AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod Discussion

[RyanR]

15 minutes ago, antiload said:

I tested the same scenario with the old TGP. I got the same thing, once I boresighted the Mav's in the air, the TGP would not focus on the actual next steerpoint, which is my target SPI. It seems to be locked on the boresight target at the last steerpoint. 

I don't know if I'm doing something wrong. I reset the CZ (never been an issue before). I will add a TRK file in the bugs section once I have time.

THIS IS NOT AN AQ-33 BUG - POSSIBLY A GENERAL TGP BUG.

 

 

I've not had this as a problem. Did you put the TGP back into slave mode (TMS-aft)?

-Ryan

[antiload]

8 minutes ago, RyanR said:

 

 

I've not had this as a problem. Did you put the TGP back into slave mode (TMS-aft)?

-Ryan

Ah,  maybe not. I will check. Thank you for the reply 

[antiload]

4 hours ago, RyanR said:

 

 

I've not had this as a problem. Did you put the TGP back into slave mode (TMS-aft)?

-Ryan

I've retested and still have the issue. I've created a bug report with TRK file in F16 Bugs - Thanks. 

[RogueSpecterGaming]

14 hours ago, Flia said:

Can anyone advise me on how to use the laser for GBU guided bombs with a sniper pod? I haven't been able to switch to L symbol I still only have T on the screen, I can't find it anywhere.  How to switch to laser pointer ?

The laser only works under 8nm. If you fire it outside of that the range will not display the L. Read the manual.

[RogueSpecterGaming]

19 hours ago, YoYo said:

I found next, nice video of ATP with examples quality of the image:

 

You do realize a vast majority of that footage the pod is under 10nm when looking at stuff, right? Here is a better video for you skip the intro go to 0:10. They even talk about how they are only 13n aways. And when they are tracking the F16 they are about 14nm. Im getting pretty good image quality in DCS when using the Sniper and Im using MSAA 2x. Im sure msaa 4x would be even more clear. But I bet a lot of the people in here are using DLSS or FSR or something which just isnt that good and blurs the image a lot. I would stay away from DLSS/FSR usage imo but i know that isnt much of an option for most. Later I will post images of what I am seeing. All the way out to 40nm.
 

 

[YoYo]

2 hours ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

You do realize a vast majority of that footage the pod is under 10nm when looking at stuff, right? Here is a better video for you skip the intro go to 0:10. They even talk about how they are only 13n aways. And when they are tracking the F16 they are about 14nm. Im getting pretty good image quality in DCS when using the Sniper and Im using MSAA 2x. Im sure msaa 4x would be even more clear. But I bet a lot of the people in here are using DLSS or FSR or something which just isnt that good and blurs the image a lot. I would stay away from DLSS/FSR usage imo but i know that isnt much of an option for most. Later I will post images of what I am seeing. All the way out to 40nm.
 

 

You have a lot of comparisons before, it's worth following the thread from the beginning, the video you showed has already been posted here several times, including by me, there's no need to double post unless you have something new.

[YoYo]

4 hours ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

The laser only works under 8nm. If you fire it outside of that the range will not display the L. Read the manual.

This is not direct 8NM and it depends on several other factors in DCS.

Btw. In this case, the letter T means something else. The person asking has already found the answer, and that's not what you're writing.

Edited yesterday at 06:33 AM by YoYo

[Eviscerador]

On 7/24/2025 at 6:02 PM, NineLine said:

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. 

 

Is this a simulator or not? My problem now is not that the Sniper is bad (coming from the Lantirn on the Strike Eagle, it feels like a GREAT improvement) but that the litening is just too good in comparision.

Also, the Litening V4 from razbam has X16 digital zoom where you can watch the face of a Stinger trooper from 25 NM, where all you should be able to see is a smudge.

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, Eviscerador said:

Is this a simulator or not? My problem now is not that the Sniper is bad (coming from the Lantirn on the Strike Eagle, it feels like a GREAT improvement) but that the litening is just too good in comparision.

Also, the Litening V4 from razbam has X16 digital zoom where you can watch the face of a Stinger trooper from 25 NM, where all you should be able to see is a smudge.

I agree, its not the Sniper, its other pods that are not adjusted for time frame. I doubt ATFLIR doesn't lose on image quality when zoomed in back in 2005 (hornet time frame), which is the case now in the hornet.

[RogueSpecterGaming]

9 hours ago, YoYo said:

You have a lot of comparisons before, it's worth following the thread from the beginning, the video you showed has already been posted here several times, including by me, there's no need to double post unless you have something new.

Ive been following it and ya'll still comparing a pod that isn't really Litening pod but a mix of two pods. You either get realism or you dont. You cant really have it both ways unless you ask for a setting where it makes your pod look better than others. That is something I dont think will happen. The Sniper works, looks fantastic, and this is coming from real world experience seeing it in the jet. 

 

8 hours ago, YoYo said:

This is not direct 8NM and it depends on several other factors in DCS.

Btw. In this case, the letter T means something else. The person asking has already found the answer, and that's not what you're writing.

How you gonna reference old material? You do realize the manual was updated with the Sniper pod info right? It is literally noted multiple times that the laser will not work outside of 8nm. The only other things that can effect that range is clouds and dust/fog. And in my tested in the sim the T will not change to L until you are within 8nm of the target. Again, it will change from T to L. And the person asking never got an answer. That is why I answered him. Dont refer to forum posts from literal years ago and not even about the same dang pod. That doesnt make sense to do my guy.

33 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I agree, its not the Sniper, its other pods that are not adjusted for time frame. I doubt ATFLIR doesn't lose on image quality when zoomed in back in 2005 (hornet time frame), which is the case now in the hornet.

This.

[YoYo]

7 minutes ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

And the person asking never got an answer. That is why I answered him. Dont refer to forum posts from literal years ago and not even about the same dang pod. That doesnt make sense to do my guy.

Since you read everything as carefully as this, I have no more questions, lol. I have no idea where you got the range problem from. 8 nm is about 42,000 feet, do you really think he was flying at 50,000? The range of laser for the Lightning and Sniper is the same.

 

12 minutes ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

Ive been following it and ya'll still comparing a pod that isn't really Litening pod but a mix of two pods. You either get realism or you dont. You cant really have it both ways unless you ask for a setting where it makes your pod look better than others. That is something I dont think will happen. The Sniper works, looks fantastic, and this is coming from real world experience seeing it in the jet. 

You're confusing two things. We have Sniper here, which should be a benchmark for the rest of the TGP (or vice versa). If that's the case, then everything else should either be equalized or adjusted accordingly. It can't be that way, since we're talking about simulation, that something is made as a "game version" and something else is how it should be. We either choose one path – game mode, or realistic. not both in the same title. 

The main problem is adjusting all of this now, which I feel is impossible because we're too far along. Perhaps it's not just the ED itself that needs to change some settings for the F-16C and AN/AAQ-28, but also for other modules, and other developers should also do the same with his pods.

[RogueSpecterGaming]

38 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Since you read everything as carefully as this, I have no more questions, lol. I have no idea where you got the range problem from. 8 nm is about 42,000 feet, do you really think he was flying at 50,000? The range of laser for the Lightning and Sniper is the same.

Mmmm that's weird ain't it. You can find that little note on page 414 of the manual by the way. Oh and again on page 403. And some people are new to DCS and he didn't give too much info either. It could've really well have been that he was too far don't you think? Or are you just high and mighty and feel need to make a comment on everything and think you are right? And I've definitely fired the Litening pod laser well out of 8nm and gotten the L for range. I think the farthest I got was like 20nm or so cuz I would always lase the target before dropping GBU-38s. So no, in DCS they do not have the same range. And where did I say he was flying at an altitude of 50K?  8nm Slant range not freaking altitude dude dang. Like who refers to altitude in NM??? lmao

 

38 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Cool I must've missed it in all the nonsense ya'll are talking about. But he never specified which T soooooooo there is that. 

 

38 minutes ago, YoYo said:

You're confusing two things. We have Sniper here, which should be a benchmark for the rest of the TGP (or vice versa). If that's the case, then everything else should either be equalized or adjusted accordingly. It can't be that way, since we're talking about simulation, that something is made as a "game version" and something else is how it should be. We either choose one path – game mode, or realistic. not both in the same title. 

The main problem is adjusting all of this now, which I feel is impossible because we're too far along. Perhaps it's not just the ED itself that needs to change some settings for the F-16C and AN/AAQ-28, but also for other modules, and other developers should also do the same with his pods.

How am I confusing two things? We have a Sniper pod that is actually a sniper pod and not two pods mixed into one. So really the Sniper is the benchmark now, and there is no vice versa about it. Lantirn and Litening into one pod isn't a good comparison to make against a pod that is actually being simulated now. You literally can't compare the "Litening" on the F16 to the sniper because it isn't actually a litening. If it was it would be a Gen I or at best Gen II. But both Litening and Lantirn would have much worse clarity due to the constant need for contrast/brightness adjustments and the fact that the old Litening and especially the Lantirn are horrible at image recovery after a bright flash like that from an explosion, if you consider the year ED would be modelling. The current Litening on the F16 needs to be removed completely and never seen again. And I'm not talking other aircraft, just the F16. Do other aircraft sensors need to meet the standard as well, of course they do. But this thread is not about other aircraft at all.

 

And the whole "We either choose one path – game mode, or realistic. not both in the same title." comment is literally what I am talking about. But you, for some reason, are trying to go another direction. You cannot deny the fact that there are people currently complaining about the two pods and wanting something done to the sniper to make it clearer like the litening. Which again in DCS are completely different altogether. The real-world litening Gen IV and the sniper are more comparable than the sniper and the lantirn are if they were compared together. The "problem" isn't really hard to fix. Just remove the current Litening on the F16 and problem solved. 

[YoYo]

14 hours ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

Mmmm that's weird ain't it. You can find that little note on page 414 of the manual by the way. Oh and again on page 403. And some people are new to DCS and he didn't give too much info either. It could've really well have been that he was too far don't you think? Or are you just high and mighty and feel need to make a comment on everything and think you are right? And I've definitely fired the Litening pod laser well out of 8nm and gotten the L for range. I think the farthest I got was like 20nm or so cuz I would always lase the target before dropping GBU-38s. So no, in DCS they do not have the same range. And where did I say he was flying at an altitude of 50K?  8nm Slant range not freaking altitude dude dang. Like who refers to altitude in NM??? lmao

In this case, it's not, what I've already written about. "T" (as example below) is displayed in the mode I described and which turned out to be the solution. But of course, you can still interpret it in it's own way, I have nothing against it.

Furthermore, no one in their right mind would fire a laser beyond the maximum range of a weapon. So it was logical that the person would be within the weapon's firing range. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be able to use the weapon. Of course, we have something called oblique range, but that usually means that you're 99% sure you're already close enough for the system to allow you to drop the guided weapon. Therefore, we can talk about the altitude above the target (AGL), especially if we're dropping in auto-laser mode with a specific timer rather than manually illuminating the target. Usually these 8-12 seconds mean that we are right on or near the target, so operating AGL is not a mistake here.

Overall, after learning all about the AN/AAQ-33, I now think ED did a great job and it raises the bar for simulation. The only question is what path they will take with the AN/AAQ-28 now. Removing it entirely is definitely out of the question. Many campaigns and missions use it, so it would require a lot of work from different people. Perhaps some restrictions should be introduced, though?

Edited 12 hours ago by YoYo

[Wawar]

Anyway, the current Litening is wrong. Is at best, a placeholder, and it's been 2 years since this was enacted.

2 years ago, ED wanted to do the right thing by replacing Litening with Lantirn full fidelity, and the community put up a barrier, preferring to preserve the module's “performance” at the cost of the module fidelity.

ED settled :



I guess we'll have to wait for the Lantirn to replace the Litening. And I think it's a very good thing that Litening, if it's to remain in the state it's in, will simply be removed or replaced by a pod with a higher level of fidelity.

[WaffenCat]

Hello.

Will the Litening container model be redesigned externally? So that the optics and other things can be seen, like the Sniper?

Especially since this TGP is used on many ED aircraft (and not only), and the model is very old...it spoils the picture a little visually.

I'll add.

Another question about the container indication. Why is the MFD screen not showing the waypoint when we search for a target using the TGP? (on the page of the container itself)

[jojojung]

The thing is, realism standard hast to bei priority for all the modules. Same thing with Maverick alignment for years. I can not be the case that only for the F16 the systems are simulated and the rest is about guessing thing could be right. 

Litning needs to be downgrade for all the modules. 

[YoYo]

3 hours ago, Wawar said:

Anyway, the current Litening is wrong. Is at best, a placeholder, and it's been 2 years since this was enacted.

2 years ago, ED wanted to do the right thing by replacing Litening with Lantirn full fidelity, and the community put up a barrier, preferring to preserve the module's “performance” at the cost of the module fidelity.

ED settled :



I guess we'll have to wait for the Lantirn to replace the Litening. And I think it's a very good thing that Litening, if it's to remain in the state it's in, will simply be removed or replaced by a pod with a higher level of fidelity.

Nice found :)!

[antiload]

2 hours ago, jojojung said:

The thing is, realism standard hast to bei priority for all the modules. Same thing with Maverick alignment for years. I can not be the case that only for the F16 the systems are simulated and the rest is about guessing thing could be right. 

Litning needs to be downgrade for all the modules. 

I'm an older gamer NOT a jet pilot with 20/20 vision. We require a sensible balance between supposed reality and best guess with a bit of artistic licence. Don't be nurfing anything. 

[jojojung]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb antiload:

I'm an older gamer NOT a jet pilot with 20/20 vision. We require a sensible balance between supposed reality and best guess with a bit of artistic licence. Don't be nurfing anything. 

I understand your Point but this is not my opion. Its a simulation. I find it hard to tune things up to compensate anything. But think the zoom option is your way to go. IRL the pod would not be so bad, that anybody can't see a target in the mfd. But it is not cystal clear when you have digital zoomed in max. 

[antiload]

24 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I understand your Point but this is not my opion. Its a simulation. I find it hard to tune things up to compensate anything. But think the zoom option is your way to go. IRL the pod would not be so bad, that anybody can't see a target in the mfd. But it is not cystal clear when you have digital zoomed in max. 

Apologies for going off topic but this is an interesting deviation.

I understand your need to have a simulation of combat aircraft. However, DCS isn't simulating this. It does it's best to get a 'realistic representation. However, even with 'study level' aircraft some systems are not simulated because of technical capabilities or military/commercial secrecy. Therefore, in my opinion the blanks need to be filled in anyway, or you are not getting an aircraft near the functioning aircraft real pilots fly in real life.  Take the recent announcement of ED's F35. It can only really be an educated guess as to its RCS. Equally ED have to take the same educated guess on how some smart weapons are programmed and work. 

I've long stopped calling for a simulation and instead I'm calling for a realistic combat flight game. That I can enjoy, that's complicated enough to engage with but doesn't feel like its a place of work either, with all that entails. 

[BIGNEWY]

Folks this thread is starting to go off topic now. 

But as a reminder DCS will always try to be as real as possible, but we can only use public, unrestricted and unclassified data. DCS is for entertainment purposes. 

thank you