Targeting Pod Choice

[NineLine]

16 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Where's the accuracy then? A-10 has the LITENING. Isn't the pod data the same? Or was that also interpolated?
Why choose the Blk50 is they cant make it accurate? Seems the cart was placed before the cart and like the 4 HARMs and Triple AGM-65 racks, they'll once again back pedal on accuracy because they planned poorly. 

Although both Litening pods, they differ greatly due to different mission computers. We have great information the A-10C Litening but not for the F-16C Litening that has a very different MC. We chose the Block 50 because that is the version with the most available information. During the course of development though, we will discover new information and we are not against altering plans to create a more accurate simulation.

[ST0RM]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

 During the course of development though, we will discover new information and we are not against altering plans to create a more accurate simulation.

I understand this, but my point is that by 2007, LANTIRN was phasing out with the USAF F-16s. And even more so with the Blk50s. They had just gone and continued through CCIP which brought them in line with the strike compatibility of the Blk40/42, alongside the SEAD role. And in combat, it wasnt carried in theater. And isn't this where you're trying to model? The combat environment?
So I'm trying to say that while it's easier for you to revert it back to LANTIRN, it wouldn't be the most accurate representation. But I feel the decision has already been made. 

[NineLine]

LANTIRN was used by most USAF units in 2007. It was not until the later 5.2 OFP that Litening support added. Ours is a 4.2 jet. 

[Scott-S6]

A few special options could go a long way to reducing these inconsistencies for people that find them incongruous. 

For example, the mav boresighting. It's cool that it's modelled on the viper but it is also kind of a hassle, one which other aircraft don't have. Adding a special option to start with mavs boresighted would be a useful convenience.

[Blinky.ben]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

LANTIRN was used by most USAF units in 2007. It was not until the later 5.2 OFP that Litening support added. Ours is a 4.2 jet. 

Open-source information and through the help with USAF members in the community about the Lantirn is that they tested the Lantirn on the F-16B’s, once approved the F-16C squadrons being blk30/32 40/42 used the Lantirn in the USAF in that time period. There was also a difference between the blk 40's and 42's also, one only carried half the system while the other got the full system mostly due to the war HUD from my understanding. A F-16 engineer for blk 50 said they did not use Lantirns because they mostly had the SEAD role and only used more capable TGP’s, earlier days with litening being lighter and cheaper for SEAD missions which integrated better with the HTS (not one person can speak for all squadrons tho, I’ll give you that), in the end they flew almost exclusively with sniper pods. Creek blk 50’s used the Lantirn unless ED is talking about the Lantirn ER but I know nothing about it, there was a training unit that used the Lantirn in the USAF I have a very lost memory they were blk 50’s but I wouldn’t expect that to be an indication on standard equipment. I 100% am aware I am not a reliable source for information here but I cannot find anywhere that blk 50's in the USAF frontline squadrons used the Lantirn. As do the members in “the viper crew” community helping me out here which is run entirely of F-16 pilots, F-16 ground staff and engineers.

I also found through my travels that the litening was mostly integrated with a Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) which quoted by the program development officer all F-16C blk 50's had commenced their transition in 2002 which also included the full integration of the sniper XR targeting pod,  F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference. someone smarter than me could expand more on this.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Blinky.ben

[Blinky.ben]

however this has got a little off track, as this post wasn't meant to be about the TGP but just to see if there was a standard between the modules which you have answered. however, one last question for you @NineLine is the plan to implement the 2000+ version of the Lantrin? if it is it sounds like there will be next to no difference between the image and zoom quality anyway.

 

the 2000 upgrade

• A quantum well, third-generation FliR sensor;
• A 40,000-foot altitude, diode-pumped laser;
• A more compact, more powerful computer system.

2000+ upgrade

• A laser spot tracker to improve target identification and limit collateral damage.
• A digital disk recorder for battle damage assessment and reconnaissance mission support;
• An automatic target recognition system to reduce pilot workload by classifying high-priority targets;
• A TV sensor, which has been successfully tested and flown, provides added capability around the clock.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Blinky.ben

[Comrade Doge]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

LANTIRN was used by most USAF units in 2007. It was not until the later 5.2 OFP that Litening support added. Ours is a 4.2 jet. 

5.2 OFP added support for LITENING AT. But DCS has LITENING II.

[ST0RM]

I'll just leave this right here. One of thousands of photos I took during my deployments. 
F-16CJ from the 13th EFS over Iraq, 2007. Carrying LITENING! Even the ANG BLk30s were carrying LITENING.
So here's my thoughts. You're not solely using USAF docs, but instead, using data from the Greeks and Turks to fill in gaps. Hence the LANTIRN. 
 

[SickSidewinder9]

2 hours ago, ST0RM said:

I'll just leave this right here. One of thousands of photos I took during my deployments. 
F-16CJ from the 13th EFS over Iraq, 2007. Carrying LITENING! Even the ANG BLk30s were carrying LITENING.
So here's my thoughts. You're not solely using USAF docs, but instead, using data from the Greeks and Turks to fill in gaps. Hence the LANTIRN. 
 

Sick

[Wags]

Dear all,

If I might stick my nose in on this:

We hear you and understand why you wish to retain the currently modeled TGP However, for the following reason, we’ll later (no time frame) adjust it to be an accurate LANTIRN TGP.

• Due to some incorrectly labeled videos and bad SME feedback, we made an earlier mistake of believing our modeled TGP was a Litening. We were wrong. Despite some initial resistance by us, we eventually agreed with your feedback that we were in fact mostly simulating a LANTIRN TGP. In fact, you all did a great job finding images and references of Block 50s sporting LANTIRN. These partly made us reconsider our stance on this. Thank you.
• We are doing our very best to model a USAF F-16C Block 50 using 4.2+ OFP. We chose this specifically due to the availability of documentation that we can cite if needed (very important in these times of sensitive information being leaked and resulting investigations). All our available TGP data is limited to LANTIRN and Sniper ATP.
• Even if we could confidently verify Litening TGP for an OFP 4.2+ F-16C (not secondhand accountings), we have zero reference data for this TGP that we could cite. Anything we put into our simulation must have supporting evidence that we can point to.
• As mentioned earlier, we still plan to add Sniper ATP. We have good and citable reference data for this, unlike Litening.
• If at a later point we come across Litening TGP data for OFP 4.2+ or earlier that is complete and citable, we’ll most certainly consider it.

Kind regards,

Wags

[S]

With Wags making a post in the thread regarding LITENING vs LANTIRN and saying LITENING is definitely being removed, I have a few questions about the way this is going to shake out. Here's the post for reference:

Quote

Dear all,

If I might stick my nose in on this:

We hear you and understand why you wish to retain the currently modeled TGP However, for the following reason, we’ll later (no time frame) adjust it to be an accurate LANTIRN TGP.

• Due to some incorrectly labeled videos and bad SME feedback, we made an earlier mistake of believing our modeled TGP was a Litening. We were wrong. Despite some initial resistance by us, we eventually agreed with your feedback that we were in fact mostly simulating a LANTIRN TGP. In fact, you all did a great job finding images and references of Block 50s sporting LANTIRN. These partly made us reconsider our stance on this. Thank you.
• We are doing our very best to model a USAF F-16C Block 50 using 4.2+ OFP. We chose this specifically due to the availability of documentation that we can cite if needed (very important in these times of sensitive information being leaked and resulting investigations). All our available TGP data is limited to LANTIRN and Sniper ATP.
• Even if we could confidently verify Litening TGP for an OFP 4.2+ F-16C (not secondhand accountings), we have zero reference data for this TGP that we could cite. Anything we put into our simulation must have supporting evidence that we can point to.
• As mentioned earlier, we still plan to add Sniper ATP. We have good and citable reference data for this, unlike Litening.
• If at a later point we come across Litening TGP data for OFP 4.2+ or earlier that is complete and citable, we’ll most certainly consider it.

Kind regards,

Wags

Everyone currently flying the Viper is familiar with the way the LITENING TGP is currently implemented, and losing the TV part will definitely be a pain point - especially for those of us running VR systems where things are already hard to see (yes, I have a low-end VR set...). 

So, here are my questions:

1. In light of ED giving us the LITENING TGP for so long and letting us get used to using it 'operationally', will you guys consider waiting to make the change until we have the SNIPER pod?
2. Is putting the LANTIRN pod on the Viper going to take development resources away from the SNIPER pod?
3. I saw a lot of posts in the thread Wags posted in from ED people saying that the data you guys have and the SMEs all said LITENING was correct - in light of your SMEs (who were referenced as real-world Viper pilots) being so terribly wrong about this, are you guys going to go over the Viper with a fine-tooth comb and make sure all of your flight model data, etc is correct as well?

[Wags]

Dear Sir,

1. As mentioned, there is no time frame for this change. Given we have much higher priorities, it would not be anytime soon. We simply wanted to provide a heads up for all those noting TGP implementation discrepancies earlier.
2. No, not really.
3. When provided with sufficient evidence, we are always open to reconsider implementations. However, in the case of the FM/FLCS, such evidence has not been provided. Let’s keep on topic though, please.

Kind regards,

Wags

[Furiz]

37 minutes ago, Wags said:

Sniper ATP

Hi,

Wasn't it Sniper XR? Or that's the same, if not is this is changed now too?

As far as I can find 2007 F-16 had Sniper XR pods.

[Wags]

Dear Sir,

Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) is a general term for the Sniper TGP that includes the XR per 4.2+ that is planned.

Kind regards,

Wags

[Blinky.ben]

10 hours ago, Blinky.ben said:

however this has got a little off track, as this post wasn't meant to be about the TGP but just to see if there was a standard between the modules which you have answered. however, one last question for you @NineLine is the plan to implement the 2000+ version of the Lantrin? if it is it sounds like there will be next to no difference between the image and zoom quality anyway.

 

the 2000 upgrade

• A quantum well, third-generation FliR sensor;
• A 40,000-foot altitude, diode-pumped laser;
• A more compact, more powerful computer system.

2000+ upgrade

• A laser spot tracker to improve target identification and limit collateral damage.
• A digital disk recorder for battle damage assessment and reconnaissance mission support;
• An automatic target recognition system to reduce pilot workload by classifying high-priority targets;
• A TV sensor, which has been successfully tested and flown, provides added capability around the clock.

 

@Wags does ED know if the Lantirn will be a 2000 upgrade or 2000+ version?

Edited April 22, 2023 by Blinky.ben

[llOPPOTATOll]

1 hour ago, Blinky.ben said:

@Wags does ED know if the Lantirn will be a 2000 upgrade or 2000+ version?

 

The LANTIRN used by the viper in 2007 had a laser limit of 25K so no.

[S]

9 hours ago, Wags said:

Dear Sir,

1. As mentioned, there is no time frame for this change. Given we have much higher priorities, it would not be anytime soon. We simply wanted to provide a heads up for all those noting TGP implementation discrepancies earlier.
2. No, not really.
3. When provided with sufficient evidence, we are always open to reconsider implementations. However, in the case of the FM/FLCS, such evidence has not been provided. Let’s keep on topic though, please.

Kind regards,

Wags

Thanks for the answers, Wags.

Your answers brought up a couple more questions.

1. I know you don't have a timeline for the change, but have there been any discussions about dropping the LITENING when the SNIPER is available, or is that completely in the air?
2. I think you may have missed my question in #3 - knowing that at least one major part of the jet (LITENING) was wrong, and the SMEs said it was right, shouldn't ED go back over everything and make sure it's right instead of relying on the community to 'prove' things are wrong? My original question wasn't restricted to the FM/FLCS - I just brought that up because we've been having issues with the jet's performance envelope likely tied to G-effects on the pilot. 

Also, just to make sure everyone was aware, I made this post as a standalone thread because I didn't want to go off-topic. A moderator merged the thread with this one, which is rather inconvenient.

[bukizzzz]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:18 PM, Wags said:

Dear all,

If I might stick my nose in on this:

We hear you and understand why you wish to retain the currently modeled TGP

Dear Wags and ED,

I appreciate your commitment to realism.

However, when I paid the price for a full fidelity F16C bl. 50 dated to 2007, in your own description the module included a Litening II pod. In the case that you erase the modern pod and leave us with a 40 year old pod instead - I and many others in this thread and in the one NineLine rudely locked would like a refund. I'd much rather pay for a JF17 that is accurately modeled as a mashup of 3 different blocks than an F16 that promises modern equipment but delivers with 40 year old pods and functionality. At least the JF17 developers are honest about what they are selling for 79.99

Edited April 23, 2023 by bukizzzz

[Gierasimov]

54 minutes ago, bukizzzz said:

Dear Wags and ED,

I appreciate your commitment to realism.

However, when I paid the price for a full fidelity F16C bl. 50 dated to 2007, in your own description the module included a Litening II pod. In the case that you erase the modern pod and leave us with a 40 year old pod instead - I and many others in this thread and in the one NineLine rudely locked would like a refund. I'd much rather pay for a JF17 that is accurately modeled as a mashup of 3 different blocks than an F16 that promises modern equipment but delivers with 40 year old pods and functionality. At least the JF17 developers are honest about what they are selling for 79.99

 

Sniper pod not good then? 

[bukizzzz]

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

Sniper pod not good then? 

I'll reconsider my purchase when ED releases the Sniper Pod

[S]

4 hours ago, bukizzzz said:

Dear Wags and ED,

I appreciate your commitment to realism.

However, when I paid the price for a full fidelity F16C bl. 50 dated to 2007, in your own description the module included a Litening II pod. In the case that you erase the modern pod and leave us with a 40 year old pod instead - I and many others in this thread and in the one NineLine rudely locked would like a refund. I'd much rather pay for a JF17 that is accurately modeled as a mashup of 3 different blocks than an F16 that promises modern equipment but delivers with 40 year old pods and functionality. At least the JF17 developers are honest about what they are selling for 79.99

 

This is kinda what I was getting at when I asked if they plan to wait until SNIPER is implemented to remove LITENING. I'll definitely be upset if they take away capabilities (as realistic or not as that may be) after giving us the LITENING and telling us for so long that it was correct and they had data from SMEs, etc.

I'm really concerned that they kept telling us for so long that the community was wrong because they had SMEs and manuals that we don't and then they all of a sudden completely change tact and say they don't have enough data to say the implementation of LITENING is right. So what were they looking at all that time? Why were their SMEs telling them it was correct? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with more choices, but don't limit what I can do with my jet in the mean time over concerns about 'realism' when you messed it up so much in the first place. It's not like we're getting something the jet can't actually do - just some of the pages aren't quite right (potentially), right?

Also, why were they fine with having the F-16 not able to utilize the KNOWN 9G capabilities for so long, especially since people have been complaining about that for a while?

[wilbur81]

5 hours ago, bukizzzz said:

...many others...

Nonsense.

[Geraki]

Since the LANTIRN system will provided officially in DCS F-16 OFP 4.2 Viper then the TFR and FLIR capability must implemented too.

The LANTIRN pod consist off AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod  and AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANTIRN

[Furiz]

On 4/23/2023 at 9:11 PM, bukizzzz said:

Dear Wags and ED,

I appreciate your commitment to realism.

However, when I paid the price for a full fidelity F16C bl. 50 dated to 2007, in your own description the module included a Litening II pod. In the case that you erase the modern pod and leave us with a 40 year old pod instead - I and many others in this thread and in the one NineLine rudely locked would like a refund. I'd much rather pay for a JF17 that is accurately modeled as a mashup of 3 different blocks than an F16 that promises modern equipment but delivers with 40 year old pods and functionality. At least the JF17 developers are honest about what they are selling for 79.99

 

The product is not finished which means there are more items and features to be added, Lantirn that we had all along is gonna get renamed to, imagine that, Lantirn, and because Lantirn didn't have TV mode back then it is gonna be removed so we have more accurate representation of the pod in use. So you will have all this except TV. They sill didn't say which Lantirn are we getting that means we don't know if its gonna be 40 years old, how did you get that assumption?

furthermore Sniper XR is gonna be added after Early Access.

 

So if you look at all the facts:

 - We get accurate representation of the pod in question, not a mashup of 2 pods.

 - Later on we get SniperXR, a modern pod.

 - No point in bringing Litening when there is almost no info on it.

 - ED is trying to give us the best representation of the F-16 that they can, and they are correcting stuff that has been implemented wrong (which is even more work) which is, in my opinion, very good, and I'm thankful for it.

 

So basically you are complaining that they are being too accurate in their representation.

You'd rather fly an imaginary plane like Jeff? which is a mashup of 3 blocks, as you said. (I have no idea, I don't fly it)

So fly it, if you like to be in a fantasy jet.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Furiz

[NineLine]

Dear all,

It has been decided that we will release the Sniper TGP before creating an accurate LANTIRN pod to replace the existing Litening TGP. This means that the Litening TGP will remain in its current form until after the delivery of the Sniper TGP. We believe this will be a more popular approach for our customers as no capability will be lost prior to the release of the Sniper TGP. 

As mentioned earlier, we are currently unable to include an accurate Litening TGP given the lack of non-controlled, public reference data. If this changes in the future, we’ll certainly consider adding the Litening back.

Thanks for your patience and understanding and we look forward to continuing to bring you the most accurate F-16C possible.

The ED Team