NineLine

I appreciate the disucssion, but please remember its hard to pick up bug reports from a thread like this so if you think you found something wrong, make sure to do a bug report. Thanks!

NTTR is the second-oldest terrain (the oldest of all maps using new terrain tech, as Caucasus is a hybrid of new and old). Since the release of a map, improvements and changes to how maps are made have been introduced, making it much more complex to go back and make changes the older the map. Even with that, it clearly states in Wags' video that the goal is to revisit these maps, but your use of abandoned is simply wrong. Nobody is shrugging it off, we literlay said we want to revisit when the schedule opens up, we do not have unlimited dev time. Please watch Wags' video again, it should make sense if you do. Thanks.

Yeah, we are weighing what it will do for those that want optics simulated more accurately for the older TGPs, and others that want to keep the older TGPs the way they are. An option would be nice, but it could then snowball from there. So, we will weigh options. However, the optics of the AAQ-33 are accurate, and have no plans or need to adjust those. The most common issue we see with customer use of the AAQ-33 is not taking advantage of the NARO field of views, remembering to first stabilize in Point, Area, or INR, and then using XR processing.

We will need a track if you want us to take a look, thanks. Edit: I just set up an orbit around a target and tried a number of different views and didnt see anything concerning, so please share a track of this issue you are seeing when you can. Thanks.

Except you didn't break anything, you just did it wrong

You are welcome, and consider next time leaving out the shot at our testers, they work hard on this stuff, and as you can see with a couple of your reports already its easy to miss a step or misunderstand something. Thanks.

You guys want videos ahead of time, it means in many cases he is using pre-release builds that are still being heavily tested and possibly changed, while it doesnt happen often, something may change between his video and release. While I understand you are kidding, he works hard to get you guys ready for release so you can enjoy right away, lets not dump on him too much please.

We will try and reproduce soon, but if you get a chance, share a track of this issue if you have it. Thanks.

If you are not in A-A MT mode, you need to press TMS Aft-Short to slave the ATP to the bugged target after manually slewing the ATP away. If you are in A-A MT mode, the TMS commands change so the pilot can actively hunt for targets. If you slew the TGP away from being slaved to the bugged FCR target, you must deselect MT and press TMS Aft-Short to slave back to the bugged FCR target. We'll add a blurb in the manual that TMS Aft can be used to return the TGP to SLAVE mode to get back to the bugged FCR target. Let me know if that helps, if not post back and I can take a closer look. Thanks!

You get the best picture you need to be in TV NARO XR mode. In this screenshot you are not.

To slew the ATP to the selected target, you need to be in SLAVE mode and not a track mode. We've added descriptive checklists for adding targets, selecting/slewing to targets, and deleting targets; there shouldn't be confusion with it if read through. In addition, XR processing doesn't engage unless the ATP is in a track mode, even if in XR zoom. While Wags' videos provide a basic overview to get started, we strongly suggest that you carefully read the more detailed guide.

The TV sensor is at a higher magnification than the FLIR's Narrow FOV, but due to the different sizes of the video from each sensor in the PIP display, the apparent magnification is the same, despite the fact that the TV FOV is half that of the FLIR Narrow FOV (which is why it is displayed at half the size compared to the FLIR, to sync the FOVs into the PIP's composite video image).

No harm no foul, I just wanted to make sure it was clear, I would love the -33 on everything if I had that choice

I would have to trust that they did their research and made it as close as they could to what they know to be accurate. If its not or you want a sort of easy or cheat mode that is best taken up with them as they control their project.

All that is well and good, but sensor data is not always easy to come by, and even when you do find something, it's not really showing what is going on, what processing is being done, what resolution, etc. We are recreating things that are not always, or hardly ever clearly spelled out for anyone.

We are looking at this now, but understand that there isnt a ton of good info on these as you might expect (although I have found some). We will see if it makes sense to tune where needed, but also we have to consider that some people might get grumpy if their sensor is downgraded some. Yeah, I would assume if a pod has image enhancement of any sort, there is a reason why they have it.

While I appreciate your feedback, both in the original post and in this one, it seems to me you did not read what I wrote. The F-16C development, bug fixing, and tuning is not stopping, and will continue to improve and grow. As I also mentioned to you, bug reports are much better than these lists. I do not agree that the F-16C is in a "sorry state" and I have been flying it a lot with the Sniper as of late, and as I got ready to show it off during the FlightSim Expo. Your 3 points are not missing but may require additional work, bug fixes and tuning. As I said, that is still going on. The module will leave early access as the features are added, but will continue to develop as we move forward and based on available information, both current and anything that is newly found. As an example, the F/A-18C left early access sometime ago; this next update it is receiving Terrain Avoidance Radar Mode.

Some damage model issues have already been reported. If you can't find them in the bugs section, you can make a report with all the needed info and tracks. Thanks.

As we have stated in a number of places now, the Sniper pod and supported software was done for only the Viper; you could not just simply copy and paste it onto another aircraft. Why isn't it going to be on the A-10C? 1) For the above reason, it was always planned for the F-16C and only that. I know most of you guys do your research and even if you look at the implementation of the same pod on two different aircraft, they can work, function or operate very differently. 2) We do not have the information for the pod within the cockpit of the A-10C. We do not have legal accessible documentation on how the pod functions within the cockpit of the A-10C, its possible its identical or close to the Viper, but even if we found out it was, the information is neither available or legal to use at this point in time. I know this doesnt always make sense, especially when we are working on even new aircraft, but it is an issue here. 3) Lets say we resolved 1 and 2, there is a matter of resources and time alloted for such additions, most certainly it would take away from new developments, current projects, etc. While all the A-10C pilots might rejoice, others might be upset to find their favorite project was held up by giving the A-10C another pod that maybe it doesnt really need right now besides being cool to have. But But you guys did a suite update to add new items for the A-10C II update. While we added some cool new items, we did not update the suite software, and the A-10C remains mostly a Suite 3 aircraft. Yes it has newer suite items but we did not do a complete and total suite update on it, the information is simple not available for us to do so. And as most of you know, we have a special relationship with the military and the A-10C and will not step on or risk issues by using things we should not be using. Now, with the news that the A-10Cs might be retired sooner rather than later, maybe we will see more info come to the public, and then maybe down the road we could do more with the aircraft, but right now we just cannot do this to the level we would want to be able to do it. PS the Pilot model is getting close, so that is still coming.

The issue with your list here is that some of these things are core issues, such as refueling, which has nothing to do with the F-16, but 100% a core game issue, as well as Wishlist items that were never promised and tuning/bug fixing. As has been advertised in the Roadmap for a long time, all planned, primary features of the early access version will be available following the next DCS update. While the F-16C is leaving early access, there are still several items being added that are listed in the Roadmap, as well it is a premier title for us, and will continue to be tuned, improved and such. As an example, there is a large Manual update coming next release.

Yes you will, thanks!

I have a number of different offerings from WINWING, full disclosure, they were sent to me for support within DCS. I have had an issue with the stick twisting, but generally it was my own issue with the set screw. I am not saying this is this person's issue, but in my case it was my own issue. I have 2 throttles and both have worked just fine, no sticking. I have adjusted the resistance myself to firm it up a bit, but this is personal preference and I like to tinker. If you want, you could DM me your support info, and I can see if I can help you find more support. I have seen many throttles over different Expos now and never seen such an issue. So if you want, shoot me a DM.

Would love to see more variants of different aircraft in DCS in the future for sure.

So you answered your own question then?

I will ask if this will be adjusted or updated.