Clarification on LANTIRN roadmap item.

[Moonshine]

no, LANTIRN does not have TV mode.

while im not opposed to have LANTIRN modelled correctly and therefore losing the TV mode, in the current state of the FLIR where static map structures etc are significantly brighter than a running vehicle on the FLIR, TV mode is the only one that is actually useful for finding stuff. Losing that before the FLIR is properly done on ground vehicles and objects (or the SNIPER pod is available as alternative) will not do the module any favors.

[DSplayer]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is only about the Viper, the reasoning was the information we have and the references we used, some of which ended up being about the LANTIRN. The reason why we won't keep the LITENING is now that our data was for the LANTIRN we do not have enough info to say the LITENING is modelled correctly. 

This will not affect other modules as those would have the needed information for those Aircraft/systems. 

The Sniper is still planned as well. 

Any chance of keeping the LITENING with its incorrect symbology/modeling but having it restricted with the payload restriction by default while also adding the LANTIRN?

[Furiz]

I'd rather have correct stuff then imaginary stuff.

[Rapierarch]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is only about the Viper, the reasoning was the information we have and the references we used, some of which ended up being about the LANTIRN. The reason why we won't keep the LITENING is now that our data was for the LANTIRN we do not have enough info to say the LITENING is modelled correctly. 

This will not affect other modules as those would have the needed information for those Aircraft/systems. 

This information should have been given first with a little more background info with links to previous forum post before we see a single change about Litening in Viper mini road map. Anyway late but thanks. It would have been way smoother and easier to understand. 

[skywalker22]

31 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I'd rather have correct stuff then imaginary stuff.

I would rather have all 3 pods  

Because all three have been used on Block 50 by USAF.

Edited March 30, 2023 by skywalker22

[Furiz]

1 minute ago, skywalker22 said:

I would rather have all 3 pods  

Because all three have been used on Block 50 by USAF.

 

If that's so all 3 then but no fiction only science

[Ignition]

In the meantime, the mutant of the DCS F-18 is diabolically laughing

[Ignition]

You're telling me an F-16C block 50 from 2007 will use a pod from 1987 in COMBAT?

[Furiz]

17 minutes ago, Ignition said:

You're telling me an F-16C block 50 from 2007 will use a pod from 1987 in COMBAT?

They most likely used Litening II or Sniper XR in 2007 but for Litening ED don't have enough info, so until we get Sniper XR we are stuck with Lantrin.

[Ignition]

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

They most likely used Litening II or Sniper XR in 2007 but for Litening ED don't have enough info, so until we get Sniper XR we are stuck with Lantrin.

So it will be more "real" to use a pod 20 years old in combat than a not so simulated one but more modern. 

What makes you believe the Sinper will be accurate then?

[Krippz]

3 hours ago, Furiz said:

I'd rather have correct stuff then imaginary stuff.

This! It’s just that simple. Thanks to the devs for the willingness to get things right. 

[spec10]

I, and I know I speak for many others, rather have options to create the experience I am looking for instead of being told "this is the new product now, deal with it".

It would not hurt anyone to have both options available until Sniper is available. Have realism where you want it and have compromise where you need it, all up to the user.

Edited March 30, 2023 by spec10

[Ignition]

Why ED don't turn the F-16c Block 50 into a block 40 then, or remove the GPS and convert it into a 90s aircraft? that would be accurate

[spikef22]

6 hours ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

I‘d like to see it added additionally, and then removed when the Sniper pod is available, so we don’t miss out on the LSS function we got to use for the last years. Not to speak of the useful TV mode as FLIR currently is rather unsatisfying or leaves some things to desire.

+1 here I think removing litening would seriously hinder the capabilities of the viper. It should at least be left as an optional capability. My hope is we are least hear some news on sniper soon which is my hunch but JUST having the lantern would well suck for modern Operations 

Edited March 30, 2023 by spikef22

[Fromthedeep]

18 minutes ago, Ignition said:

Why ED don't turn the F-16c Block 50 into a block 40 then, or remove the GPS and convert it into a 90s aircraft? that would be accurate

How would it be accurate? The issue here is that they made a mistake and accidentally implemented LANTIRN symbology and LITENING video. They apparently have no data for the LITENING symbology specifically. That makes sense if whatever reference they are using doesn't clearly describe the pod or they are mixing together separate sources. That doesn't mean other functionality would also be inaccurate.

[Radius]

Capabilities are unimportant.
If the plane can't use the LITENING so be it.

Just a shame they took years to find out, although I've seen people pointing out multiple times the current symbology is correct for a LANTIRN pod not the LITENING.

Also hoping this will push them to tweak the IR model. It's good but it's not tweaked properly, units with the engine on should be hotter, even if they don't move for some time.

[Furiz]

6 minutes ago, Radius said:

Capabilities are unimportant.
If the plane can't use the LITENING so be it.

Exactly this,

they can't choose the time when some info will pop up, but it did pop up and now they are fixing it. Maybe this will push SniperXR towards a sooner implementation. (let's just hope they can do it).

[TobiasA]

What I don't understand is... We have the same pod on the A-10. Which is considered realistic. 

And now we will get LANTIRN from 1987 and get the sniper pod quite a large time later after early access, left with the current IR implementation but without TV mode? Because there is no data to model the pod that has been on the A-10 for years?

Please... I am not against it, but don't leave us with a 30 year old pod for the time being. 

[Radius]

1 minute ago, TobiasA said:

What I don't understand is... We have the same pod on the A-10. Which is considered realistic. 

And now we will get LANTIRN from 1987 and get the sniper pod quite a large time later after early access, left with the current IR implementation but without TV mode? Because there is no data to model the pod that has been on the A-10 for years?

Please... I am not against it, but don't leave us with a 30 year old pod for the time being. 

Nothing to do with data on the pod itself.

All to do with data on implementation of the pod in the plane, and in this very case, reference date for the plane to be able to use said pod.

Maybe in the future they will push this date back. For now I'm happy they're sticking to their plan.

[Wawar]

4 hours ago, Furiz said:

I'd rather have correct stuff then imaginary stuff.

So much. People should be happy to have had a TGP for the past 3 years.

Indeed it's a pity to lose the "HD TGP" ability until Sniper, but it's only a matter of time. 

Capabilities are what they are, pilots must adapt to their systems, not the opposite. 

 

[_SteelFalcon_]

8 minutes ago, Wawar said:

So much. People should be happy to have had a TGP for the past 3 years.

Indeed it's a pity to lose the "HD TGP" ability until Sniper, but it's only a matter of time. 

Capabilities are what they are, pilots must adapt to their systems, not the opposite. 

 

while i do agree with this statement, the current FLIR is less than satisfying and may make the module less attractive driving people away from it. this will make using the LANTIRN even harder since IR is all it can do. the issue will not be the TGP, the issue is that even a nicely modeled LANTIRN will not fix the FLIR issues that are widely reported, ultimately frustrating the user and making this aspect of the F-16, and let's face it, a very large portion of A-G weapon employment in this module, a bad experience further frustrating the user. i'd rather have the pod as it is for the time being (as it did at least make employment of any sort of TGP in the years since the modules release possible) and the LANTIRN additionally.

Edited March 30, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[Wizard_03]

A better solution would be to release sniper first. As the version of the aircraft we have, 07 USAF/ANG viper uses sniper pretty much exclusively. 

Then go back and correct the legacy pod. 

[tdk]

...It made me confused. I'm aware the model of the pod is incorrect, maybe and the UI, but will the TV and FLIR image degrade if they change it back to LANTIRN?

[Moonshine]

Well TV will be fully gone, which is fine and realistic. Dont know how much thst could impact FLIR quality

Edited March 30, 2023 by Moonshine

[TobiasA]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb Radius:

Nothing to do with data on the pod itself.

All to do with data on implementation of the pod in the plane, and in this very case, reference date for the plane to be able to use said pod.

Maybe in the future they will push this date back. For now I'm happy they're sticking to their plan.

Was the original implementation as it is now pure science fiction? Than it should never have been there with the sniper pod being the primary target for development...

Edited March 30, 2023 by TobiasA
forgot "have"