IFF

[unknown]

I'm mainly referring to the M4/5 encryption codes, but yes the specific M1 & 2 codes would also be protected.

 

My point really is that what each mode does isn't classified, and can be read about online. Even Wikipedia is correct.

I agree with you and would like to see a "real" emulated IFF in DCS.

[Bogey Jammer]

They aren't, not at all. The only 'classified' part is the IFF codes themselves, and they aren't needed.

Cool, so Razbam don't have excuses to not implement it then :D

[Eddie]

Well, I think the best Razbam could do really is add the cockpit control functions that can be exported to things such as UniversRadio and LotATC given that DCS itself doesn't have IFF modelling yet.

 

They might be able to implement M4 based on actually having your IFF set correctly I the cockpit at best, but that'd likely only work between Mirages.

 

My view is that the all seeing magic "IFF" seen on the simplified jets should be a difficulty setting like other simplifications/cheats that can be enabled/disabled on servers.

[Flagrum]

Cool, so Razbam don't have excuses to not implement it then :D

Iirc no DCS dev has ever brought up an excuse ... or rather explanation for why their respective IFF transponder was not implemented.

 

The Ka-50 has none and the A-10C IFF transponder probably took the same path as the AGM 65E ... (i.e "not part of the contract" or something like that). Well, and since then, it just became some sort of ... "tradition": DCS = no IFF ... :-(

[Pikey]

Your view is shared with mine.

 

I wonder if by third parties doing it we will miss ED implementing it though.

 

Well, I think the best Razbam could do really is add the cockpit control functions that can be exported to things such as UniversRadio and LotATC given that DCS itself doesn't have IFF modelling yet.

 

They might be able to implement M4 based on actually having your IFF set correctly I the cockpit at best, but that'd likely only work between Mirages.

 

My view is that the all seeing magic "IFF" seen on the simplified jets should be a difficulty setting like other simplifications/cheats that can be enabled/disabled on servers.

[nomdeplume]

I think the main reason it hasn't been a priority is because just implementing an IFF system which can yield an "indeterminate" state is not enough; the game world has to actually react to that state for it to be meaningful. Making that happen is a massive amount of work with a lot of challenges.

 

Having the AI consider any aircraft not responding correctly to IFF hostile (either due to a fault, or because a player misconfigured their system) would probably not be received favourably by the majority of people.

 

A practical solution would be allowing the AI to still have omnipotent powers of identification and only giving players a 'real' IFF. That way the AI doesn't have to respond realistically to 'indeterminate' states, but then you're spending time implementing and maintaining a feature only used by the people who play online... and most of them are satisfied with a simplistic, always accurate system. So, the value gained is very low for quite a bit of effort.

[theOden]

IFF has never been about identifying hostile aircrafts.

It's been constructed to do the opposite, identify friendly crafts so you can put those on ignore and continue investigating all others.

[Focha]

Really would like to know what are the procedures for the IFF setting, for my point of view IFF must be a system a bit more complex than that we use in comercial operations; Transponder Codes, but a lot like it.

 

The codes are set daily for all the squadrons?

 

Also, I would like to know how it'll be implemented in DCS, since there are a lot of systems from WWII and modern era.

 

It would give a code randomly for each online mission start up?

 

 

Sent from Tapatalk via Samsung Alpha.

[Eddie]

Really would like to know what are the procedures for the IFF setting, for my point of view IFF must be a system a bit more complex than that we use in comercial operations; Transponder Codes, but a lot like it..

 

Military IFF includes all the transponder modes used in civil aviation, with the addition of Mode 1 (mission code, cockpit selectable) , M2 (unit code, cockpit selectable in some aircraft)), Mode 3 (mil version of mode A & C), Mode 4 which is what most people are thinking of when they talk about IFF, and lastly mode 5 which is a secure military version of mode S.

 

The secure modes are all encrypted much like secure radios, and it's the specific methods of encryption and encryption code that are "classified". With modes 1 & 2 exactly what setting means what is also protected.

 

All the encryption keys etc are loaded on the ground by maintenance crews, the non cockpit selectable items are generally loaded either by maintenance crews or via the pilot's data cartridge.

 

The codes can also be switched in flight (between the sets of codes loaded in the aircraft) in specific time blocks as a countermeasure to potential enemy "spoofing". e.g all codes may be changed at 6 hourly intervals in a given area of operations, if you're airborne at that time you'd need to ensure the correct code is selected.

 

The potential for pilots to make mistakes with these settings, or systems to fail is why IFF can't, and doesn't, tell you who is not friendly. It can only ever confirm who is.

[Focha]

Military IFF includes all the transponder modes used in civil aviation, with the addition of Mode 1 (mission code, cockpit selectable) , M2 (unit code, cockpit selectable in some aircraft)), Mode 3 (mil version of mode A & C), Mode 4 which is what most people are thinking of when they talk about IFF, and lastly mode 5 which is a secure military version of mode S.

 

The secure modes are all encrypted much like secure radios, and it's the specific methods of encryption and encryption code that are "classified". With modes 1 & 2 exactly what setting means what is also protected.

 

All the encryption keys etc are loaded on the ground by maintenance crews, the non cockpit selectable items are generally loaded either by maintenance crews or via the pilot's data cartridge.

 

The codes can also be switched in flight (between the sets of codes loaded in the aircraft) in specific time blocks as a countermeasure to potential enemy "spoofing". e.g all codes may be changed at 6 hourly intervals in a given area of operations, if you're airborne at that time you'd need to ensure the correct code is selected.

 

The potential for pilots to make mistakes with these settings, or systems to fail is why IFF can't, and doesn't, tell you who is not friendly. It can only ever confirm who is.

Amazing answer. Thank you for your time and effort replying.

 

Kind regards.

 

Sent from Tapatalk via Samsung Alpha.

[johnv2pt0]

Please bro

 

Not all Betas are Feature complete...

 

Just citing your source, wikipedia. It says:

Generally = usually.

 

Yeah, as far as I understand it you're all wrong. Exactly opposite actually...the perversion of the term beta in recent years is not calling it feature complete but calling it incomplete. Not sure how you can even quote what generally means and draw the wrong conclusion. If generally equals usually then why on earth would you castigate someone for saying they're upset for something not being what it "generally" is supposed to be? Beta came from the IBM standards test or something like that...You might remember IBM...the original computers...? So yeah, beta meaning feature complete and out for testing outside of the developers to FIND BUGS predates the other interpretation.

 

That said, I'm not a developer and could care less about the historical controversies over the software development cycle. The point is don't put someone down for being upset that their $40 simulation of a fighter jet that relies on IFF doesn't have a modeled IFF. :doh:

Edited February 7, 2016 by johnv2pt0

[Skitter]

Do you actually expect to have a discussion?

Yeah, as far as I understand it you're all wrong.

And the reason for your omniscient position in discussion is:

Beta came from the IBM standards test or something like that...

That said, I'm not a developer(...)

Also, you feel it's unfair to point out that somebody posted a link to wikipedia page as a proof of his point without even reading what the article says?

That's peculiar.

[Sarge55]

He's just trolling you Skitter, don't bite.

[Xenovia]

still no IFF?

 

The struggle of being a student... no money for Mirage i cri everytime.

[johnv2pt0]

Do you actually expect to have a discussion?

 

And the reason for your omniscient position in discussion is:

 

 

Also, you feel it's unfair to point out that somebody posted a link to wikipedia page as a proof of his point without even reading what the article says?

That's peculiar.

 

Some links to IBM product test i mentioned...not the best but I don't have time for more (origination of Alpha,beta,etc...or so believed by many):

 

http://blog.codinghorror.com/alpha-beta-and-sometimes-gamma/

http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/beta.html

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40013/whats-the-origin-of-beta-to-describe-a-user-testing-phase-of-computer-devel

 

You didn't cite or link what you posted, so why on earth would you get upset for someone not reading it?

 

This isn't a troll, this is reason and evidence. Look it up. Reread...do whatever you like.

[PiedDroit]

Guys make a thread for this specific topic please.

"Beta is in the eye of the beholder".

(yeah it's a pun, I hope you'll get it)

[Plushanubka]

So... Can somebody explain where is a difference between alpha and beta?

[gospadin]

At my company, alpha means all features written ("feature complete") and beta means alpha plus all tests written and executing with no blocking bugs. When we reach beta, we can early sample to customers so they can begin qualifications of something that is expected to be very close to the final product delivery. For our product, alpha-to-beta occupies 12-18 weeks and beta-to-final shipment is another 12-18 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project.

 

Every company has their own guidelines based on their market's expectations.

 

The only purpose for either term is to add some intermediate milestones to being "done" with the project, so that you can plot trends that are (hopefully) predictive of the final date.

 

Edit: RAZBAM and any others are free to call anything they want alpha or beta. We just simply need to learn from the quality they present as an alpha or beta, and use that to make a personal judgement about whether or not to early purchase their modules in the future. Do I think they released it an update or two early? yes. Have I had fun with it, even in the buggy state? yes. Knowing what I know now, I'm still okay with having bought early, as their progress has been good the last month, unlike some other modules that seem significantly more neglected. RAZBAM will likely get my money early on the next one too.

Edited February 7, 2016 by gospadin

[spiddx]

Regarding DCS it doesn't really matter too much, since ED seems to go with the term "Early Access" (which can mean about anything) in the future. I bet this change comes because of exactly this situation here.

[Aeons]

So doesn't anyone have any news on this? Any new updates with an expected timeframe for IFF?

[Plushanubka]

No news

[Zeus67]

No news

 

No news because work in the IFF has not started yet. Don't worry you will get the news as soon as possible.