not planned USMC Version of Litening TGP

If you knew the reality behind the Litening (which I hope you just didn't...) then the right way to bring up your point would have been to say...

"Hey Devs... Thank you for putting the unplanned Litening pod on the 18 so we could use the A2G functionality... So you can sell more aircraft... and so we can test all the A2G weapons... It's really nice. I've uncovered a minor issue though. If you feel like it and you want this corrected on this item that you've given us to use before the ATFLIR is added to the early access product... Take a look at my vids. If not it's cool... We'll just wait for a completed ATFLIR like was the originally planned targeting system :)."

I mean yeah, sure.. maybe the wording on that's a little ridiculous :)... but hopefully you get the point.

Take out the entitlement.

You think you're owed a perfect Litening pod. You aren't. Take the Spanish one and be happy you have it before the ATFLIR.

To prevent being accused of bait and switch on features, could you share the doc you are comfortable basing features off of so that folks have a better understanding of what you'll be providing? That is, if the docs are public, legal, factual?

Mr M1Combat,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to comment on my post, I appreciate all the conversation I can stir up.

To answer your first point: I'm not ashamed at all, I feel mourning for what could have been and stress for the upcoming exams, but not ashamed.

If you take the time to read this post you will see that my point was about the disparity between our litening display and that of a USMC hornet, I raised this issue because we have been told time and time again that ours was a USMC/USN hornet.

To your second point: Do not think that my posting has anything to do with a lack of appreciation for the work that the devs have done. What I exhibit is frustration at the lack of communications, a sentiment that I'm sure many others share.

An example of how they could have avoided the confusion and distress:

'Dear Community, as we plan on using ATFLIR as a showcase of the new FLIR render, we have decided to implement another pod: Litening. For this pod we have access to several SAF sources about its function and operation and as such it will resemble that of a SAF hornet. It is worth noting however that this does not mean the rest of the hornet will be a SAF hornet. If you are curious about what such a FLIR will look like, watch this video'

And as a closing point, are we not entitled? We the consumer have paid for this module after all, whether you think it cheap or not. Surely that purchase carries with it some excuse to have an influence or say in how it is developed?

Swift

Now that we’ve gotten some clarity on the symbology, can we get an update on the cage/uncage and designate/undesignate confusion? @Nine your post in the bug forum suggests there’s more on this behavior coming in the next update? Right now it doesn’t make a ton of sense.

Now that we’ve gotten some clarity on the symbology, can we get an update on the cage/uncage and designate/undesignate confusion? @Nine your post in the bug forum suggests there’s more on this behavior coming in the next update? Right now it doesn’t make a ton of sense.

The correct cage/uncage behavior is toggling LST mode. What is the designate/undesignate confusion?

The correct cage/uncage behavior is toggling LST mode. What is the designate/undesignate confusion?

Presumably whether undesignating should snowplow or whether it should either retain FLIR pointing but remove the TGT or perhaps whether it should slave to VVI

Well if I designed the system I would have made it so the first press undesignates the TGT but retains FLIR pointing and a second press returns it to SP but that's probably not how it works irl

Well if I designed the system I would have made it so the first press undesignates the TGT but retains FLIR pointing and a second press returns it to SP but that's probably not how it works irl

It does seem strange, but I can't think of a reason they would need to remove the TGT irl. I presume the issue you are having is with trying to do multi JDAM TOO drops?

Personally I don't have any problems with the way it works right now since you don't need to undesignate to redesignate for JDAM TOO attacks, was just saying how I would have made it myself

Presumably whether undesignating should snowplow or whether it should either retain FLIR pointing but remove the TGT or perhaps whether it should slave to VVI

When in undesignated condition (no TGT), the targeting pod should be in snowplow mode. In that case, double clicking undesignate button within 1 second is a HOTAS way to toggle VVSLV mode (WIP)

When in undesignated condition (no TGT), the targeting pod should be in snowplow mode. In that case, double clicking undesignate button within 1 second is a HOTAS way to toggle VVSLV mode (WIP)

Makes sense, one of those 'Extra HOTAS features' we are awaiting.

When in undesignated condition (no TGT), the targeting pod should be in snowplow mode. In that case, double clicking undesignate button within 1 second is a HOTAS way to toggle VVSLV mode (WIP)

I imagine that's coming with the other HOTAS function improvements they want to make, like double clicking SCS fwd to toggle EMCON

I raised this issue because we have been told time and time again that ours was a USMC/USN hornet.

Your point would be well made if you took the initial feedback about the Litening pod being "extra" to hold us over until we get the ATFLIR... but you didn't. You just kept talking about how it should be perfect and not Spanish because it's not a Spanish Hornet. I can understand your initial concern... As I said before... but after knowing the background of why we have the Litening you still continued to maintain your entitled tune. This invalidates your current attempt to take the high road IMO.

To your second point: Do not think that my posting has anything to do with a lack of appreciation for the work that the devs have done. What I exhibit is frustration at the lack of communications, a sentiment that I'm sure many others share.

I'll agree that communication is good :). I''d also like to throw out that I've watched this community push the devs into "hiding" a few times over the course of DCS's history. It sometimes starts about like this. sometimes it's best if you just get what you get, and don't throw a fit :).

An example of how they could have avoided the confusion and distress:

'Dear Community, as we plan on using ATFLIR as a showcase of the new FLIR render, we have decided to implement another pod: Litening. For this pod we have access to several SAF sources about its function and operation and as such it will resemble that of a SAF hornet. It is worth noting however that this does not mean the rest of the hornet will be a SAF hornet. If you are curious about what such a FLIR will look like, watch this video'

OK... point well made here... Well... except that...

If they had said that then it's highly likely that people would have complained at the time about having a Spanish pod. Heck... there were people at the time that very vocally complained that NO dev time should have been spent doing ANY kind of pod that wasn't carried by the originally stated goal of a USN Hornet. Where would we be if that road was taken? See... This is the problem with your approach. ED could have taken that road. Easily. Also... catching any flak for taking THIS road can ONLY make them more likely to take THAT road in the future. It's not a good road.

And as a closing point, are we not entitled? We the consumer have paid for this module after all, whether you think it cheap or not. Surely that purchase carries with it some excuse to have an influence or say in how it is developed?

 

Swift

No sir. We are not. We paid for what was originally intended as the design goal of the Hornet. A USN hornet. Any MC additions are icing on the cake IMO.

I know... plenty of people have purchased the Hornet AFTER it was migrated into being an MC Hornet.... But those of us who know WHY that happened should inform the other folks in such a way that they can then make fully informed decisions based on how we got where we're at. then... those people might appreciate where we are a bit better.

You didn't seem willing to take that choice :).

The correct cage/uncage behavior is toggling LST mode. What is the designate/undesignate confusion?

Confusion is probably just on my end since it originally seemed like cage/uncage and undesignate had overlapping functions. Hearing this is the cage/uncage plan makes more sense.

How do we know that the USMC picture/video from Swiftwin9s are from Litening II pod?

Just to be clear, USMC has used both Litening ER and AT versions after 2003.

I wonder what the long term plan is for the Litening given that we won't be getting an accurate USMC version. Will it be removed once we get ATFLIR and we will have a 'pure' Navy Hornet? I don't think it is a good precedent to start including features from other countries for whatever reason, otherwise people will begin asking for Sniper, ASRAAM, ILS, etc again.

I am completely confused in regards to what kind of Hornet we have modeled now.

Initially right after release, when people asked for "proper ILS", the argument was made that we have a LOT 20 USN Hornet, and as such it only sports ICLS, unlike SPANISH Hornets, which would have the ICLS exchanged with ILS.

Then, we got the LITENING rather then the correct ATFLIR because "reasons", making it not really a pure Lot 20 Navy Hornet anymore, but still a Naval Hornet (more like USMC, but that's also a workaround because centerline LITENING and carrier ops isnt a thing etc, we all know that debate)..

Now, the LITENING turns out to be the SPANISH one? So, do we get our ICLS revoked these days because we're clearly not modelling a USN Lot 20 anymore? Or will ILS be made optional so it fits the LITENING we have now?

Then again, ATFLIR is still on the list, leading to a USN Lot 20 again...

I am SERIOUSLY confused now.

I think the misinterpretation here is that mid-2000s USN navy lot 20 hornet with field modifications and updates from that time period was a GOAL not a PLEDGE. Its simply not possible to completely replicate an aircraft as equipped to that level of detail, The complexity of that statement is unrealistic to demand, because unless you we're there and helped build the thing, your not going to get EVERYTHING right. Never mind the documentation required.

Here's a news flash: LOT 20 hornets from that time period did not use OFP-13C yet that's what we have...no one is loosing their mind over that? Why? because we have representation of a hornet not an actual one, the only reason people care so much about the LPOD is because its not what THEY saw on Youtube.

However when we get down to it people don't really care, they don't care that our hornet IRL at that time did not use BRU-55s, they don't care that LITENING wouldn't have been used at all on Lot 20 birds, and if it could/was certainly not on station 4, or the laundry list of other minor inaccuracies. Realism, I've come to notice on these forums is; is very selective, and pretty much dependent on people preconceptions.

So calm down! When ATFLIR gets here I guarantee people will forget that LITENING is even in the game. But for now you can go about your marry way self lasing targets with 8 bomb load outs on the airquake servers.

What Nineline said seems pretty clear to me.

They wanted to model a Litening before the ATFLIR, and the best available Litening docs were for the Spanish Litening, and then the ATFLIR will be made with US docs.

Like other people said, cheek mounting the Litening is already wrong as far as USMC service is concerned, but I don't think snowballing that into a huge argument that the entire ED Hornet is all sorts of wrong and that it should get tons of other export weapons/systems makes much sense.

What Nineline said seems pretty clear to me.

 

They wanted to model a Litening before the ATFLIR, and the best available Litening docs were for the Spanish Litening, and then the ATFLIR will be made with US docs.

 

Like other people said, cheek mounting the Litening is already wrong as far as USMC service is concerned, but I don't think snowballing that into a huge argument that the entire ED Hornet is all sorts of wrong and that it should get tons of other export weapons/systems makes much sense.

I agree it makes perfect sense, BTW I don't mean to degrade their work. I think the DCS hornet is fantastic, I just think people need to take a step back and see things for what they are.

The hornet is pretty darn good representation of the real thing. But 100 percent fidelity in all respects is just not reasonable. Or even desirable really to most users I think.

Personally I'm glad they went the route they did, If they can't get documentation for something don't guess, this IMO is the next best thing.

Btw sta4 litening seems to have been a thing that the marines did/planned to do back in 2006

I think the misinterpretation here is that mid-2000s USN navy lot 20 hornet with field modifications and updates from that time period was a GOAL not a PLEDGE. Its simply not possible to completely replicate an aircraft as equipped to that level of detail, The complexity of that statement is unrealistic to demand, because unless you we're there and helped build the thing, your not going to get EVERYTHING right. Never mind the documentation required.

 

Here's a news flash: LOT 20 hornets from that time period did not use OFP-13C yet that's what we have...no one is loosing their mind over that? Why? because we have representation of a hornet not an actual one, the only reason people care so much about the LPOD is because its not what THEY saw on Youtube.

 

However when we get down to it people don't really care, they don't care that our hornet IRL at that time did not use BRU-55s, they don't care that LITENING wouldn't have been used at all on Lot 20 birds, and if it could/was certainly not on station 4, or the laundry list of other minor inaccuracies. Realism, I've come to notice on these forums is; is very selective, and pretty much dependent on people preconceptions.

 

 

So calm down! When ATFLIR gets here I guarantee people will forget that LITENING is even in the game. But for now you can go about your marry way self lasing targets with 8 bomb load outs on the airquake servers.

BOOM!

love this post

Dear all a small update on this.

 

The Litening was added to get a pod on the Hornet sooner than later, it is based on available Spanish docs.

 

The ATFLIR is to come later, this will be based on US docs and will be the prime pod for this Hornet.

 

Remember that ED has to follow the rules, especially when we have professional contracts the hinge on us being above board. Again, thanks for the reports, but understand the path we are on.

Thanks for looking into this NL! Totally reasonable explanation imo. :thumbup: