AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod Discussion

[Tom Kazansky]

Litening = game

Sniper = simulation

?

 

[giullep]

I think that if the sniper is how is simulated and different from the litening is because is properly wanted and simulated: iIf it were a real device, we might think it could have problems but but if it was done like this I think that's exactly how it should be..or not?

[YoYo]

Ruining Lightning now to make Sniper looks better seem pointless. This is not the way. Following this path, we should also repair every optical system we have in DCS, not only for the F-16 (it will take not weeks, months but years perhaps). 

In my opinion, ED should just deal with Sniper and either eliminate or at least halve the current blur that is taking place and that will solve the issue. The current image (not XR) is simply exaggerated, and sorry – I have a better one on my phone (CCV). It doesn't look that bad IRL. As I said, I know the opinion of a pilot who used Sniper and never mentioned to me that the image was that blurry. In fact, he praised the sharpness, saying he could read the headline of a newspaper held in man's hands. 

Currently, you can't find a free target in a given area without a specific SP, IP, MP, or TP (not even mentioning a single soldier). It shouldn't work that way. The snow plow option is also useless. It's important to remember that in real life, MFDs are quite small, just like in DCS. This means that the high resolution of the AN/AAQ-33 image (min. HD, newer FHD) produces quite high sharpness, even in blurry images, and this, I feel, has been overlooked. The effect on the human eye is a relatively sharp image, which is not the case here (despite the blur, resolution solves the problem here).

I think they should have reached a middle ground with their decision, reducing the blur by 50% (or even more, so that the targets can be identified at some level also in the basic modes). That would be both realistic and reasonable for a simulator. Of course, Im grateful for the introduction of AN/AAQ-33 ATP for F-16 but I think the image quality should be improved here definitely. That shouldn't be the case and as the newer TGP it seems of little use, and it should be the best of everything we have, even at the expense of realism (though, as I emphasize, this is a very debatable issue for me), so that it doesn't deviate significantly from what we currently have, because it breaks the immersion, and people will still choose the AN/AAQ-28 because it is more useful in terms of image quality. So, in the end, it will turn out that this change did little for the user.

No XR image (sharp picture, check the moon):

Another option and solution might be to make some changes, such as increasing the resolution. This option hasn't been touched for ages, so could that also be a solution? (just idea):

Edited Thursday at 09:11 AM by YoYo

[TobiasA]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Tom Kazansky:

Litening = game

Sniper = simulation

?

 

Probably yes. Although I doubt that the ATP is that bad. Just compare real life footage with DCS. TV is close but IR... seems to be way better in real life.

https://youtu.be/Yi9d8bstWsE?si=xsD2N_l0j_Yc6pMJ

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

Probably yes. Although I doubt that the ATP is that bad. Just compare real life footage with DCS. TV is close but IR... seems to be way better in real life.

https://youtu.be/Yi9d8bstWsE?si=xsD2N_l0j_Yc6pMJ

This video isn't a good example; I've already written about this. It's stretched and compressed, though it's still clearer. Regarding IR, the DCS topic is still in development and not finished. Some vehicles are still black even though they're moving. Unfortunately, new textures haven't been implemented in DCS everywhere, and there's still a long way to go.

[TobiasA]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb YoYo:

This video isn't a good example; I've already written about this. It's stretched and compressed, though it's still clearer. Regarding IR, the DCS topic is still in development and not finished. Some vehicles are still black even though they're moving. Unfortunately, new textures haven't been implemented in DCS everywhere, and there's still a long way to go.

Yes, but even if it is stretched and compressed, it is still clearer. 

And the IR textures are a different thing, I fully agree. There are bushes being brighter than a truck when the sun sets.

[YoYo]

1 minute ago, TobiasA said:

Yes, but even if it is stretched and compressed, it is still clearer. 

Agree, this is what I wrote :).

Btw. I already have the contact for an active pilot who uses the Sniper (F-16C Block 52+ and FA-50). As soon as we can talk, I'll get back to you with the focus issue.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

This video isn't a good example

Yeah you said this video is 11 years old etc... but you forget that our F-16 is 18 years old. If you have 18 years old video we would love to see it.

Not defending ED here, I'd love more detailed pic but I would rather have realism.

 

Images you posted earlier have no date on them or they do?

 

I hope you understand that for your claims you need to have some concrete evidence not just hear say from some guy you said is a pilot, who is actually active pilot and uses sniper pod right so he never saw a sniper pod version from 18 years ago.

Just getting some facts out in the open from what you type here.

[szymixzmb]

I did myself a comparison and I do not see any error here, very accurate simulation. There are of course scenarios we cannot compare due to lack of reference material.

[Flia]

Sorry for the stupid question but will the F-18 also get the new simulated TGP ? Like the ATP for the F-16?

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Flia said:

Sorry for the stupid question but will the F-18 also get the new simulated TGP ? Like the ATP for the F-16?

Hi, no, it would not be correct for the F/A-18C we have modelled. 

thank you 

[Flia]

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, no, it would not be correct for the F/A-18C we have modelled. 

thank you 

Aha. I see. thx

[RyanR]

I forget: how are the TGP's on the F-15E and Hornet compared to the Viper's (unrealistic) Litening pod?

I got more comfortable with the ATP last night. It's pretty good. I think a big part of getting used to it isn't so much the "blur/focus" but rather that the FOV options are more limited than the ol' Litening pod. The discontinuous "zoom" makes takes some getting used to.  

As it is, the ATP does pretty good at what the old pod did. There are still some hiccups with MT mode in A-A and A-G. I'm sure ED will sort them out soon. Someone once told me that it's really hard to program things to not be perfect. The Litening pod, is "perfect". The ATP attempts to simulate reality which is not computer-perfect. Once the ATP gets sorted out, mission designers can restrict the use of the old pod. It'll be fine.

-Ryan

BTW, the new, outlined font is terrific!!

-Ryan

[EchoOneOne]

4 minutes ago, RyanR said:

I forget: how are the TGP's on the F-15E and Hornet compared to the Viper's (unrealistic) Litening pod?

I got more comfortable with the ATP last night. It's pretty good. I think a big part of getting used to it isn't so much the "blur/focus" but rather that the FOV options are more limited than the ol' Litening pod. The discontinuous "zoom" makes takes some getting used to.  

As it is, the ATP does pretty good at what the old pod did. There are still some hiccups with MT mode in A-A and A-G. I'm sure ED will sort them out soon. Someone once told me that it's really hard to program things to not be perfect. The Litening pod, is "perfect". The ATP attempts to simulate reality which is not computer-perfect. Once the ATP gets sorted out, mission designers can restrict the use of the old pod. It'll be fine.

-Ryan

BTW, the new, outlined font is terrific!!

-Ryan

The font looks terrific because they used wrong references. Any video recorded by onboard AVTR/HI-8 tape recorded will have stretched interface.

Edited Thursday at 03:29 PM by EchoOneOne

[YoYo]

3 hours ago, Furiz said:

I hope you understand that for your claims you need to have some concrete evidence not just hear say from some guy you said is a pilot, who is actually active pilot and uses sniper pod right so he never saw a sniper pod version from 18 years ago.

He has been flying the F-16C since 2010 and is currently an instructor. He has flown two versions of the Sniper during that time. So there is nothing extraordinary or strange here.

Following the path we have, we should be consistent. The human eye is deceived in the game, and certain things need to be adjusted accordingly. It's like the color black. In real life, something that is black in the game must have a different texture. It's a trick that will achieve the effect of realism. So, if the AN/AAQ-28 is so great, the AN/AAQ-33 should be even better in terms of optics, which is true. So either we go that route and look for a compromise (like a black texture), or we ruin the AN/AAQ-28 and all other systems.

[Beirut]

On 7/18/2025 at 4:27 PM, NineLine said:

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 downgrade 

 

A lot of us DCS-types aren't 21 anymore cough... so a little clarity on the MFD, even if a touch enhanced, is sometimes welcome. 

 

Or maybe you could put an option in the graphics settings menu for Gen Z, Millennial, and Boomer.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

A lot of us DCS-types aren't 21 anymore cough... so a little clarity on the MFD, even if a touch enhanced, is sometimes welcome. 

 

Or maybe you could put an option in the graphics settings menu for Gen Z, Millennial, and Boomer.

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. 

 

[YoYo]

+1 good news :). Thanks .

[Tom Kazansky]

Maybe the Litening could be adjusted to its real quality in steps, so the pain is reduced a bit.

If the display quality difference between current Litening and Sniper does not change, there will be those discussions for decades.

[RyanR]

13 minutes ago, Beirut said:

A lot of us DCS-types aren't 21 anymore cough... so a little clarity on the MFD, even if a touch enhanced, is sometimes welcome.

 

LOL.  DCS makes me appreciate why fighter pilots can't wear progressive lenses.

Sigh....

-Ryan

1 minute ago, Tom Kazansky said:

Maybe the Litening could be adjusted to its real quality in steps, so the pain is reduced a bit.

If the display quality difference between current Litening and Sniper does not change, there will be those discussions for decades.

Or they should just call the Litening the "Early-Access pod". 

-Ryan

[felixx75]

2 hours ago, 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. 

 

If there should be an option that regulates the degree of "realism" of the Lightning, this option should be integrated in the mission editor. This way, everyone can fly their own missions as they wish, but on MP servers everyone would have the same standards.

The "option" should be "improved (current) quality" and the default setting should then be "realistic quality".

Edited Thursday at 06:17 PM by felixx75

[Nedum]

4 hours ago, szymixzmb said:

I did myself a comparison and I do not see any error here, very accurate simulation. There are of course scenarios we cannot compare due to lack of reference material.

I think you are showing exactly the opposite with your comparison pictures.
1. the video of the original you are referring to is very heavily compressed.
You can see this very clearly if you look at the overlay. It definitely doesn't show the sharpness of a 720p video, and I'd wager not even 320p
2. In the last row, you've put the original on the right-hand side.
Here the overlay is almost as sharp as in DCS and you can clearly see how bad the picture of DCS Sniper Pod is in comparison.
The aliasing alone should scare anyone.
3. if you look closely at both PIP images, you will notice that everything in the PIP of the original is the same size as everything around it.
The image of the DCS Sniper Pod changes the size massively.
The buildings there are smaller, but the fine structures are almost twice as thick.

It looks to me as if the heavy compression from the original video was not taken into account when developing the DCS Sniper Pod.
And something else doesn't seem to have been considered.
The cameras in the original Sniper Pod are !!! not!!! digital. They are analog.
With the same "resolution", an analog camera will always be able to display a much more detailed image.
I hope the sharpness of the image and the details are adapted to this fact.
If not, one have really missed the mark.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:08 PM by Nedum

[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!

[szymixzmb]

18 minutes ago, Nedum said:

I think you are showing exactly the opposite with your comparison pictures.
1. the video of the original you are referring to is very heavily compressed.
You can see this very clearly if you look at the overlay. It definitely doesn't show the sharpness of a 720p video, and I'd wager not even 320p
2. In the last row, you've put the original on the right-hand side.
Here the overlay is almost as sharp as in DCS and you can clearly see how bad the picture of DCS Sniper Pod is in comparison.
The aliasing alone should scare anyone.
3. if you look closely at both PIP images, you will notice that everything in the PIP of the original is the same size as everything around it.
The image of the DCS Sniper Pod changes the size massively.
The buildings there are smaller, but the fine structures are almost twice as thick.

It looks to me as if the heavy compression from the original video was not taken into account when developing the DCS Sniper Pod.
And something else doesn't seem to have been considered.
The cameras in the original Sniper Pod are !!! not!!! digital. They are analog.
With the same "resolution", an analog camera will always be able to display a much more detailed image.
I hope the sharpness of the image and the details are adapted to this fact.
If not, one have really missed the mark.

 

@Nedum Good points, I compared to what I could, makes sense with compressed video however if it's not compressed I do not think it will change the quality massively. If you take a look at Naro X4 at original, you can see how blurry the picture is, to be honest in that case DCS picture looks better but maybe it's because of the contrast.

I totally agree with aliasing that should be corrected and a different way of making picture worse should be found like grain effect for example.

[RyanR]

34 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

If there should be an option that regulates the degree of "realism" of the Lightning, this option should be integrated in the mission editor. This way, everyone can fly their own missions as they wish, but on MP servers everyone would have the same standards.

The "option" should be "improved (current) quality" and the default setting should then be "realistic quality".

Once the ATP is more finalized/betterized, mission designers can just limit the Litening pod entirely from the allowed ordnance. As it is, the ATP is probably real close to that point. 

-Ryan