[REQUESTED]Su27 datalink not working with clients

[Torri]

That ED doesn't want to add new features for FC3, is understandable.

That they don't want to fix old bugs, is what I don't get,

[Max1mus]

ED still sells FC3 for full price, but without any support.

On the FC3 site in the shop it should say:

 

WARNING: PRODUCT NO LONGER SUPPORTED

 

Agreed.

[Fri13]

Would be proper to at least say "FC3 is not anymore developed further, only maintenance is performed". This because it is kept updated to be flyable.

[Int3rc3pt0r]

Complex of automation equipment for command posts of the air force and air defense "Universal-1E''

Source and a full description of the Su 27 datalink that could be partially implemented in Multiplayer: http://www.vko.ru/biblioteka/kompleks-sredstv-avtomatizacii-komandnyh-punktov-vvs-i-pvo-universal-1e

[JayJ]

Hello,

I just wanted to express my support for a possible client-to-client DL implementation for flankers in DCS. We are a shrinking community but despite that there is still a notable amount of people who persist in flying those iconic machines in pvp online games. Also I often stumble upon people who consider any (or all) of fc3 planes as their first module and flanker having datalink is almost always brought up in such conversations. I believe a small patch addressing it wouldn't be detrimental to other players' experience and would be positively received by those who favor redfor planes in DCS.

Kind regards!

Edited May 8, 2022 by JayJ

[okopanja]

Hi @BIGNEWY,

In general I dislike pinging people directly, since this creates awful amount of messages for the moderators, but I hope you will forgive me for this one.

The absence of datalink in multiplayer in Flanker series has intrigued me for a long time, and it was quite difficult to locate this topic. I have carefully read this topic from the start and it appears that this feature was not implemented due to the shifting priorities. E.g. balancing between F-15c/Flankers at the time where FF modules were at the very beginning, but also rational decision to give the priority to the development of FF Flanker as perspective replacement. The decision to focus on FF modules and later FF Flanker would seem as the most rational decision, but sadly due to the roadblocks ED faced with certain legal authorities this will not occur in near future.

Meanwhile the FF modules have fully flourished and represent today the majority of the aircraft being flown in multiplayer server. As the new features flow into these modules, this is also reflected on the population of players flying old FC3 aircraft. Namely the addition of datalink shared between players allows for much better situational awareness and collaboration between players flying the said modules. In present environment the absence of this omitted feature is felt more and more, and gives the impression of these great aircraft being abandoned.

I realize that creating that realistic DL would require much more effort, based on the fact that it provides not only the target sharing but also commanding interface, but would it be at least possible to add the basic target sharing as we have it in single player at hopefully minimal effort for ED?

I would like to emphasize that this would improve the competitiveness without negatively affecting the balance due to the upcoming additions such as F-15E and Typhoon, and further extensions both F-16 and F-18 will receive.

As the last but not least: I do own the certain FF modules, but I feel it is deeply unrealistic to fly it on both blue and red side, thus creating a kind of unnatural blue-on-blue situations, due to the relatively modern red jets being underrepresented.

On behalf of all of us who took part of this topic, and all ED fans I would like to ask you to please verify once what would be the time and effort to bring this minimal but much needed improvement?

Best regards

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, okopanja said:

On behalf of all of us who took part of this topic, and all ED fans I would like to ask you to please verify once what would be the time and effort to bring this minimal but much needed improvement?

Best regards

Hi, 

the data link in MP was never a feature for the FC3 aircraft, we have however requested it, I have no news other than that. 

thank you

[Redounet]

Just wait until 3rd party mod teams get the knowledge to release custom sensors systems and flight models and give up on Ed fixing their ****  its not an ah64 or an f16

the future of this sim is not on their hands (unless they decide to lock it all like i suspect they will)

Edited June 23, 2022 by Redounet

[BlackPixxel]

Todays update broke datalink even more, it now has massive issues even in singlethreaded mode.

When radar is turned on, detected targets show at completely different positions than they really are. And the scan zone + DLZ indications on the datalink get fixed onto random aircraft. The own symbol also randomly changes to those of enemy aircraft or even AWACS.

 

Seems like it needs a bigger rework. Would be a good opportunity to fix plane to plane datalink in Multiplayer while you are digging through the code!

[Oceandar]

. Would be a good opportunity to fix plane to plane datalink in Multiplayer while you are digging through the code!

Couldn't agree more

[HwyStar]

Should this be under the: Home\English\Digital Combat Simulator\DCS World 2.8\Bugs and Problem\Multi-Threading Bug Reports (Temp) thread?

I'm sure BigNewy and team will get all over this when they see the HDD image you supplied.

[kooo]

In multiplayer, single thread

1. identified my own aircraft as foe

2. identified friendly F14-A as foe

3. sometimes the sector position and direction jumps randomly

[Admon]

В 3/18/2023 в 2:37 AM, BlackPixxel сказал:

Todays update broke datalink even more, it now has massive issues even in singlethreaded mode.

When radar is turned on, detected targets show at completely different positions than they really are. And the scan zone + DLZ indications on the datalink get fixed onto random aircraft. The own symbol also randomly changes to those of enemy aircraft or even AWACS.

 

Seems like it needs a bigger rework. Would be a good opportunity to fix plane to plane datalink in Multiplayer while you are digging through the code!

a similar problem. It causes a lot of inconvenience. Are there any deadlines for fixing this bug?

[draconus]

19 minutes ago, Admon said:

Are there any deadlines for fixing this bug?

No ETAs on fixing bugs.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

yes it would be nice to see this fixed

could have all friendly flankers on a sever feed with their contacts highlighted as 2 and 1 being things you see and are sorting

[Ironhand]

3 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

…could have all friendly flankers on a sever feed with their contacts highlighted as 2 and 1 being things you see and are sorting

Not realistic but better than what exists now, I suppose.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Ironhand said:

Not realistic but better than what exists now, I suppose.

What is realistic?

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

What is realistic?

Depends, I suppose, on whether you are flying as joint commander, element lead, or wingman. Each display has differences. The simplest would be the wingman’s. In that case all you would need to do is give each contact its number and display each sending aircraft that falls within the HDD’s set range with its number.

Since, online you’re all flying as one huge element, that would probably be enough. You can tell whether the contact is one you have on radar, sent via datalink, or both by the structure of the symbol. Assigning a 1 for things you see and a 2 for everything else isn’t realistic.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Ironhand

[falcon_120]

But can the Su27 fighter to fighter data link receive info from more than 3 other planes?

On a maybe not so relevant sidenote, a data link from the same time-frame in the Ka50 can only receive data from his 4 element package (3 other wingmen). I've maybe incorrectly assumed similar limitations for flankers/fulcrums datalinks from the 80s/90s.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Most Russian literature points to a 20 user limit (Количество абонентов)

Most likely additional could be fed through a gate way if not dirrectly

https://sccs.intelgr.com/archive/2015-01/06-Aganesov.pdf

 

7 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

But can the Su27 fighter to fighter data link receive info from more than 3 other planes?

On a maybe not so relevant sidenote, a data link from the same time-frame in the Ka50 can only receive data from his 4 element package (3 other wingmen). I've maybe incorrectly assumed similar limitations for flankers/fulcrums datalinks from the 80s/90s.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

 

On 4/24/2023 at 4:48 PM, Ironhand said:

Depends, I suppose, on whether you are flying as joint commander, element lead, or wingman. Each display has differences. The simplest would be the wingman’s. In that case all you would need to do is give each contact its number and display each sending aircraft that falls within the HDD’s set range with its number.

Since, online you’re all flying as one huge element, that would probably be enough. You can tell whether the contact is one you have on radar, sent via datalink, or both by the structure of the symbol. Assigning a 1 for things you see and a 2 for everything else isn’t realistic.

 

 

 

Yeah that could work too

Edited April 26, 2023 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Ironhand]

8 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Most Russian literature points to a 20 user limit (Количество абонентов)

If there's a 20 user limit, it's not a free for all. If I'm understanding the Su-27 manual correctly, each aircraft's system only connects to a maximum of three other aircraft. So the joint commander can link to either his wingmen or to the element leads in up to 3 elements depending on switch settings. The element lead can connect to either the joint commander or to his 3 wingmen, etc. It's not 20 individual aircraft "talking" directly with one another.

[Wyvern]

21 hours ago, Ironhand said:

If I'm understanding the Su-27 manual correctly

IRL or DCS? the DCS one is the manual for the Su-27 in DCS, not the actual thing, thats why the bypass mode for the R-77 is wrongly presented as TWS

Edited April 27, 2023 by Wyvern

[Ironhand]

54 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

IRL or DCS? the DCS one is the manual for the Su-27 in DCS, not the actual thing, thats why the bypass mode for the R-77 is wrongly presented as TWS

 

IRL.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Ironhand

[Wyvern]

2 hours ago, Ironhand said:

IRL.

 

ah ight then