Thermals on F-16C, Barak II, and AV-8B+ still Gen I after 4 months

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1

The F-16C, Barak II, AV-8B+, Gripens, and DE Tornado IDS all make use of the LITENING II TGP.

However, the F-16C, Barak II, and AV-8B+ only get Gen I thermals, while the Gripens and DE Tornado IDS have Gen II thermals.

Gaijin either needs to add different TGPs:

  • LITENING II (historically Gen I thermals)
  • LITENING ER and AT (historically Gen II thermals)
  • LITENING III (I believe Gen II thermals, idr)
  • Sniper TGP ( I believe Gen III thermals, idr)

Or Gaijin needs to make the LITENING II consistent across all platforms

Here’s the current community report that’s been up for 4 months:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/k6tNXcepyGO9

I’m not entirely sure where exactly this bug originates. My initial guess is that the AGM-65Ds are interfering with the LITENING II’s thermals. The F-16C and AV-8B+ both have 65Ds, the Barak II does not, but it likely has the same/similar code to the F-16C. The Tornado IDS and Gripens don’t have 65Ds, the HU Gripen-C only has 65Gs and 65Hs.

Also, previously (before the LITENING II got gimped) the NVD modification would upgrade the thermals from Gen I to Gen II.

I’m sure Gaijin has tried fixing it multiple ways, but I have a few suggestions:

  • Delete the old 65D file (saving 3D model) and make a new one building off of the 65G
  • Remove the NVD modification entirely or rewrite it from scratch.
  • Look for any discrepancies between the TGP sections of the FMs of planes with Gen I and Gen II thermals. (I’ve tried looking at the datamines but nothing was immediately apparent).

At the very least I would like an update on where Gaijin sits with this bug. Is it kept around for balancing reasons? Are they looking at it at all? Are we going to get new TGPs in the future like the LITENING AT or ER? Etc.

4 Likes
2

TIALD Is also Gen 1 despite the fact it should actualy be Gen 2. Feels like they really need ot just overhaul how “Gens” are modeled

2 Likes
3

Thread or two on this topic already.

4

I just hope this one is more comprehensive regarding what the situation is regarding the LITENING II bug. Most of the other ones I’ve seen are surface-level.

I’d also like to see if we can get some sort of status update on the bug. Gaijin has said nothing since it happened.

1 Like
5

I mean, reading your solution was sorta surface level from a development standpoint lol…

6

Gunjob mentioned it I think.

7

I’m of the opinion that for JAS39 Gripen C Litening II targeting pod should be replace by Rafael/Zeiss Optronics Litening III

Gripen-C-with-LDP-scaled
Gripen-C-with-LDP-scaled2560×1704 428 KB

15584471445_7c4a9e67a8_h
15584471445_7c4a9e67a8_h1600×960 183 KB

1 Like
8

Yeah because what’s available to us is surface level. The most in-depth source we have is the datamine on GitHub. Not to mention it’s not my job to debug Gaijin’s code, and I’m just stating obvious first places to look.

1 Like
9

Last time I looked, In datamine they all has same resolution of TGP. It’s a bug.

10

The problem is that they have both Sight and Pod values
image
and game takes sight value

11

What do you think it is meant to be? Gajijn nerfed the F-16C because it was otherwise too OP

12

Spaghetti code probably

13

they have acknowledged it but they are not in any hurry to fix it so maybe in a year or two when they get around to it

1 Like
14

Why does the Maverick rockets doesnt lock targets at their dated range?!

15

In-game its based on general screen resolutions, which I find a little dumb… I believe that should implement an actual realistic display resolution of what thermal sights have IRL, and if it’s a standard display like 4:3 or non-standard like 1:1, it should have a border… Sort of like how telescopic sights have optic shadows that are tied to the FoV of the sight itself.

2 Likes