Leaving Early Access? (Customer Desired features and fixes)

Wing · July 18

Dont get me wrong, I still have a blast with the module. But I believe its fair to keep in mind all that we are still missing for the DCS F-16C.

A great summary was posted back in 2024, then this topic was locked:

TLDR Version:

Major Missing/Incomplete Systems

Damage Model – Basically nonexistent beyond wings/fuel leaks. No combat system damage.,
Pilot Fault List (PFL) / Maintenance Fault List (MFL) – No proper fault reporting or error messages.,
Steerpoints & Navigation – Missing SEAD steerpoints, threat points, proper CRUS TOS behavior., airspace navaids ect.
Digital Terrain System (DTS) – Entirely absent. No PGCAS, TRN, or digital terrain awareness.,
ECM – Ineffective jamming. No control over bands, poor logic, no realistic jamming effects.,

Combat Capability Gaps

SEAD – Broken ECM, no HARM DL/TI/GS modes, no emitter memory, bad HAD integration.,
RWR (AN/ALR-56M) – Incorrect symbology. No threat priority, no missile distance cues.,
A/A Radar – No COAST mode, over-sensitive to notching, STT is unreliable, broken HAFUs., ect
A/G Radar & Weapons – Broken radar mapping. JDAM/JSOW/GBU-24 logic still incomplete or missing. CCIP bombing is off. Some weapons not implemented at all.,

Other Major Issues

Lighting – Poor NVG compatibility. Flood lights weak or missing. Night ops are frustrating.,
Textures – Cockpit (behind ejection seat not modelled) and external textures are low quality. Custom liveries have had to pick up the slack... Missing panels, details, etc.,
Tankers/Refueling – No boom physics. Poor lighting. No feedback from boom ops. TACAN logic is wrong.,
Documentation – Manual is outdated, often incorrect. Leads to confusion and misinformation.,

"Jealousy" Issues (Things Other Modules Have)

No ARC-210 radio, HSD Expanded Data, IFF, or HAVE QUICK — all of which are present in the F/A-18C, A-10C, F-15E, etc.,
No L16 Mission Assignment, which is present in M-2000C and applicable to this jet.,
Many of these are simple DED page updates and already exist in other modules.

NineLine · July 18

54 minutes ago, Wing said:

Dont get me wrong, I still have a blast with the module. But I believe its fair to keep in mind all that we are still missing for the DCS F-16C.

A great summary was posted back in 2024, then this topic was locked:

TLDR Version:

Major Missing/Incomplete Systems

Damage Model – Basically nonexistent beyond wings/fuel leaks. No combat system damage.,

Pilot Fault List (PFL) / Maintenance Fault List (MFL) – No proper fault reporting or error messages.,

Steerpoints & Navigation – Missing SEAD steerpoints, threat points, proper CRUS TOS behavior., airspace navaids ect.

Digital Terrain System (DTS) – Entirely absent. No PGCAS, TRN, or digital terrain awareness.,

ECM – Ineffective jamming. No control over bands, poor logic, no realistic jamming effects.,

Combat Capability Gaps

SEAD – Broken ECM, no HARM DL/TI/GS modes, no emitter memory, bad HAD integration.,

RWR (AN/ALR-56M) – Incorrect symbology. No threat priority, no missile distance cues.,

A/A Radar – No COAST mode, over-sensitive to notching, STT is unreliable, broken HAFUs., ect

A/G Radar & Weapons – Broken radar mapping. JDAM/JSOW/GBU-24 logic still incomplete or missing. CCIP bombing is off. Some weapons not implemented at all.,

Other Major Issues

Lighting – Poor NVG compatibility. Flood lights weak or missing. Night ops are frustrating.,

Textures – Cockpit (behind ejection seat not modelled) and external textures are low quality. Custom liveries have had to pick up the slack... Missing panels, details, etc.,

Tankers/Refueling – No boom physics. Poor lighting. No feedback from boom ops. TACAN logic is wrong.,

Documentation – Manual is outdated, often incorrect. Leads to confusion and misinformation.,

"Jealousy" Issues (Things Other Modules Have)

No ARC-210 radio, HSD Expanded Data, IFF, or HAVE QUICK — all of which are present in the F/A-18C, A-10C, F-15E, etc.,

No L16 Mission Assignment, which is present in M-2000C and applicable to this jet.,

Many of these are simple DED page updates and already exist in other modules.

The issue with your list here is that some of these things are core issues, such as refueling, which has nothing to do with the F-16, but 100% a core game issue, as well as Wishlist items that were never promised and tuning/bug fixing.

As has been advertised in the Roadmap for a long time, all planned, primary features of the early access version will be available following the next DCS update.

While the F-16C is leaving early access, there are still several items being added that are listed in the Roadmap, as well it is a premier title for us, and will continue to be tuned, improved and such. As an example, there is a large Manual update coming next release.

skywalker22 · July 18

Can I ask here, does the F-16C have self sealing fuel tanks? Its ineed very odd that each time of getting hit by something, fuel starts to leak. Even if it doesn't have self sealing fuel tank, its odd.

Edited July 19 by skywalker22

NineLine · July 18

1 minute ago, skywalker22 said:

Can I ask here, does the F-16C have slef sealing fuel tanks? Its ineed very odd that each time of getting hit by something, fuel starts to leak. Even if it doesn't have self sealing fuel tank, its odd.

Some damage model issues have already been reported. If you can't find them in the bugs section, you can make a report with all the needed info and tracks. Thanks.

WHOGX5 · July 18

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

The issue with your list here is that some of these things are core issues, such as refueling, which has nothing to do with the F-16, but 100% a core game issue, as well as Wishlist items that were never promised and tuning/bug fixing.

As has been advertised in the Roadmap for a long time, all planned, primary features of the early access version will be available following the next DCS update.

While the F-16C is leaving early access, there are still several items being added that are listed in the Roadmap, as well it is a premier title for us, and will continue to be tuned, improved and such. As an example, there is a large Manual update coming next release.

Well, as I wrote in my post which @Wing linked to (I really appreciate all the positive attention my post has gotten from the DCS community), there are so many systems which are either bugged or completely missing, which are not mentioned in the roadmap. 95% of all the things I mentioned in my post are not DCS core features, but rather specific to the F-16C. Just to pick the most glaring example in my post, which I put at the top for that exact reason: we do not have a damage model. Detaching wings and control surfaces, fuel leaks, and pilot death. That's pretty much the only damage which is simulated in the DCS F-16C. This is in stark contrast to other DCS products where almost every individual subsystem can actually fail due to combat damage, but for some reason, this was never implemented in the DCS F-16C, even though it was advertised as a feature on the product page.

In fact, here are the 3 top listed "Key Features" on the DCS F-16C product page:

Authentic fly-by-wire Flight Control System (FCS).
The most realistic model of the F-16C imaginable, down to each bolt and flake of paint, animated controls surfaces, lights, damage model, and landing gear.
Detailed simulation of the Viper’s engines, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, comms, lighting and emergency systems and many more.

None of these bullet points have been fulfilled, and they are not mentioned in the roadmap. Does this mean that the items mentioned on the DCS product page are not what customers can actually expect at full release? Because that looks a lot like false advertising in my eyes.

And if ED intends on rectifying many of the issues I listed in my post, plus many of the issues I didn't mention in my post, why are they not mentioned in the DCS F-16C roadmap? And why can't these issues be fixed without forcing the DCS F-16C out of early access prematurely? Having the DCS F-16C pushed out of early access kind of implies that all the "Key Features" on the product page are included in the product, does it not? It will be extremely misleading to potential customers who read the product page and believe that they will get all the listed "Key Features" as the DCS F-16C would, at least in name, be out of early access? Not to mention all the people who bought the DCS F-16C over the last 5 years in good faith, assuming that the "Key Features" listed on the product page would actually be featured in the final product.

As I finished off my linked post by asking, is this the new baseline we can expect from ED products, if the DCS F-16C is released in its current state + Sniper ATP? I don't know if you actually fly the DCS F-16C anything in your spare time, but to be completely honest with you, it really is in a sorry state, and progress has been moving at a snails pace for years now. Out of all the issues which I mentioned in my over a year old post now, pretty much nothing has been rectified. I don't know why I'd believe any of that would change after early access is over for this product?

NineLine · July 18

14 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

Well, as I wrote in my post which @Wing linked to (I really appreciate all the positive attention my post has gotten from the DCS community), there are so many systems which are either bugged or completely missing, which are not mentioned in the roadmap. 95% of all the things I mentioned in my post are not DCS core features, but rather specific to the F-16C. Just to pick the most glaring example in my post, which I put at the top for that exact reason: we do not have a damage model. Detaching wings and control surfaces, fuel leaks, and pilot death. That's pretty much the only damage which is simulated in the DCS F-16C. This is in stark contrast to other DCS products where almost every individual subsystem can actually fail due to combat damage, but for some reason, this was never implemented in the DCS F-16C, even though it was advertised as a feature on the product page.

In fact, here are the 3 top listed "Key Features" on the DCS F-16C product page:

Authentic fly-by-wire Flight Control System (FCS).

The most realistic model of the F-16C imaginable, down to each bolt and flake of paint, animated controls surfaces, lights, damage model, and landing gear.

Detailed simulation of the Viper’s engines, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, comms, lighting and emergency systems and many more.

None of these bullet points have been fulfilled, and they are not mentioned in the roadmap. Does this mean that the items mentioned on the DCS product page are not what customers can actually expect at full release? Because that looks a lot like false advertising in my eyes.

And if ED intends on rectifying many of the issues I listed in my post, plus many of the issues I didn't mention in my post, why are they not mentioned in the DCS F-16C roadmap? And why can't these issues be fixed without forcing the DCS F-16C out of early access prematurely? Having the DCS F-16C pushed out of early access kind of implies that all the "Key Features" on the product page are included in the product, does it not? It will be extremely misleading to potential customers who read the product page and believe that they will get all the listed "Key Features" as the DCS F-16C would, at least in name, be out of early access? Not to mention all the people who bought the DCS F-16C over the last 5 years in good faith, assuming that the "Key Features" listed on the product page would actually be featured in the final product.

As I finished off my linked post by asking, is this the new baseline we can expect from ED products, if the DCS F-16C is released in its current state + Sniper ATP? I don't know if you actually fly the DCS F-16C anything in your spare time, but to be completely honest with you, it really is in a sorry state, and progress has been moving at a snails pace for years now. Out of all the issues which I mentioned in my over a year old post now, pretty much nothing has been rectified. I don't know why I'd believe any of that would change after early access is over for this product?

While I appreciate your feedback, both in the original post and in this one, it seems to me you did not read what I wrote. The F-16C development, bug fixing, and tuning is not stopping, and will continue to improve and grow. As I also mentioned to you, bug reports are much better than these lists. I do not agree that the F-16C is in a "sorry state" and I have been flying it a lot with the Sniper as of late, and as I got ready to show it off during the FlightSim Expo.

Your 3 points are not missing but may require additional work, bug fixes and tuning. As I said, that is still going on. The module will leave early access as the features are added, but will continue to develop as we move forward and based on available information, both current and anything that is newly found.

As an example, the F/A-18C left early access sometime ago; this next update it is receiving Terrain Avoidance Radar Mode.

LordOrion · July 19

@NineLine Is the old LANTIRN pod still in the list of thing that will be added?

szymixzmb · July 19

43 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

@NineLine Is the old LANTIRN pod still in the list of thing that will be added?

I hope not, there are bunch of more important stuff even from the current roadmap

falconbr · July 20

12 hours ago, LordOrion said:

@NineLine Is the old LANTIRN pod still in the list of thing that will be added?

I hope yes.

Eviscerador · July 21

On 7/19/2025 at 10:03 PM, LordOrion said:

@NineLine Is the old LANTIRN pod still in the list of thing that will be added?

I think they already said that if they find proper documentation their idea was to remove completely the Litening pod and leave the viper with the Sniper and the Lantirn as it was supposed to fly in 2007.

But they need to find proper documentation and SME to confirm everything so it is unlikely.

Current TGP is a mashup of litening and lantirn UI and features.

LordOrion · July 22

21 hours ago, Eviscerador said:

I think they already said that if they find proper documentation their idea was to remove completely the Litening pod and leave the viper with the Sniper and the Lantirn as it was supposed to fly in 2007.

Originally ED stated that they should have removed the LITENING by repolacing it with the LANTIRN as soon as the last one was ready.

After the sh**storm they get form the users (receivce a downgrade in a crucial part of the module like the TGP, even if temporary, is not nice at all), they decided to keep the current LITENING as it is and the replace it with the Sniper as soon as ready, then add the LANTIRN later.

Now that the Sniper is about to be released ED seems willing to keep the Franken-LITENING too, (which is obviously ok for me), so I wander if the LANTIRN is still in their to-do list for the future or not.

21 hours ago, Eviscerador said:

Current TGP is a mashup of litening and lantirn UI and features.

We do have various versions of the LITENING on other modules (F/A-18, A-10 and Harrier)... Are them mashups too or ED managed to find docs to do a proper implementation?

Edited July 22 by LordOrion

felixx75 · July 22

I think it would be nice if after the Sniper Pod, the (Frankenstein-) Lightning Pod would be replaced by a "real" Lantirn Pod.

It's always interesting to see how people lighten up at the smallest and most unimportant supposedly incorrect details and call for adjustments, because otherwise it wouldn't be realistic. But when "realism" affects you directly and things get a little more difficult, realism suddenly isn't important at all...

Eviscerador · July 22

46 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

Originally ED stated that they should have removed the LITENING by repolacing it with the LANTIRN as soon as the last one was ready.

After the sh**storm they get form the users (receivce a downgrade in a crucial part of the module like the TGP, even if temporary, is not nice at all), they decided to keep the current LITENING as it is and the replace it with the Sniper as soon as ready, then add the LANTIRN later.

Now that the Sniper is about to be released ED seems willing to keep the Franken-LITENING too, (which is obviously ok for me), so I wander if the LANTIRN is still in their to-do list for the future or not.

We do have various versions of the LITENING on other modules (F/A-18, A-10 and Harrier)... Are them mashups too or ED managed to find docs to do a proper implementation?

As far as I'm aware, the Litening implementation in the Hornet is the one the Spanish Hornets have, not the Marines one. They should be similar but remember that the Spaniards have full access to the hornet avionics and they develop their own stuff a la israeli.

Prime · July 27

Is the ALR-56M adjusted yet?

WHOGX5 · July 27

2 hours ago, Prime said:

Is the ALR-56M adjusted yet?

Nope, it is still incorrectly implemented, yet bug reports about it are marked "correct-as-is" in the DCS F-16C bug section. I've been thinking about writing a full length bug report regarding the AN/ALR-56M, but I honestly don't know what difference it'd make. Feels like kicking water uphill at this point.

I actually gave praise to the DCS F-16C manual in an old post I made (linked below) for correctly describing the AN/ALR-56M's functionality, even though it had been incorrectly implemented in-game. However, ED has since rewritten and removed certain sections, words and illustrations from the DCS F-16C manual regarding the AN/ALR-56M, so that the manual better describes the current incorrect implementation, rather than fixing the AN/ALR-56M's in-game implementation so that it matched both the DCS and real world manuals. I think it's quite clear at this point, based on ED's actions, that their intention is to leave the AN/ALR-56M as-is.

szymixzmb · July 27

@WHOGX5 I want F16 in the best possible state so feel free to write a report but if you want to change the way of working you need to attach this real world manual. It would be much easier then to convince ED

BIGNEWY · July 27

If you think you have public evidence that some thing is wrong please DM us about the ALR-56M, we hare happy to look at it. So far we have not seen any convincing evidence.
We can not take peoples word that "something is wrong" so please if you have evidence shoot us a message.

thank you

WHOGX5 · July 28

17 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you think you have public evidence that some thing is wrong please DM us about the ALR-56M, we hare happy to look at it. So far we have not seen any convincing evidence.
We can not take peoples word that "something is wrong" so please if you have evidence shoot us a message.

thank you

The important thing to emphasize in regards to the AN/ALR-56M in DCS is that it is not really an issue of evidence or documentation, but of interpretation. As I mentioned, the DCS F-16C manual was correct in the way it described the functionality of the AN/ALR-56M, but the way it was implemented in-game was based on an incorrect interpretation of that information. I'll look into writing a bug report on it when time allows.

BIGNEWY · July 28

22 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

The important thing to emphasize in regards to the AN/ALR-56M in DCS is that it is not really an issue of evidence or documentation, but of interpretation. As I mentioned, the DCS F-16C manual was correct in the way it described the functionality of the AN/ALR-56M, but the way it was implemented in-game was based on an incorrect interpretation of that information. I'll look into writing a bug report on it when time allows.

We have "interpreted" it based on the documents available for the public, we are happy to look at more evidence, you think it is wrong, we do not, so if you have evidence please DM me.

thank you

felixx75 · July 28

1 hour ago, WHOGX5 said:

I'll look into writing a bug report on it when time allows.

So I interpret that as "I think it's wrong, but clearly can't prove it and leave it at that"...

Edited July 28 by felixx75

bbrz · July 28

Now that's a very weird interpretation of what @WHOGX5 wrote.

Edited July 28 by bbrz

Prime · August 18

On 7/27/2025 at 3:40 AM, WHOGX5 said:

Nope, it is still incorrectly implemented, yet bug reports about it are marked "correct-as-is" in the DCS F-16C bug section. I've been thinking about writing a full length bug report regarding the AN/ALR-56M, but I honestly don't know what difference it'd make. Feels like kicking water uphill at this point.

I actually gave praise to the DCS F-16C manual in an old post I made (linked below) for correctly describing the AN/ALR-56M's functionality, even though it had been incorrectly implemented in-game. However, ED has since rewritten and removed certain sections, words and illustrations from the DCS F-16C manual regarding the AN/ALR-56M, so that the manual better describes the current incorrect implementation, rather than fixing the AN/ALR-56M's in-game implementation so that it matched both the DCS and real world manuals. I think it's quite clear at this point, based on ED's actions, that their intention is to leave the AN/ALR-56M as-is.

Interesting why the ALR-56C on the Eagle works completely different than the ALR-56M in the Viper. We will see how the C-130 ALR-56M works when it gets pushed out.

The amount of logic that is not used with the creation of the ALR-56M in the Viper is fascinating.

I am sure both sides is getting tired of this issue being brought up but it is hard to not continue to talk about it when it is a legitimate issue that many people have brought up time and time again.

Wing · August 18

54 minutes ago, Prime said:

Interesting why the ALR-56C on the Eagle works completely different than the ALR-56M in the Viper. We will see how the C-130 ALR-56M works when it gets pushed out.

The amount of logic that is not used with the creation of the ALR-56M in the Viper is fascinating.

I am sure both sides is getting tired of this issue being brought up but it is hard to not continue to talk about it when it is a legitimate issue that many people have brought up time and time again.

I believe the best course of action, is to continue bringing it up tbh. That is the only way positive change has been made for systems in the past.

BIGNEWY · August 18

you have all been told to DM us with public evidence.

Thank you

Exocoetidae · Thursday at 11:46 PM

Assessment of the DCS F-16C: Current Readiness

Based on extensive testing, community collaboration, and comparison to available documentation for the F-16CM Block 50.

This summary identifies key systems and functionalities that remain incomplete or inaccurately modeled. It is not an exhaustive list, but it reflects the most significant issues currently limiting fidelity, usability, and consistency within the DCS ecosystem. Im not an expert and there could be some errors, i'd appreciate corrections.

1. Damage Model

The existing damage model lacks comprehensive simulation. Only basic elements such as fuel leaks and wing loss are represented. Critical subsystems (hydraulic, electrical, control surface degradation, etc.) remain unmodeled, which undermines the “combat” aspect of the simulator.

2. Maintenance and Pilot Fault List (MFL/PFL)

The fault indication system is largely absent. At present, the aircraft only displays a single “FLCS BIT FAIL” message. In the real F-16, this system provides essential diagnostic and operational feedback — for instance, “LK16 TIME REQD” when Link 16 time is not set. Its absence prevents accurate aircraft management and fault identification.

3. Navigation and Steerpoints

Steerpoint functionality remains limited to basic types (regular, mark, and partial D/L steerpoints). Several categories such as pre-planned threats, SEAD steerpoints, and additional Link 16 steerpoints are missing. The CRUS TOS (Cruise Time on Station) logic and associated functions are also incomplete, affecting time-sensitive mission planning.

4. Digital Terrain System (DTS)

The DTS and its subsystems (PGCAS, TRN, DBTC, OW/C, PR) are entirely absent. These systems are fundamental for terrain avoidance, navigation accuracy, and INS drift correction. Their omission significantly reduces low-altitude safety and precision targeting, deviating from real-world aircraft performance.

5. Electronic Countermeasures (ECM)

Current ECM implementation is rudimentary. The ALQ-184 pod’s self-protection modes (MODE 1 and 2) are ineffective, unable to break radar locks or manage frequency bands accurately. The jamming coverage is also incorrect (modeled as 360° instead of directional cones). Chaff effectiveness is inconsistent across threat types, reducing survivability in realistic SEAD environments.

6. SEAD Systems

The Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses capability is substantially underdeveloped. Missing features include:

Proper AGM-88 HARM operational modes (TI, GS, DL).
Complete HAD functions and HOTAS commands.
Threat memory and SEAD steerpoint storage.
Accurate RWR behavior and relative lethality display.
These omissions collectively impair the aircraft’s core role as a SEAD platform.

7. AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver

The current implementation does not reflect the real system’s performance. Threat prioritization, signal processing, and closure rate indications are absent. The result is reduced situational awareness and ineffective missile threat response. This system should be considered a critical component requiring urgent revision.

8. Air-to-Air Systems

Several radar and missile functions are either incomplete or inaccurate:

AIM-120 lacks target size settings and HPRF capability.
ULS mode and COAST mode are missing.
Radar notching behavior is exaggerated.
TWS and HAFU symbology are unreliable.
LINK 16 symbology occasionally disappears.
These issues reduce combat effectiveness and tactical realism.

9. Air-to-Ground Systems

Ground radar mapping and precision strike systems remain unstable.

JDAM, JSOW, and GBU-24 programming is incomplete.
GMT mode behavior is incorrect.
Gain/contrast controls are oversimplified.
Certain weapons (CBU-89/104, training munitions) are missing.
These gaps limit the realism and tactical utility of air-to-ground operations.

10. Lighting Systems

Cockpit and external lighting systems require revision.

Covert/IR lighting is absent.
Floodlights lack correct intensity and diffusion.
NVG compatibility is inconsistent, with some panels excessively bright.
Cockpit spotlights are non-functional, impacting night startup procedures.

11. Visual Assets and Textures

Default exterior and cockpit textures are of low fidelity. Missing panel detail and poor material definition reduce visual realism. Community-made textures substantially exceed official quality, suggesting that asset revision would be beneficial.

12. Aerial Refueling

KC-135 refueling lacks key physical interactions such as boom resistance and force feedback. Lighting behavior is unrealistic, and TACAN transmission operates incorrectly in T/R mode. The absence of boom operator logic (e.g., breakaway calls, fuel readouts) diminishes immersion and training value.

13. Documentation

The official DCS F-16C manual is outdated and incomplete. Newly implemented features often lack documentation, forcing users to rely on unofficial sources. Each stable update should include synchronized manual revisions and changelogs for transparency and usability.

14. Missing or Inconsistent Features Across ED Modules

Several systems available in other Eagle Dynamics modules are absent from the F-16C, despite being appropriate for its block and tape. These include:

Expanded HSD data (present in A-10C and F/A-18C).
AN/ARC-210 radio suite with HAVE QUICK capability.
Proper IFF page with Mode 1–4 functionality.
Link 16 mission channel selection.
Such inconsistencies reduce interoperability and perceived parity across DCS platforms.

15. Quality and Product Readiness

Recent statements suggesting that the module is “complete as intended” are concerning. While 100% fidelity is not expected, the current implementation does not meet the standard of completeness or functionality demonstrated by other Eagle Dynamics full-release products, such as the A-10C.

Releasing the F-16C in its present form risks setting a lower benchmark for future modules and could erode community trust in the DCS platform’s quality standards.

16. Conclusion and Recommendation

The DCS F-16C remains a promising module with substantial potential. However, significant systems and core functionalities are incomplete or inaccurately modeled. Proceeding to full release at this stage would be premature.

A full release should represent a stable, feature-complete product that meets both the technical and operational expectations established by prior Eagle Dynamics releases. Delaying release until these critical systems are implemented and verified would preserve product integrity, customer confidence, and DCS’s reputation for simulation excellence.

Edited Thursday at 11:46 PM by Exocoetidae