Clarification on LANTIRN roadmap item.

[AlexCaboose]

The current implementation is wrong anyway. EO and IR shouldn’t have the same level of zoom to the best of my knowledge given they’re different sensors with different capabilities.

 

 The implantation should be whatever is most correct, whether or not it adds or removes features. It’s a simulator and should reflect an accurate simulation of the capabilities.

[NeedzWD40]

Do we know if the LANTIRN variant will be the original or one of the upgraded variants? I've seen some references to a LANTIRN-2000 and LANTIRN ER, with some pods upgraded with a CCD TV capability. I am uncertain if the USAF upgraded to these variants and whether a 2007 F-16C would be utilizing them.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2006-11-14-Lockheed-Martins-LANTIRN-Extended-Range-Pod-Selected-by-the-Royal-Denmark-Air-Force

Edited March 30, 2023 by NeedzWD40

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, Radius said:

A relief the numbers increment in the right fashion indeed.

I don't think this is off topic, as the LANTIRN should have quite some digital zoom pîxelisation at its narrowest zoom level.
I hope this is simulated. Drawbacks of the sensors are as important as features are. And since there is precedent in the F-14B, it would be a very bad look if ED's take was too perfect.

 

If the quality will be the same as in the F-14 then ED is making a huge mistake removing the actual LITENING. You can't expect to have such quality in 2007. It was a bad quality even for the 90s. There wasn't anything else back then though.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Ignition

[TobiasA]

vor 1 Minute schrieb NineLine:

Oh no, I think the pod will be better than it is now from what I am seeing them working on, I mean TV I personally do not use much. 

I used it a lot when the FLIR was not really usable, but nowadays I fully agree. A good FLIR is almost as good as TV. I still have trouble seeing some units that I only see when switching to TV, but I think that'll get sorted.

[Furiz]

25 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Do we know if the LANTIRN variant will be the original or one of the upgraded variants? I've seen some references to a LANTIRN-2000 and LANTIRN ER, with some pods upgraded with a CCD TV capability. I am uncertain if the USAF upgraded to these variants and whether a 2007 F-16C would be utilizing them.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2006-11-14-Lockheed-Martins-LANTIRN-Extended-Range-Pod-Selected-by-the-Royal-Denmark-Air-Force

 

I don't think we will get Export variant, I've only heard about Lantrin 2000+ but no idea what the image looks like on it or does it have CCD TV etc

 

Edit: info here - https://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article2.html

Edited March 30, 2023 by Furiz

[NeedzWD40]

2 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I've only heard about Lantrin 2000+ but no idea what the image looks like on it or does it have CCD TV etc

 

Edit: info here - https://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article2.html

That source indicates the 2000+ added CCD TV and LST among other features. I've seen other references that say the 2000 was introduced in '98, so it's possible the 2000+ was introduced a couple years later. Whether or not the USAF bought into them is another question.

[jojojung]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb skywalker22:

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

[evilnate]

I hope lightening pod remains option until sniper pod is available. Real potential here to ruin loyal DCS customers experience.

If people would rather use lantirn and not lightening, let them make that choice.

Edited March 30, 2023 by evilnate

[skywalker22]

1 hour ago, jojojung said:

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

In a way, we can be happy, right? So we as F-16 pilots get the best and the fastest

I will take what ED will do, there is just nothing much we can do about it - its their game, and their choice. And btw, they listen us quite a lot, so we will be heard, no worries.

[spikef22]

Well one caveot I think that needs to be mentioned is how far off is this actual implementation? From the sounds of it ED still has plenty of work to do on that pod And even then if ED are willing to do large amounts of work on the vipers TGPs I can only hope that means the sniper is very close behind. It would suck to be forced to just use the lantirn for like a year tho if that's not the case...

[Krippz]

1 hour ago, jojojung said:

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

Yeah I don't think that's fair. If a feature is developed and new information comes to light then you can expect them to iterate. Heatblur did this with the Phoenix, Razbam did this with the loadout restrictions. They should be commended for wanting an accurate representation. If you have something to say about the Hornet you should create a thread in the Hornet forum. Everyone here got engaged with the product knowing that it's a simulator, that means by definition that items will be developed with realisim in mind. 

[jojojung]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb Krippz:

Yeah I don't think that's fair. If a feature is developed and new information comes to light then you can expect them to iterate. Heatblur did this with the Phoenix, Razbam did this with the loadout restrictions. They should be commended for wanting an accurate representation. If you have something to say about the Hornet you should create a thread in the Hornet forum. Everyone here got engaged with the product knowing that it's a simulator, that means by definition that items will be developed with realisim in mind. 

"Realism in mind"... Your right and I fully agree with you, but this has to be considered for all modules... what about the MAV aligment, bomb laser codes changable in flight, the accurate weapons for correct time frame (AGM62 in a F18 from 2005?) and many other things. All the things are implemented wrong in game, right?
I did a couple postings about the much to high accuracy of the HARM TOO at first seconds of a sam which begins emitting. But there is no drive to deal with it.
I dont want to be to strict but "realism in mind" proof it with all the modules and the hole game, please!

[LordOrion]

So if I correctly understand:

• We currently have a good TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data.
• So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model, with less features.
• But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5?

This sucks so much it goes around and back again to suck again.

Edited March 30, 2023 by LordOrion

[Keight]

Does it mean we will get a HUD FLIR on the Viper?

[Tholozor]

1 hour ago, Keight said:

Does it mean we will get a HUD FLIR on the Viper?

No, that would require the WAR HUD (only on Block 40/42) and AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod.

[janitha2]

Dont know if i will live long enough to see the the sniper atp ingame 2024-2025 and then a few more years for the finished product 

[QuiGon]

8 hours ago, LordOrion said:

So if I correctly understand:

• We currently have a good TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data.
• So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model, with less features.
• But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5?

This sucks so much it goes around and back again to suck again.

 

More like this:

• We currently have a modern TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data and thus modelled incorrectly.
• So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model that has less features but can be modelled correctly.
• But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5?

I'm personally really happy with the decision to model things as accurately as possible and to change things if new info shows that it was implemented incorrectly before.

[LordOrion]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

More like this:

• We currently have a modern TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data and thus modelled incorrectly.
• So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model that has less features but can be modelled correctly.
• But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5?

I'm personally really happy with the decision to model things as accurately as possible and to change things if new info shows that it was implemented incorrectly before.

Model things correctly make me happy too, however I would have preferred a less drastic management of the situation, like:

• Leave current Litening TGP as it is.
• Add the Lantirn pod
• Speed up the Sniper pod development.
• Once the Sniper pod is ready and released, remove the Litening pod.

Edited March 31, 2023 by LordOrion

[llOPPOTATOll]

8 hours ago, Tholozor said:

No, that would require the WAR HUD (only on Block 40/42) and AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod.

The WAR HUD isn’t required for NAVFLIR

[howie87]

Gimme a block 40 with the AN/AAQ-13 Nav pod + TFR and I will be happy 

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by howie87

[ironhard]

20 hours ago, Ignition said:

A block 40 is more accurate with LANTIRN than a block 50 from 2007. It will be better to not carry any pod to save weight and drag.

 

That's so not true and makes no sense at all.

How can one or the other be any more accurate if they were both available in 2007? Even if one, or the other had been used more than the other, it doesn't make it any more accurate, at all.

Sure, you'd probably find one or the other more times at either block aircrafts, but its has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

Perhaps I misunderstood you and I truly hope so.

Edited March 31, 2023 by ironhard

[jojojung]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Бойовий Сокіл:

Look at it this way - the Hornet was ED's first complex, multirole jet, since then they have learned and the F-16 has more documentation to be based on and is also using the exprience and tech gained from the Hornet development. They can be considered two generations of software. The Hornet TOO thing is not any less realistic than the HTS pod on the Viper, so I don't know why you keep bringing this up all the time. Obviously with the whole "realism" thing it often comes down to picking those aspects you have solid documentation for and filling in the gaps where this is not the case. This is not a military grade sim.

 

Please go to the specific thread and look for details. You can't throw arguments around if you don't know the system and the implementation in DCS. Do you have any engineering background? The HTS require a lot of time and a lot of triangulation to get more and more precise location data of the emitter. Thats not implemented complete the realistic but it comes close to it. The Hornet get a nearly exact position of the transmitter in milliseconds even if the emitter has just began to emit. MSI capability of the Hornet will be a fair argument if the emitter does emit for some time but not if you only was active for a second and for the first time. 

If you are really interested in the systems let me know and we can continue the discussion via PM. But then please do some research because it will be very technical.

 

I'm not against realism and changing things while in early access. It's okay to get rid of the lightning pod. But you have to do it the same way with all the other thing and the third developer products too. But it is difficult to understand that there big things in the game which are really unrealistic since years now and nothing happens.

[Rufnax]

@NineLine I understand technological reasons and reasons from a documentation side but from a customer experience I have to say that loosing main capabilities on a module, like the Lightning TGP for example, after they have been advertised as official features on the modules roadmap (for month), kinda feels wrong from a customer service side and throws a bad light on ED as a developer. Can't help myself but see this as a real bummer and makes me more hesitant to buy further modules in early access in the future.
What do you want to trust on when the developer is not able to provide the advertised features on a product, which in the end you paid money for based  on the details from the  roadmap.

Just my personal opinion on this topic.

[jojojung]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb Бойовий Сокіл:

Bingo. Hypocrisy much? 

Sorry bro, I really tried to point out the background of my critism of the TOO mode. Some others are arguing the same. Some Not. Thats OK, but I think you are not really interessted in a objektiv discussion, right? No problem just keep trolling around. But please dont be outrageous. 

[TobiasA]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb LordOrion:

Model things correctly make me happy too, however I would have preferred a less drastic management of the situation, like:

• Leave current Litening TGP as it is.
• Add the Lantirn pod
• Speed up the Sniper pod development.
• Once the Sniper pod is ready and released, remove the Litening pod.

 

I would appreciate exactly that schedule.