Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Does anyone know if they plan to include the NCTR mode?

 

It was an upgrade for the Mirage 2000C RDI radar.

 

NCTR stands for Non-Cooperative Target Recognition and it lets you ID the aircraft type using your radar (The FC3 F-15C has a NCTR function) if the transponder of the target aircraft does not give you the info needed to tell if its a friend or a foe (can also be used to tell you what your fighting instead of just the "who")

 

 

Anyone know if the M2000C RDI S5 has this feature?

 

I know it existed on the M2000C but not sure if it was also avalible for the S5.

Posted
I'll keep saying this....

Add goddamn AWACS to missions!

No online missions ever seem to be running with an AWACS.

 

ghost contacts make awacs unusable.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Posted
Does anyone know if they plan to include the NCTR mode?

 

It was an upgrade for the Mirage 2000C RDI radar.

 

NCTR stands for Non-Cooperative Target Recognition and it lets you ID the aircraft type using your radar (The FC3 F-15C has a NCTR function) if the transponder of the target aircraft does not give you the info needed to tell if its a friend or a foe (can also be used to tell you what your fighting instead of just the "who")

 

 

Anyone know if the M2000C RDI S5 has this feature?

 

I know it existed on the M2000C but not sure if it was also avalible for the S5.

 

S5 is latest Mirage 2000 C standard, S52 to be true.

 

So yes Mirage 2000 C S5 have NCTR.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Posted

Welp this is disappointing

 

 

 

I wished that they would at least have a basic Friend or Foe system before going public but it's not going to stop me from enjoying the module.

 

 

Thank You Razbam for introducing me to this wonderful aircraft

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
Who needs IFF? Shoot them all, and let God sort them out :P

 

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

 

 

 

 

 

In all reality, they released a statement saying explicitly there would be no IFF in the release, and that it was coming at a later time. Of course we all want it, but it's not like they don't want it in there at all. Give them some time.

Posted

They give us a flyable M2000 and they fix issues.

Wait buddies or you would like mirage in 2017?

i7 2600k -- Noctua NH-D14--Asrock Z75 Pro3--ASUS GTX970 Strix --16Go Ripjaws X 1333--Thermaltake Smart M650--CoolerMaster Silencio 652S--AOC E2752VQ-- Sandisk Extreme II 480GB--Saitek X-52 Pro --SAITEK PZ35 Pedals

Posted

I'm a bit puzzled by this question: how can Razbam implement IFF since it is not supported in the DCS game? You need two to play that game, how can Razbam modify all the other aircraft so that they respond (or not) to an IFF query? According to what protocol ?

 

People seem to be mistaking a game element from Lockon that still lives on in former Lockon aircraft with a credible IFF implementation. Of course IFF would be a very interesting addition to DCS, but it doesn't seem to me up to Razbam on their own to solve this issue. ED should provide an IFF framework, which is far from evident. Maybe they did it in the mean time and I'm not aware of it? See older threads such as http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89801

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
I'm a bit puzzled by this question: how can Razbam implement IFF since it is not supported in the DCS game? You need two to play that game, how can Razbam modify all the other aircraft so that they respond (or not) to an IFF query? According to what protocol ?

 

People seem to be mistaking a game element from Lockon that still lives on in former Lockon aircraft with a credible IFF implementation. Of course IFF would be a very interesting addition to DCS, but it doesn't seem to me up to Razbam on their own to solve this issue. ED should provide an IFF framework, which is far from evident. Maybe they did it in the mean time and I'm not aware of it? See older threads such as http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89801

Huh? I am puzzled about why you are puzzled...

 

Yes, a "real" implementation would require the challenged aircraft to actually reply a valid, invalid or no response at all. But as no aircraft so far has ever implemented any IFF transponder functionality - not at least due to the lack of a proper network protocol supporting it in MP - this is not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

But now what? Not bothering to touch anything IFF related at all? DCS can still "IFF" an airplane - the FC3 way - by just knowing it's blue/red faction affiliation. But that is "gamey" and not good enough? So we just prefer to have no IFF altogether?

 

The next step would be to get rid of bombs ... as they lack fragmentation damage modelling ...? :doh:

Posted
That's because AWACS is broken.

 

ghost contacts make awacs unusable.

Oh is it that bad?

Damn. Haven't played with the AWACS for a long time, last time I used it (back in 1.2.16) it worked fine.

 

I guess we'll see that fixed at some point :)

 

 

 

But just as a question, the m2kc model we have, does NOT have the capability to see what type aircraft she has locked on her radar? It would be quite a surprise to me if it actually has, considering it isn't the newest plane ever made.

Posted (edited)
Huh? I am puzzled about why you are puzzled...

 

Yes, a "real" implementation would require the challenged aircraft to actually reply a valid, invalid or no response at all. But as no aircraft so far has ever implemented any IFF transponder functionality - not at least due to the lack of a proper network protocol supporting it in MP - this is not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

But now what? Not bothering to touch anything IFF related at all? DCS can still "IFF" an airplane - the FC3 way - by just knowing it's blue/red faction affiliation. But that is "gamey" and not good enough? So we just prefer to have no IFF altogether?

 

The next step would be to get rid of bombs ... as they lack fragmentation damage modelling ...? :doh:

 

 

Just put labels on then, problem solved :=)

 

No just joking, I understand you need it in MP.

Edited by tflash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

But now what? Not bothering to touch anything IFF related at all? DCS can still "IFF" an airplane - the FC3 way - by just knowing it's blue/red faction affiliation. But that is "gamey" and not good enough? So we just prefer to have no IFF altogether?

 

Yes. No IFF is better than an arcade IFF.

Just remember this is sold as an high fidelity DCS module.

Such an arcade feature would undermine these DCS standards.

Posted (edited)

No IFF means only scripted missions unless they fix AWACS, no multiplayer on mixed planes servers, like 104th...

 

a good portion of DCS players don't like playing scripted, can look in the brief/mission editor and find the exact paths all the planes in the entire mission will fly, before you even get to the cockpit type missions.

Edited by Hadwell

My youtube channel Remember: the fun is in the fight, not the kill, so say NO! to the AIM-120.

System specs:ROG Maximus XI Hero, Intel I9 9900K, 32GB 3200MHz ram, EVGA 1080ti FTW3, Samsung 970 EVO 1TB NVME, 27" Samsung SA350 1080p, 27" BenQ GW2765HT 1440p, ASUS ROG PG278Q 1440p G-SYNC

Controls: Saitekt rudder pedals,Virpil MongoosT50 throttle, warBRD base, CM2 stick, TrackIR 5+pro clip, WMR VR headset.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
If DCS multiplayer only works with arcade IFF then DCS MP is heavily broken and in such a case it is not Razbams job to fix this.

 

it doesn't change the fact that if this plane is going to get bought to be used for casual multiplayer, on servers like 104th, like FC3 planes or the mig-21, IFF is really important.

My youtube channel Remember: the fun is in the fight, not the kill, so say NO! to the AIM-120.

System specs:ROG Maximus XI Hero, Intel I9 9900K, 32GB 3200MHz ram, EVGA 1080ti FTW3, Samsung 970 EVO 1TB NVME, 27" Samsung SA350 1080p, 27" BenQ GW2765HT 1440p, ASUS ROG PG278Q 1440p G-SYNC

Controls: Saitekt rudder pedals,Virpil MongoosT50 throttle, warBRD base, CM2 stick, TrackIR 5+pro clip, WMR VR headset.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
Disagree. If you want to play FC3 "game" style then you should use an FC3 module.

You should not expect FC3 features in a DCS module.

 

Then exactly what DCS modules are you playing at the moment that do model any of this with 100% accuracy?

Posted

Same question, what DCS module realistically models IFF currently? I have all except the trainers, none of them model IFF as anything but a magical device to tell friend from foe. And how is not having it at all better than having it faked? In any case, it's a moot point. RAZBAM will add it and in keeping with all other DCS modules, it will be faked. They may decide to put in some cosmetic features so you can set codes and such, but I don't think they will have any meaning in game since the game doesn't support that.

Posted
Then exactly what DCS modules are you playing at the moment that do model any of this with 100% accuracy?

 

Never said there is 100% accuracy. But in case of IFF it is for sure more realistic to leave it out instead if implementing an arcade IFF.

Off course it is impossible to implement an 100% realistic IFF but for sure it is possible to implement it in a realistic way. (but that's a huge task for ED first and no for Razbam)

 

And how is not having it at all better than having it faked?

 

In real life IFF is not there to replace AWACS. It works and it is used different than FC3 IFF.

 

And IMO it is not a good way to implement arcade IFF to replace broken AWACS in dcs.

(Also because then there is no need for ED to fix DCS MP. )

It is just time now to get dcs mp enviroment ready for moddern dcs fighters.

Posted
Never said there is 100% accuracy. But in case of IFF it is for sure more realistic to leave it out instead if implementing an arcade IFF.

 

You have to accept that there are limitations to software, and you have to work around those. Often you need an unrealistic simplification of a system in order to make the system function in a realistic manner within the context of the sim.

 

The end result from your way of doing things is never being able to tell friend from enemy. This is clearly incredibly unrealistic, so why do you want to make the game less believable?

Posted
But in case of IFF it is for sure more realistic to leave it out instead if implementing an arcade IFF.

 

Flying without IFF sure doesn't sound realistic to me. Of course the best solution would always be that everything was modelled down to the particle level but in the absence of that fidelity, compromise is welcome.

 

Something can be simulated just fine on a grander scale without going for the tiny details, and I'm quite sure many of the DCS aircraft take quite some freedom in their systems (that you consider "high fidelity") modelling in order to perform realistically without touching some finer details. This is the very definition of a conceptual model, and how simulation is often done.

 

Now, I can't say I know a thing about real IFF systems, but after an IRC convo earlier it just really seems like all it would add would be a bit more button-smashing, mission set up, and room for human error. In the absence of modelling it, it really sounds like something that should just be automated, just like many other things in our high fidelity modules at the moment.

Posted

We are going rounds here. The IFF in DCS is extremely simplified and not realistic at all. It knows who is friendly and who is not and shows that accordingly.

When Razbam implements it (it's probably an API) it's gonna be dumb and tell you who is red who's blue like labels do.

 

Don't ask Razbam for more, the thing is not in their hands. If you want a realistic IFF ask Wags.

  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...