DCS F-16C ~ Leaving Early Access?

[Wing]

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• Documentation – Manual is outdated, often incorrect.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.

Edited July 18 by Wing

[NineLine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[szymixzmb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is the ALR-56M adjusted yet?

[WHOGX5]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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 12 hours ago by felixx75

[bbrz]

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

Edited 11 hours ago by bbrz