation of evidence or existing knowledge to justify it. Often used by conspiracy believers (e.g., "The buildings would have tipped over"; "The parents of the victims would have cried more").

 

[TheCholla]

WHY can't the sensor see faraway clouds?

Because it doesn't, up to a certain point in the video. Or you're saying it does?
Then where do you think the cloud-sky line is here? And based on what? Enlighten us.

 

[Zaine M.]

WHY can't the sensor see faraway clouds?

Based on what?

To answer both of those. The footage indicates that there is a limit on what the sensor can resolve.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr6ztLlcHtk

So same question back to you @mickwest what makes you think, other than the pod can see the moon, would the sensor see far away clouds and not be limited in resolution?

This is something I call the would-pecker fallacy — an argument from incredulity presented as a naïve thought experiment, without the presentation of evidence or existing knowledge to justify it. Often used by conspiracy believers

I appreciate your insight Edward.

Now noting that it is alleged that this whole thread is about there being an additional "pilots comfort rotation" to explain the mis match between the cloud line and the artificial horizon,

I'm assuming that it's intuitive for pilots to look left/right, up/down, but not to tilt their head, so I try to recreate what the horizon would look like if you had a camera strapped to the jet that can only rotate left/right in the wing plane, or up/down perpendicular to that.

based on nothing but the above quote, and noting I have been accused of,

That sounds exactly like a Flat Earth argument. And using it as a reason for why the clouds are not at the same angle as the artificial horizon is ludicrous.

With you jumping on the band wagon,

1. There is no evidence to indicate that is occurring, "pilots comfort rotation"
2. Noting that when used, side by side comparison, to determine the correct method of de-rotation, the formula results in a straight line path, testing on go fast video, which could only occur if the target was at sea level, not half way between the plane and the water. erasing the effect of the plane flying in an arc due to bank.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/post-360385
3. I also provided, via triangulation, ranging to the clouds, that is not even close to going over 100 NM
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/post-360801
4. I provided screenshots and link to Raytheon Product capabilities page.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/post-360797
5. I have now also illustrated that it certain appears that the further away clouds arent resolving with definition the further away they are, youtube link above.
6. Noting @mickwest appears to infer that there are possibly issues with the NUC.
7. But most importantly, it has been nearly 2 months since I first asked, and have yet to receive a response, "How was metabunk able to determine the background motion angle of the clouds was NOT a result of pod elevation change, but an indicator that there was/ is "an additional pilots comfort rotation"

The line of sight to the clouds is entirely within the atmosphere, so, of course, atmospheric extinction (mostly water vapor, some aerosols), will affect it with distance. But what distance is it noticable at? Does place some limit on the reconstruction?

Zaine seemed to be saying that inverse square was placing some natural limit that forced them to be closer that in Sitrec. They may well be, but I don't think they HAVE to be.

I said there are a number of factors, but why are you asking us "what distance is it noticeable at?" You didn't look into that for Sitrec?

How did you determine, that the pod wasnt affected by elevation change, still kept within a 1 degree range.

So directly to this

would-pecker fallacy — an argument from incredulity presented as a naïve thought experiment, without the presentation of evidence or existing knowledge to justify it.

Why did you quote me instead of the other metabunk users that are supporting "pilots comfort rotation"?

 

[Harabeck]

An IR camera has no set range in exactly the same way that normal cameras don't. They're both sensing light, just at different wavelengths. There is no magic that steps in to limit the range of a FLIR system.