ED, please consider releasing the Viper in EA with functional AIFF

[Airhunter]

Thats good news. Thank you sir :)

 

Good? Are you high?

[Oceandar]

Good? Are you high?

I never high. I think Im quite long enough to be member on this forum that I wouldnt expect for more. So thats good for me.

[Fjordmonkey]

Good? Are you high?

 

Would it be better to have IFF/AIFF 8-10+ months after EA? Be thankful that you at least get SOMETHING close to the EA-launch.

 

Besides, as others have said, effin' communicate. I understand that many love the airquake-servers although you're better off playing World of Warplanes or War Thunder at that stage, but if you up your game a smidge and start playing on servers that has comms introduced (Teamspeak/SRS or even Discord), blue-on-blue won't be that much of a problem.

 

Of course, some people would rather do airquake, which is fine by me.

[Airhunter]

Would it be better to have IFF/AIFF 8-10+ months after EA? Be thankful that you at least get SOMETHING close to the EA-launch.

 

Besides, as others have said, effin' communicate. I understand that many love the airquake-servers although you're better off playing World of Warplanes or War Thunder at that stage, but if you up your game a smidge and start playing on servers that has comms introduced (Teamspeak/SRS or even Discord), blue-on-blue won't be that much of a problem.

 

Of course, some people would rather do airquake, which is fine by me.

 

You don't understand. Let me explain this to the best of my ability. Yes, if all people on a PvP server were on comms we'd have no red on red or blue on blue fire (other than the occasional missile switching lock) but the reality is, most people aren't. To this day there is a ton of blue on blue from Hornets despite it having fool-proof IFF, provided you spent the 2 minutes to learn how to use it. I am not asking for a full AIFF and MSI simulation on day one of EA but merely a simple form of IFF to not repeat the Hornet's launch more than a year ago. IFF in DCS is very simplified and dumbed down on its own so I don't see why you can't just implement a FC3 level faction based system that IFF's someone on TMS left press. I woul argue that most of the DCS playerbase consists of young or simply casual people who play it on occasion and just want to fly that new shiny plane they saw at their local airshow last year. If said people decide to join a PvP server, or heck even PvE it is going to end badly for everyone. Not having IFF on a TWS capable AMRAAM platform in DCS multiplayer is simply a no-go item. There is no "declare" function of the AWACS, everyone is requesting pictures and bogey-dope's at the speed of a M61 and there is never such a thing as 100% SA or communication. An emphasis on IFF should be made and ED should go out of their way to have it working on day one as well as a quick video tutorial people can reference.

[Fjordmonkey]

I actually DO understand. The few times I've bothered to go onto an open server online, I've always gotten shot right down by people on my own team. After that happened a few times, and no attempt at communication for those servers were found, I stopped bothering and set up my own.

 

My point is that it's FAR better right now to release the Viper without IFF and then implement it right quick after EA-launch than to further postpone it while IFF is implemented. To be honest, I expect some of the bugs with the Viper to be hilarious, and a non-functional IFF should, in my opinion, take second seat to those. For now.

[Airhunter]

I actually DO understand. The few times I've bothered to go onto an open server online, I've always gotten shot right down by people on my own team. After that happened a few times, and no attempt at communication for those servers were found, I stopped bothering and set up my own.

 

My point is that it's FAR better right now to release the Viper without IFF and then implement it right quick after EA-launch than to further postpone it while IFF is implemented. To be honest, I expect some of the bugs with the Viper to be hilarious, and a non-functional IFF should, in my opinion, take second seat to those. For now.

 

That is your opinion and I agree to completely disagree.

[VampireNZ]

That is your opinion and I agree to completely disagree.

 

I would agree to disagree with your complete disagreement.

 

So just to get this straight - you expect everyone to wait further for release to enable an in-depth AIFF simulation, irrespective of if they want to fly the aircraft online requiring IFF or not?

 

Here is a thought - why don't YOU wait longer to fly your newly released, system incomplete Viper online in a competitive environment requiring long-range IFF identification of targets.....and let everyone else who just wants to get up to speed and enjoy flying the aircraft as it is to be released by ED enjoy it in the meantime. How does that sound?

 

It's easy - just leave it in the DCS hangar and pretend it isn't released yet till you get your AIFF system...meanwhile everyone else can enjoy flying it...sounds like a plan :thumbup:

[Santi871]

I would agree to disagree with your complete disagreement.

 

So just to get this straight - you expect everyone to wait further for release to enable an in-depth AIFF simulation, irrespective of if they want to fly the aircraft online requiring IFF or not?

 

Here is a thought - why don't YOU wait longer to fly your newly released, system incomplete Viper online in a competitive environment requiring long-range IFF identification of targets.....and let everyone else who just wants to get up to speed and enjoy flying the aircraft as it is to be released by ED enjoy it in the meantime. How does that sound?

 

It's easy - just leave it in the DCS hangar and pretend it isn't released yet till you get your AIFF system...meanwhile everyone else can enjoy flying it...sounds like a plan :thumbup:

 

This argument falls apart when you realize your MP experience will be affected regardless of whether you own or fly the Viper, because you will be getting constantly locked (or teamkilled) by those who do choose to fly it as long as you're in their team, because they can't tell friendly from foe.

 

So the next solution is to completely remove the Viper from public MP servers until it has IFF. The idea of this post was to avoid this trainwreck that already happened with the Hornet.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Santi871

[VampireNZ]

This argument falls apart when you realize your MP experience will be affected regardless of whether you own or fly the Viper, because you will be getting constantly locked (or teamkilled) by those who do choose to fly it as long as you're in their team, because they can't tell friendly from foe.

 

So the next solution is to completely remove the Viper from public MP servers until it has IFF. The idea of this post was to avoid this trainwreck that already happened with the Hornet.

 

Fair enough - was just asking the question.

I wouldn't say my point 'falls apart' thou - when you realise that if people want to just fire on and kill unidentified aircraft in MP they can do that in any aircraft, whether it has AIFF or even just IFF or not.

Don't fly with these type of people or on public servers with complete strangers if you don't like it. A Mirage pilot not using IFF (which happens A LOT) is just as at fault as a Viper pilot if they make that decision to fire.

 

In any case - it seems common sense to me: don't fly it if you can't without AIFF, and don't fly with people who don't use IFF.

[Santi871]

Fair enough - was just asking the question.

I wouldn't say my point 'falls apart' thou - when you realise that if people want to just fire on and kill unidentified aircraft in MP they can do that in any aircraft, whether it has AIFF or even just IFF or not.

Don't fly with these type of people or on public servers with complete strangers if you don't like it. A Mirage pilot not using IFF (which happens A LOT) is just as at fault as a Viper pilot if they make that decision to fire.

 

In any case - it seems common sense to me: don't fly it if you can't without AIFF, and don't fly with people who don't use IFF.

 

You are completely missing the point.

 

Without working IFF you have no choice but to VID or lock them and call raygun. It doesn't matter if people want to fire on unidentified aircraft or not.

[Tomsk]

Even flying in private groups (i.e. not public servers), we found that without IFF the constant "rayguns" can quickly fill all the available radio bandwidth in complex situations. The Viper releasing with a working IFF would be a huge win, even if that IFF is initially massively simplified.

[Harker]

A little OT, but there still are blue-on-blue incidents with the Hornet, because people are unsure / don't know how the ROE matrix works (IFF + NCTR or IFF + Declared hostile by a Link 16 donor). I believe it's also due to the fact that for the first scenario, you're at a big disadvantage against aircraft with "magic" IFF, that don't need to get close and go STT for an NCTR print, so some people fire before being sure, rather than risk being fired upon first.

 

It's going to be the same with the Viper's IFF system, because it will require that extra step that the Mirage or the FC3 jets etc do not. The IFF/ROE matrix system logic needs to change for all aircraft, since the only module that tries to have a "non magic" IFF system right now is at a disadvantage. And the problem is even more pronounced in servers that unrealistically use all aircraft for both sides, since you have no idea if you're being locked by a friendly or hostile aircraft.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Harker

[Airhunter]

I would agree to disagree with your complete disagreement.

 

So just to get this straight - you expect everyone to wait further for release to enable an in-depth AIFF simulation, irrespective of if they want to fly the aircraft online requiring IFF or not?

 

Here is a thought - why don't YOU wait longer to fly your newly released, system incomplete Viper online in a competitive environment requiring long-range IFF identification of targets.....and let everyone else who just wants to get up to speed and enjoy flying the aircraft as it is to be released by ED enjoy it in the meantime. How does that sound?

 

It's easy - just leave it in the DCS hangar and pretend it isn't released yet till you get your AIFF system...meanwhile everyone else can enjoy flying it...sounds like a plan :thumbup:

 

First of all: Bruh.

 

Second of all: You are again missing my point completely. Neither I nor anyone else is asking for AIFF (Advanced Identification Friend or Foe) or MSI (Multi Sensor Integration). All people want (and need) is a simple form of IFF, even if it is a placeholder until more advanced systems get implemented. I am very much waiting until the Viper is at a more finished and stable state until I consider buying it. I did not pre-order it because I disagree with ED's business practices and project management choices. Regardless of how they try to sugarcoat said choices. How low is the bar of what is acceptable for Early Access going to be lowered in the future just because people want to fly their new shiny toy for a couple hours around the block, do some aerobatics and then move on with their life, while the ones that are a bit more serious /commited about DCS have to live with the bugs and issues such a module brings with it? Is the bar really going to be "you can fly a traffic pattern and can only spawn with the engine started"? This really comes down to the modern 1st world consumer market where everyone wants the new thing NOW and is fooled by smart marketing and PR strategies.

 

This argument falls apart when you realize your MP experience will be affected regardless of whether you own or fly the Viper, because you will be getting constantly locked (or teamkilled) by those who do choose to fly it as long as you're in their team, because they can't tell friendly from foe.

 

So the next solution is to completely remove the Viper from public MP servers until it has IFF. The idea of this post was to avoid this trainwreck that already happened with the Hornet.

 

This guy finally got it. It's not just YOU being able to IFF by owning the Viper. It's everyone else flying on a server where the Viper is on your team and foxing everything that moves. So am I supposed to now not fly on my favorite server with my buddies just because of a new, incomplete module that ruins the fun for everyone?

 

Fair enough - was just asking the question.

I wouldn't say my point 'falls apart' thou - when you realise that if people want to just fire on and kill unidentified aircraft in MP they can do that in any aircraft, whether it has AIFF or even just IFF or not.

Don't fly with these type of people or on public servers with complete strangers if you don't like it. A Mirage pilot not using IFF (which happens A LOT) is just as at fault as a Viper pilot if they make that decision to fire.

 

In any case - it seems common sense to me: don't fly it if you can't without AIFF, and don't fly with people who don't use IFF.

 

See above. If that was the case I wouldn't join any PvP server, let alone one where there are actually people on. At least give us the OPTION to IFF, if someone is going to use it or even knows how to use it is a completely different story.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Airhunter

[ghashpl]

"12- We plan to have an initial IFF system but have not settled on the exact mechanization."

 

source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4048457&postcount=12

[backspace340]

It's a bit ambiguously worded - does initial mean it'll be there for EA release?

[Greyman]

That's how I had interpreted it.

 

We'll have to see, but given that DCS will know which side every aircraft in the theatre is on, this initial system can be as powerful/easy to use as they want.

 

It might be just a placeholder system and they won't be able to make it too powerful or too weak, for all of the reasons argued above, and it won't necessarily need to be absolutely realistic, but something should be there.

[EvanWeeks]

I'm just hoping it works like I'm used to it working. FCR as SOI, TMS left to interrogate.

[EvanWeeks]

Ok, since the first-pass of the manual is released, I can see that TMS left while FCR is SOI is something called "Expanded Data"... is that going to be roughly equivalent to an IFF interrogate? I'd love to get some more info on this.

[Frederf]

Ok, since the first-pass of the manual is released, I can see that TMS left while FCR is SOI is something called "Expanded Data"... is that going to be roughly equivalent to an IFF interrogate? I'd love to get some more info on this.

 

Radar processes return for more information. For example 4-ship flight in small formation may appear as single contact on radar and appear to be only a single airplane. With additional radar processing an estimate of the number of subcontacts may be counted. It is not IFF although IFF interrogation may or may not occur as well by the same button press.

[EvanWeeks]

Radar processes return for more information. For example 4-ship flight in small formation may appear as single contact on radar and appear to be only a single airplane. With additional radar processing an estimate of the number of subcontacts may be counted. It is not IFF although IFF interrogation may or may not occur as well by the same button press.

 

That would be putting the radar cursor into EXP mode, like a magnifying glass on the cursor, and is accomplished with the pinky button IIRC. TMS left is IFF interrogate elsewhere I've flown the Viper.

[backspace340]

No IFF at launch

 

[JamesRothwell]

No IFF at launch

 

 

Everybody is getting autokicked back to spectators for friendly fire.

 

Hopefully it'll be alright but I do recall from the Hornet launch that I got shot down by friendlies a lot.

[BIGNEWY]

We understand how important IFF is for MP, however we could not get it ready in time for launch, we did try. We hope to have it as soon as possible after launch.

 

Thanks

[max22]

Does the F-16 has IFF ?

 

I've been chatting with some Growling Sidewinder guys and they said the Viper has no IFF.

 

Is that true ?

[Knock-Knock]

Well it does, but wont have on initial release.