not planned Why can't the IFF function be added?

[travelaround]

Why can't the IFF function be added?

The IFF panel is on the right side of the cockpit, but it's just a decoration, which is a little abnormal.

[Northstar98]

Because IFF is largely completely absent in DCS, it's the same for every module but the JF-17 (which only works for other JF-17s).

DCS will need to do a core update for IFF functionality (right now it's essentially magic).

[WobblyFlops]

And the big issue with realistic IFF is that it would completely break the public multiplayer servers and they would be unplayable due to enormous friendly fire issues. Even with the current implementation, friendly fire is a real issue, with a realistic IFF it would be even more so a huge problem.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

33 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

And the big issue with realistic IFF is that it would completely break the public multiplayer servers and they would be unplayable due to enormous friendly fire issues. Even with the current implementation, friendly fire is a real issue, with a realistic IFF it would be even more so a huge problem.

Having a functional IFF will increase friendly fire??? How so??

[WobblyFlops]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Having a functional IFF will increase friendly fire??? How so??

Not exactly an arcane concept. Realistic IFF would require you to not only set up your transponder modes accordingly but also set it to the proper code. And it would also require people with an interrogator to know which modes and codes to interrogate and interpret the results properly. And if we go deeper, there's stuff like simulated failures of the interrogator/transponder/M4 crypto, the azimuth/elevation limits of the interrogator (which isn't necessarily the same as the limits of the radar),  angular resolution of the interrogating process (two aircraft close to each other can show up as friendlies even without both of them having the correct crypto) and so on.

 

Currently, the transponder panel does nothing, codes aren't simulated and it's magical, coalition based in every jet except for the JF-17, and the result of the interrogation is also highly simplified in jets that are equipped with such hardware. 

[lmp]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Having a functional IFF will increase friendly fire??? How so??

1) Our F-5E only has an IFF transponder, not an IFF interrogator. Regardless of any improvements to IFF simulation in the game, F-5E pilots will have to identify their targets visually.

2) The biggest limit of the current implementation is that IFF always magically "works". Transponders cannot break, cannot be left turned off or incorrectly set up, are always compatible (Soviet and NATO systems shouldn't be) - in fact, there doesn't even have to be a transponder on an aircraft for it to be correctly classified as friendly by other aircraft on its side. If IFFs were modelled better it would mainly increase false negative responses and thus - blue on blue cases. I don't believe it would completely break MP servers. The WW2 and Korean fighters, as well as the F-5E have to rely on visual identification and people deal with it. Players of modern modules would eventually get used to the new limitations, though accidental shootdowns would be more common. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

Visual ID is tons more fun in any case.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

And the big issue with realistic IFF is that it would completely break the public multiplayer servers and they would be unplayable due to enormous friendly fire issues.

No it wouldn't, the other sim has realistic IFF, and I don't see any problems there. I'm sorry but this just sounds incredibly alarmist.

If it's going to be that much of an issue, make it a difficulty setting.

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

Even with the current implementation, friendly fire is a real issue, with a realistic IFF it would be even more so a huge problem.

And it sounds much more like a player issue than a game issue, seeing as the current implementation couldn't make it any easier unless you use labels.

27 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Not exactly an arcane concept. Realistic IFF would require you to not only set up your transponder modes accordingly but also set it to the proper code. And it would also require people with an interrogator to know which modes and codes to interrogate and interpret the results properly.

All of this can go in the briefing for the mission, and I imagine most will just use mode 4, of which there's a grand total of 2 keys available

27 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

And if we go deeper, there's stuff like simulated failures of the interrogator/transponder/M4 crypto

Functionally equivalent to switching it off or zeroising it. The only thing that needs to be coded is warnings.

27 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

the azimuth/elevation limits of the interrogator (which isn't necessarily the same as the limits of the radar), angular resolution of the interrogating process (two aircraft close to each other can show up as friendlies even without both of them having the correct crypto) and so on.

The Mirage 2000C already does all of this.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

31 minutes ago, lmp said:

1) Our F-5E only has an IFF transponder, not an IFF interrogator. Regardless of any improvements to IFF simulation in the game, F-5E pilots will have to identify their targets visually.

2) The biggest limit of the current implementation is that IFF always magically "works". Transponders cannot break, cannot be left turned off or incorrectly set up, are always compatible (Soviet and NATO systems shouldn't be) - in fact, there doesn't even have to be a transponder on an aircraft for it to be correctly classified as friendly by other aircraft on its side. If IFFs were modelled better it would mainly increase false negative responses and thus - blue on blue cases. I don't believe it would completely break MP servers. The WW2 and Korean fighters, as well as the F-5E have to rely on visual identification and people deal with it. Players of modern modules would eventually get used to the new limitations, though accidental shootdowns would be more common. 

I’m still confused. If it “magically works”. Then why is the op asking for it to be added? 
I get it. Older aircraft never had it, some had  transponder’s  only, some the full montie.  Are you asking that every aircraft have its respective systems functional as original or are you asking for a generic “everyone has it” function?

As for as how complicated it would be, thus increasing team kills that seems illogical. Something is always better than nothing and remember its a “study level sim”. Seems to me if you can learn to start the engine, radio or work the radars IFF would just require the appropriate learning. And yes I understand the whole visual ID thing but thats a doctrine not “the way the systems were designed” thing. 
Not trolling, just can’t figure out what’s being asked.  
 

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

I’m still confused. If it “magically works”. Then why is the op asking for it to be added?

Currently every aircraft in DCS has a magic IFF transponder, that magically responds to friendly IFF interrogations to confirm the identity.

What our F-5E does not have is an IFF interrogater to interrogate other aircraft, but as far as I'm aware it didn't have one IRL either.

Edited February 8, 2022 by QuiGon

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

28 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Currently every aircraft in DCS has a magic IFF transponder, that magically responds to friendly IFF interrogations to confirm the identity.

What our F-5E does not have is an IFF interrogater to interrogate other aircraft, but as far as I'm aware it didn't have one IRL either.

 

Thanks. That’s what I was looking for. Hadn’t gotten that deep into any of the planes before I unplugged. 
 

[Northstar98]

On 2/8/2022 at 5:31 PM, QuiGon said:

Currently every aircraft in DCS has a magic IFF transponder, that magically responds to friendly IFF interrogations to confirm the identity.

What our F-5E does not have is an IFF interrogater to interrogate other aircraft, but as far as I'm aware it didn't have one IRL either.

Yep.

AFAIK, how it works is that so long as the interrogator and the target being interrogated belong to the same coalition, it always responds as friendly regardless of how the IFF transponder panel is set up.

Everything about the panel (and all the information we need) is described in detail in the -1 for the F-5E/F, and yes no interrogator for the F-5, so identification has to be done visually, like it's done now.

On 2/8/2022 at 6:01 PM, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Thanks. That’s what I was looking for. Hadn’t gotten that deep into any of the planes before I unplugged.

Essentially, the OP is after is a realistic IFF transponder.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[WobblyFlops]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

No it wouldn't, the other sim has realistic IFF, and I don't see any problems there. I'm sorry but this just sounds incredibly alarmist.

 

The other sim is a notoriously hard to learn, hardcore game specifically for milsim type of gameplay. The casual, chill, airquake DCS gameplay is incredibly far from that.

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And it sounds much more like a player issue than a game issue, seeing as the current implementation couldn't make it any easier unless you use labels.

Sure, but most people who get into DCS (and therefore who make up the bulk of the current playerbase) only saw a video from the Reapers or GS or Operator Drewski and want to shoot some jets in a very fun and casual setting. They won't know how to accurately set up their IFF or God forbit interrogate others properly.

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

All of this can go in the briefing for the mission, and I imagine most will just use mode 4, of which there's a grand total of 2 keys available

Sure and that further increases the barrier of entry. Now you introduce extra variables that can fail; the interrogatee may not know how to set up the transponder properly or don't know what the codes mean or how to do it and that's only half of the issue. The interrogator is even more difficult because you'll have the ability to look for specific modes, codes, interpret what you see and so on.

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Functionally equivalent to switching it off or zeroising it. The only thing that needs to be coded is warnings.

Exactly, you'd have people accidentally zeroizing their crypto or not even knowing how to set it up properly. 

 

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The Mirage 2000C already does all of this.

And Razbam's Discord is full of people asking question because they don't know how to use it. The Mirage is the perfect example of too high fidelity for the average player.

 

Also, don't forget how sensitive the whole topic is (just because you know how it works doesn't mean ED are legally allowed to implement these features and the other sim doesn't follow the same ethical and legal standards) and if we start peeling the whole thing layer by layer and you want the whole ID/ROE stuff done properly things will very quickly go out of control. You'd need to have ATC asking you to use M3, you could have them checking out your M4 and if you want an infrastructure behind it, you'd need associated pages implemented for modern modules, like the TGT DATA page in the Hornet. 

 

Realistic IFF is just a small slice in the big pie, to have a realistic battlespace management, you'd need to have support for different IDcrits and ROE matrices, package management, proper ATC-C2 support, (including new assets like Red Crown) and this would all only work with a proper mission planner and DTC. So to actually make this realistic, you'd need several auxiliary systems many of which are incredibly complex, sensitive and would only cater to the very small milsim crowd. The vast majority of the playerbase just goes online to GAW or GS to blow some steam off after work and they don't want realistic procedures being enforced to this level of fidelity. And the small milsim crowd can kind of work around the issue and use lotATC for this.

[QuiGon]

31 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

The other sim is a notoriously hard to learn, hardcore game specifically for milsim type of gameplay. The casual, chill, airquake DCS gameplay is incredibly far from that.

Sure, but most people who get into DCS (and therefore who make up the bulk of the current playerbase) only saw a video from the Reapers or GS or Operator Drewski and want to shoot some jets in a very fun and casual setting. They won't know how to accurately set up their IFF or God forbit interrogate others properly.

Please speak for yourself, but don't act like you're speaking for the majority of DCS players. Just because this is how your DCS bubble is like, doesn't mean it's like how the majority of players is. I'm definitely not like this.

 

31 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Sure and that further increases the barrier of entry. Now you introduce extra variables that can fail; the interrogatee may not know how to set up the transponder properly or don't know what the codes mean or how to do it and that's only half of the issue. The interrogator is even more difficult because you'll have the ability to look for specific modes, codes, interpret what you see and so on.

And that's exactly how it should be, just like it is with all the other aircraft systems. That's why DCS is a study sim.
 

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Essentially, the OP is after is a realistic IFF transponder.

I think he wants to be able to IFF other aircraft with the F-5.

Edited February 8, 2022 by QuiGon

[Northstar98]

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The other sim is a notoriously hard to learn, hardcore game specifically for milsim type of gameplay. The casual, chill, airquake DCS gameplay is incredibly far from that.

IFF though, isn't.

Seriously, if you can manage to tune radios to airbases, you can use IFF transponders and interrogators.

I imagine in the majority of cases people will stick to mode 4 and key A (again, IFF policy can and should be completely up to the mission editor), and here's what F-5E players would need to do to set that up:

• Mode dial to LOW/NORM (there'll be a roughly minute and a half wait for the transponder to warm up when positioning the dial from OFF)
• Mode 4 Control Switch On
• Select Key A.

That's it, that's all there is to it.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Sure, but most people who get into DCS (and therefore who make up the bulk of the current playerbase) only saw a video from the Reapers or GS or Operator Drewski and want to shoot some jets in a very fun and casual setting. They won't know how to accurately set up their IFF or God forbit interrogate others properly.

It is no more complicated than dropping an LGB and matching codes on the TGP, or tuning a radio.

As for people not knowing what to do, there's plenty of us, including myself, who are happy to help, fortunately there's plenty of cross-over here, and most systems work in basically the same way, with maybe a different interface (F-16 is done mostly through the DED, Hornet UFC etc).

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Sure and that further increases the barrier of entry. Now you introduce extra variables that can fail; the interrogatee may not know how to set up the transponder properly or don't know what the codes mean or how to do it and that's only half of the issue.

If you don't know how to do something, then like everything else, you learn how to do it, and then you do know how to do it.

I'm no different; I had no idea how to cold start any of the aircraft modules I own from the start, I had to read the manual and watch videos to learn how to do it and now I do know how to start these modules.

Same goes for just about every weapon and RADAR mode.

Ultimately there are plenty more things that are way more complicated than IFF - A-10 CDU and the AH-64D to name 2 big ones, the former I still don't know how to use - but my lack of knowledge shouldn't be an argument for not including the CDU as it currently is.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The interrogator is even more difficult because you'll have the ability to look for specific modes, codes, interpret what you see and so on.

Looking for specific modes and codes, is again, no more difficult than inputting laser codes into TGPs, or tuning a radio. It's only really the F-16C (to my knowledge) that's different, but only in that you can program in position and time events to automatically change the codes and control which modes are active/inactive, though it's pretty easy to learn. Another thing to mention is that the F-16's INTG pages can be played with - you can toggle different modes and change the codes, it's just eye candy only though, the only setting that doesn't work is the couple setting, which can be set to just copy or partially copy whatever is set for the transponder.

For stuff like the AN/APX-76 and the Mirage 2000's interrogator, it's a panel whereby you can select which mode you want to interrogate, and you can dial in the code. The AN/APX-76 interrogator panel isn't present in the Tomcat module yet, but it is described in HB's manual. The Mirage 2000's interrogator panel is present in the module and can be interacted with, it's again, just eye-candy apart from the interrogation coverage selector.

The Kremniy-2 system just uses the code selected for both the interrogator and the transponder, and the Parol system can be kept magic, so long as the system is enabled and the switches match (though by default, it's in an automatic mode, and so doesn't need to be touched beyond powering the system on).

 

Interpreting what you see is pretty easy too, and it's no more difficult than understanding things like HAFU symbols in the Hornet, and we're already 2/3rds of the way there:

For positive replies, players should already be familiar with them, as we already have them - in aircraft with raw displays, you'll typically see 2 horizontal bars, one above and one below the contact (F-14, MiG-21bis), in the F-16C, this is a green circle, with the mode number inside, in the Hornet, this is a friendly HAFU symbol, in the Mirage 2000C it's a green diamond.

For ambiguous replies, whereby the interrogated aircraft responds on the correct mode but incorrect code: the Tomcat will display just the bottom horizontal bar; in the F-16C, it will be a yellow square with the mode number inside; in the Hornet it will be the ambiguous HAFU symbol.

When an interrogated aircraft doesn't reply, no response and no symbology is displayed, which is what currently happens. An aircraft may not respond for a variety of reasons: transponder off/damaged, transponder not set to reply to the interrogated code or, in the case of M4, wrong key selected or keys zeroized.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Exactly, you'd have people accidentally zeroizing their crypto or not even knowing how to set it up properly.

I'm sorry but I don't see how 'not knowing how to set it up' is a problem, every module I've got I had no idea how to cold start them (a procedure with way more steps than IFF), you learn the procedure and do that.

Same with basically every weapon - I didn't know what I was doing first time, but you learn the systems and then your able to.

Be that from reading the manual, watching a video, reading a guide or asking questions.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

And Razbam's Discord is full of people asking question because they don't know how to use it. The Mirage is the perfect example of too high fidelity for the average player.

People asking questions = too much fidelity? Huh?

Again, this is a study sim, and nobody is born knowing what all of this stuff is - we have to learn about it.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Also, don't forget how sensitive the whole topic is (just because you know how it works doesn't mean ED are legally allowed to implement these features and the other sim doesn't follow the same ethical and legal standards)

To be honest, even the wikipedia page on IFF tells you all you need to know.

We absolutely do not need to model crypto (which is the main sensitive thing) at all, and it would be completely outside of what the player would see anyway.

How it could be done is similar to the system now, just that BLUFORs M4 A and B keys are different to REDFOR's A and B keys - we don't actually need to know what the key is, just keep track of the coalition and which key is selected.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

and if we start peeling the whole thing layer by layer and you want the whole ID/ROE stuff done properly things will very quickly go out of control.

Let's just stick to IFF interrogators and transponders is current aircraft for now.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

You'd need to have ATC asking you to use M3

ATC has far bigger fish to fry than IFF at the moment, they can't even work with parallel runways and doesn't interact with the AI, though this is something other simulators already use.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

,you could have them checking out your M4 and if you want an infrastructure behind it, you'd need associated pages implemented for modern modules, like the TGT DATA page in the Hornet. 

The F-16C already has its IFF and INTG pages, just some functions don't work and its eye candy.

Not sure what the TGT DATA page in the Hornet displays, but it sounds like something we should get anyway.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Realistic IFF is just a small slice in the big pie, to have a realistic battlespace management, you'd need to have support for different IDcrits and ROE matrices, package management, proper ATC-C2 support, (including new assets like Red Crown) and this would all only work with a proper mission planner and DTC.

Well, that's why we should stick to purely IFF for now, as most of that other stuff is contingent on other functions, such as IADS and the AI, plus DTC and a mission planner.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

So to actually make this realistic, you'd need several auxiliary systems many of which are incredibly complex, sensitive and would only cater to the very small milsim crowd.

You know the size of the respective crowds, how?

ED has said in the past that SP > MP.

On 2/8/2022 at 8:54 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The vast majority of the playerbase just goes online to GAW or GS to blow some steam off after work and they don't want realistic procedures being enforced to this level of fidelity.

It's the same level of fidelity as the radios...

Seriously, the most complicated IFF gets is matching sets of 4 digit numbers at most, and if the IFF policy is set by the mission editor (which is how it should be), and what modes and codes are in use and at what times/positions (if applicable), is in the briefing, what's the problem?

And I'm sorry, but these people should really read the product descriptions of the things they're buying, and we shouldn't abandon fidelity because the airquake crowd exists.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Northstar98

[lmp]

Wouldn't the public MP issue be solved by having a server enforceable "relaxed IFF" mode?

24 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

And Razbam's Discord is full of people asking question because they don't know how to use it. The Mirage is the perfect example of too high fidelity for the average player.

 

People are also confused by Doppler radar blind speeds, VRS in helicopters and a plethora of other realistic phenomena all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

20 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Realistic IFF is just a small slice in the big pie, to have a realistic battlespace management, you'd need to have support for different IDcrits and ROE matrices, package management, proper ATC-C2 support, (including new assets like Red Crown) and this would all only work with a proper mission planner and DTC.

That (and AI that could work within it) would probably be much more difficult to put in than the IFF overhaul itself. I suspect this is why we don't have realistic IFF yet.

[rossmum]

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The Mirage 2000C already does all of this.

F-16 too, IIRC.

As for IFF transponders not being able to be left off/always on/etc - that is not correct either. Leave the SRZO and/or izdelie 81 switches off in the MiG-21 or the green-guarded SRO switch in the MiG-19 off and tell me how that pans out for you. The reason it's called "magic IFF" is because it's globally compatible and coalition-based, and aircraft without it still reply. It does not mean that all modules have always-on IFF, because several of them do not.

As for people asking about the M2000's IFF in Razbam's Discord - at least they're asking. This is meant to be a study sim, yet a sizeable chunk of the playerbase are allergic to even the suggestion of reading a manual and a lot of them seem outright hostile to the concept of learning everything. I don't think we should be sacrificing fidelity in a game whose entire draw is said fidelity, just to keep casual players happy. You could always make it an option clientside with a mission editor override, like all the other simplified modes.

Sensitivity - interrogators and codes, sure. The (particularly US) transponders are not new tech and it's not particularly hard to find out how they work.

4 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

The other sim is a notoriously hard to learn, hardcore game specifically for milsim type of gameplay. The casual, chill, airquake DCS gameplay is incredibly far from that.

We must be playing different games. I more or less exclusively play what could be described as "airquake" in DCS, but that doesn't stop me reading manuals and finding out how my aircraft is actually supposed to work (often versus how it does work ingame).

Multiplayer is a minority of the DCS playerbase and PvP is a minority of that. Considering how long it takes to get quality of life improvements for multiplayer sometimes, I don't think we should expect DCS' development to orbit around what the current flavour of the week is on Hoggit, let alone GS.

4 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Sure, but most people who get into DCS (and therefore who make up the bulk of the current playerbase) only saw a video from the Reapers or GS or Operator Drewski and want to shoot some jets in a very fun and casual setting. They won't know how to accurately set up their IFF or God forbit interrogate others properly.

If only there was some way to learn.

This game has a reputation of being a very in-depth study sim. Most of its players probably study one aircraft religiously and fly a few hours of singleplayer per week, because all the numbers ED have mentioned in the past indicate the vast majority of players are singleplayer only. If you pretend they don't exist, you still have a large number of milsim-oriented PvE servers as well as regular self-hosted missions for groups. PvP is a drop in the ocean. Just because there's been a relatively recent influx of people from other games who want the shortest possible path between installing and cool explosions, does not mean we should throw fidelity out the window to cater to them, especially when you can always add new features like this but then leave it up to mission makers whether to enable them on their servers or not.

Edited February 9, 2022 by rossmum

[Frederf]

Famously the "other sim" didn't have IFF at all until recently. Imagine DCS but none of the IFF equipment worked, ever. That's how that sim was for about 20 years and not only did people use it successfully, most weren't even aware there was something missing. The users of that software went decades without any IFF returns, magical or otherwise. While it took more awareness and reliance on other means to ID targets, most users got plenty adept at doing a full spectrum of operations without it. Only in the last few years when IFF was introduced has it even been possible to get any IFF information. There was a learning period but it was learned pretty quickly that there was a provided IFF plan and cooperating AI.

Most modules have Mode 4 capability which is dead simple to use. Developers will have to fix some silly default panel states like the zeroize setting on the knob being set by default (which I think isn't even possible IRL). People will learn. People will complain and gnash teeth but they will learn. A simple coalition-wide policy is a good, easy to use starting point and most will not venture beyond without some automated help or sophisticated need.

The first thing to do is to enable transponder coded replies in the netcode based on user cockpit settings. Leave it that way for a year maybe with some AI ATC validation check in the radio menu. There will be lots of little bugs to work out. After all that data is around for a while and everyone's used to the idea then you one-by-one changeover the interrogating modules to use the actual codes present in the netcode and away from the coalition-based returns. Some modules may never switch over to real IFF and that's fine. At first you just have a mission-editor default code policy. Most most most missions will just use that.

@Ross If you leave the MiG-21 transponding equipment off you will still show up as friendly to interrogations from others, only the interrogating abilities are dependent on turning on the interrogators. This applies to the Mirage and every single other DCS module with one exception. The only true IFF is JF-17 to JF-17 interactions in DCS.

 

[rossmum]

Hm. I'm about 90% sure I had a fellow 21 return unknown/hostile to me once, though he'd also taken some battle damage so who knows.

[QuiGon]

11 hours ago, lmp said:

Wouldn't the public MP issue be solved by having a server enforceable "relaxed IFF" mode?

It's already solved if everything comes preset with the data cartridge, like in BMS. People would have to break their IFF setup on purpose in order to do something wrong as @Northstar98 has already explained in detail. I just don't see the issue.
 

7 hours ago, rossmum said:

As for IFF transponders not being able to be left off/always on/etc - that is not correct either. Leave the SRZO and/or izdelie 81 switches off in the MiG-21 or the green-guarded SRO switch in the MiG-19 off and tell me how that pans out for you.

They still reply to friendly IFF interrogations, just like any other aircraft. Turning off the transponder doesn't change a thing in this regard.
 

7 hours ago, rossmum said:

The reason it's called "magic IFF" is because it's globally compatible and coalition-based, and aircraft without it still reply. It does not mean that all modules have always-on IFF, because several of them do not.

Yes, you can turn it off in some modules, but it has no impact on IFF interrogations by other players. It just changes some status lights in your cockpit and that's it.
The only true exception here is the JF-17, but only if interrogated by another JF-17 as Deka has implemented their own advanced IFF system, which only works between JF-17s.
 

7 hours ago, rossmum said:

F-16 too, IIRC.

And the F/A-18C.

  

7 hours ago, rossmum said:

As for people asking about the M2000's IFF in Razbam's Discord - at least they're asking. This is meant to be a study sim, yet a sizeable chunk of the playerbase are allergic to even the suggestion of reading a manual and a lot of them seem outright hostile to the concept of learning everything. I don't think we should be sacrificing fidelity in a game whose entire draw is said fidelity, just to keep casual players happy. You could always make it an option clientside with a mission editor override, like all the other simplified modes.

Absolutely right!

Edited February 9, 2022 by QuiGon

[WobblyFlops]

11 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Please speak for yourself, but don't act like you're speaking for the majority of DCS players. Just because this is how your DCS bubble is like, doesn't mean it's like how the majority of players is. I'm definitely not like this.

 

The people who post on the forums are a tiny minority of a very small minority. Most new people that I interact with through the Discord don't even own anything aside from an Xbox controller and know literally nothing aside from 'fighter jets are cool'. Moreover, the last time there was a poll on Hoggit, people overwhelmingly agreed that they only want some degree of realism inside the missions but the find full on milsim cringy. On the Razbam Discord, SMEs also agree that making many of the inaccurate areas of the game more realistic would be incredibly cost prohibitive, would discourage most people from ever joining and it may not be legally and technically feasible at all.

 

11 hours ago, QuiGon said:

And that's exactly how it should be, just like it is with all the other aircraft systems. That's why DCS is a study sim.

The devs are obviously carefully choosing how realistic they want to go, case in point, the Truegrit interview where they said that implementing accurate and realistic ECM (even if we disregard sensitivity issues) is a questionable thing in the first place because only highly educated users would be able to use it. Many people who play DCS today don't have any time to dedicate to learning manuals and don't have any interest in learning actual realistic procedures. Many are very young or old with limited time, budget, patience or lack of technical knowledge and skill. But since DCS isn't a hardcore milsim and it's isn't as high fidelity as civilian simulators, all kinds of people can enter and have fun. Since the devs don't solely cater to this audience, it's a net win for everybody because they still bring in money that helps DCS in the end.

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If you don't know how to do something, then like everything else, you learn how to do it, and then you do know how to do it.

 

A lot of people still play DCS and don't want to or can't learn in such a manner for whatever reason. The vast majority of the core game supports this type of gameplay better compared to actual milsim by the way. 

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Ultimately there are plenty more things that are way more complicated than IFF - A-10 CDU and the AH-64D to name 2 big ones, the former I still don't know how to use

IFF is a system that a big sizeable chunk of the playerbase (and no, I don't have any statistics but neither do you, the ones you're referring to are old) simply dislike these additions to auxiliary systems or procedures that as they put it, take away from the experience or make it more fiddly. 

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

you learn the procedure and do that

Sure. But people I'm talking about don't know how to properly start the aircraft anyway. They know a simple, quick procedure to get them in the air without understanding the meaning behind those steps. Adding in these systems just further increases the barrier of entry and in my experience the casual players are constantly growing in numbers. Just look through Hoggit or any kind of training Discord and you'll very quickly see that people generally think that realism is fine until it gets in the way of fun. And most SMEs that I've interacted with who are actually involved in the DCS community or play the game, agree with this.

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Not sure what the TGT DATA page in the Hornet displays, but it sounds like something we should get anyway.

We should get a lot of things but this is going to be a static page. It can be used for CIT stuff and other flight management functions. (Wingmen fuel and loadout, etc.)

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You know the size of the respective crowds, how?

ED has said in the past that SP > MP.

I can only go off of personal experience and how the new people I interact view the game. But I obviously don't have any hard numbers or actual evidence and neither do you. Only what ED told, but that's also not corroborated by any hard data nor is it up to date. DCS has been growing in popularity mainly through GS, the Reapers and Drewsky. And you can imagine that those audiences don't want the same thing as hardcore milsim squadrons or even old school players.

 

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And I'm sorry, but these people should really read the product descriptions of the things they're buying, and we shouldn't abandon fidelity because the airquake crowd exists.

There are many aspects of the game that are not exactly high fidelity anyway. This is mainly due to not enough available resources and OPSEC/ITAR considerations but it's true.

 

11 hours ago, lmp said:

VRS in helicopters

The only people I've seen being surprised by VRS as it exists in the game are Mover and Casmo. Actual helicopter pilots. That alone should tell you about how realistic it's represented. In most modules the radar limitations are also not simulated accurately anyway. I'd bring up the same thing if people were asking for true, realistic radar simulation on par with the Mirage.

 

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

As for people asking about the M2000's IFF in Razbam's Discord - at least they're asking. This is meant to be a study sim, yet a sizeable chunk of the playerbase are allergic to even the suggestion of reading a manual and a lot of them seem outright hostile to the concept of learning everything

Sure. And they tell each other not to buy the Mirage because it's too difficult to learn. DCS has grown (or decayed, matter of perspective) beyond that black and white thinking since the start of the pandemic. 

 

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

The (particularly US) transponders are not new tech and it's not particularly hard to find out how they work.

Sure, but knowing how something works doesn't mean they can legally implement that. And the last time this was brought up on Hoggit, BN subtly implied that IFF is off limits. And most people in the know agreed that even though it's public knowledge how they work, it's a pretty scary line to toe regardless. 

 

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

We must be playing different games. I more or less exclusively play what could be described as "airquake

Sure, you do you. But that doesn't apply to everybody.

 

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

Multiplayer is a minority of the DCS playerbase and PvP is a minority of that

This isn't my experience, in fact the vast majority of new people I interacted with want to have some kind of League of Legends/R6 Siege type of gameplay with jets. Competitive, balanced PVP with drastic simplifications and gamifications. 

 

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

This game has a reputation of being a very in-depth study sim.

Sure. But there really isn't much else out there aside from the 'predatory game' if you know what I mean. DCS has a fair monetization scheme and that attracts people who don't necessarily want realistic gameplay but are simply interested in jets.

[QuiGon]

32 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

The people who post on the forums are a tiny minority of a very small minority.

Indeed, but same is true for people on Discord and Hoggit. The vast majority of DCS players are singleplayers who don't interact much with the various online communities.
And RAZBAM is known for their own casual stance, so it's no wonder that you like to refer to them, but other devs have other stances on this issue.
 

32 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

[...](and no, I don't have any statistics but neither do you, the ones you're referring to are old)[...]

I can only go off of personal experience and how the new people I interact view the game. But I obviously don't have any hard numbers or actual evidence and neither do you.

And yet you are still acting like you speak for the majority of the DCS community and know what they want...

I can totally understand why you think that the DCS community is the way you think it is, as your main point of interaction with the community seems to be the RAZBAM discord which is well known for it's rather casual community. It's just a very small part of the DCS community.

Edited February 9, 2022 by QuiGon

[Dragon1-1]

47 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

The devs are obviously carefully choosing how realistic they want to go, case in point, the Truegrit interview where they said that implementing accurate and realistic ECM (even if we disregard sensitivity issues) is a questionable thing in the first place because only highly educated users would be able to use it.

That's a load of bull unless they were talking about dedicated EW aircraft (which are classified up the wazoo anyway). Pilot-facing controls for ECM in tactical aircraft are always very simple by EW standards, if only because the pilot has enough work to do as it is. Maybe he meant only highly educated people would be able to appreciate all the nuances, but actually using a realistic ECM pod is fairly straightforward.

Same with IFF. Generally, Mode 4 is the only complex one, and is set on the ground, you only have one switch to pick a code. Mode 3, you just set to what the ATC tells you, it's works like an airliner's transponder. Mode 2 is in the briefing (it's a unique identifier for a specific aircraft). Mode 1 is barely used for anything, and is often set using the same dials as Mode 2. Turn the master knob to standby on ramp, turn on before takeoff, back to standby at fence in.

[lmp]

30 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

The only people I've seen being surprised by VRS as it exists in the game are Mover and Casmo. Actual helicopter pilots. That alone should tell you about how realistic it's represented. In most modules the radar limitations are also not simulated accurately anyway. I'd bring up the same thing if people were asking for true, realistic radar simulation on par with the Mirage.

 

I've seen plenty of people surprised by their helicopter "suddenly falling out of the sky", though I admit it was mostly a problem when the Huey and Hip were new (yes, I've been here for a while). How close to perfect is the modeling of VRS or various doppler filters is really besides the point I'm trying to make. Which is that there are plenty of people confused by the various intricacies of the simulation, realistic IFF would be just another one of those intricacies and not something that would break the game. Yes, it has the potential to be more frustrating than someone not understanding why he lost a radar lock, or control over his helicopter, or why his GBU didn't guide/explode, or why the engine died in his WW2 fighter... but these intricacies and constantly improving fidelity is why I and many others play DCS with all its issues rather than move on to other games.

[Northstar98]

Warning! Death by far too many words ahead, proceed at your own risk, you have been warned!

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Most new people that I interact with through the Discord don't even own anything aside from an Xbox controller and know literally nothing aside from 'fighter jets are cool'.

So exactly how I started, but swap the XBox controller for an X52 Pro, which I only had from playing another civilian simulator.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Moreover, the last time there was a poll on Hoggit, people overwhelmingly agreed that they only want some degree of realism inside the missions but the find full on milsim cringy.

I kinda fall into that bracket, I'm certainly not a milsim player (nor am I anywhere near competent enough to be able to), but I do agree with the mission goals of DCS, and their modules, and I'm definitely a fan of going into more fidelity, where we can do so.

And my personal ignorance of complicated systems, that are already in DCS, shouldn't mean that these shouldn't be developed. I either avoid purchasing complicated modules, or I learn them.

DCS is designed as a study sim, and since FC3 (which is just a port of LOMAC FC2 that was upgraded) all modules have been full-fidelity.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

On the Razbam Discord, SMEs also agree that making many of the inaccurate areas of the game more realistic would be incredibly cost prohibitive, would discourage most people from ever joining and it may not be legally and technically feasible at all.

Again, there isn't much in terms of fundamental differences with IFF, than there is with radios. And I don't see how working the IFF, is any more complicated for the user than tuning a radio...

As for legal feasibility, there really isn't much to it than codes match = friendly. The legal stuff is going to be in the crypto, which we don't need to simulate at all.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

The devs are obviously carefully choosing how realistic they want to go, case in point, the Truegrit interview where they said that implementing accurate and realistic ECM (even if we disregard sensitivity issues) is a questionable thing in the first place because only highly educated users would be able to use it. Many people who play DCS today don't have any time to dedicate to learning manuals and don't have any interest in learning actual realistic procedures.

But you're talking about IFF codes, which again, is fundamentally no different from tuning a radio.

And again, IFF policies should be made completely up to the mission editor, even if it's just M4 key A for the duration of the mission.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Many are very young or old with limited time, budget, patience or lack of technical knowledge and skill. But since DCS isn't a hardcore milsim and it's isn't as high fidelity as civilian simulators, all kinds of people can enter and have fun. Since the devs don't solely cater to this audience, it's a net win for everybody because they still bring in money that helps DCS in the end.

I'm one of the younger members and I was in my mid-teens when I started.

I'm sorry but you're bigging up IFF to be something it's not, it's not some super duper layered system with tonnes of steps, again, at its fundamentals it's no more complicated than tuning a radio.

If the IFF policy is user defined (and it should be), I don't see the issue.

And I'm sorry but if you're coming to DCS, and then taking issue when the mission goals of DCS and its modules actually get closer to being fulfilled, then you might be playing the wrong game. I mean, what were you expecting?

It's functionally exactly the same as milsim players going over to Ace Combat, and taking issue that it's not realistic enough, demanding that they abandon what Ace Combat is supposed to be.

Both are equally misguided.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

A lot of people still play DCS and don't want to or can't learn in such a manner for whatever reason. The vast majority of the core game supports this type of gameplay better compared to actual milsim by the way. 

IFF is a system that a big sizeable chunk of the playerbase (and no, I don't have any statistics but neither do you, the ones you're referring to are old) simply dislike these additions to auxiliary systems or procedures that as they put it, take away from the experience or make it more fiddly. 

So you're confident that you know what the vast majority wants and what big sizeable chunks use, but you don't have any statistics to back it up?

And are you saying that I'm wrong because the quote I used is old, and I don't have statistics either?

Well, beyond the SP vs MP thing (which at least came from the people who do know the numbers), I'm not making a claim as to relative populations in DCS, and their desires, wants or playstyles, you however are, so the burden of proof is on you I'm afraid.

Unfortunately though, you don't seem to have much of a quantifiable basis for the claims you're making.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Just look through Hoggit or any kind of training Discord and you'll very quickly see that people generally think that realism is fine until it gets in the way of fun.

Something that is completely arbitrary and everyone will draw a different line of where "fun" is being interfered with.

And again, these people need to read the mission goals of DCS and its modules and then decide whether or not it's right for them.

Buying something advertised as aiming to be as realistic as possible, and then taking issue when it actually better conforms to that, is IMO, pretty silly - again I want to know what these people were expecting.

I see the common counter "it's just a video game!" which while completely true, is completely irrelevant, DCS being a video game doesn't mean that the goals of said video game are invalid, something trying to represent reality where possible and it being a video game aren't mutually exclusive terms.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

And most SMEs that I've interacted with who are actually involved in the DCS community or play the game, agree with this.

What have they actually said?

Because for that ECM thing you brought up, AFAIK it was for dedicated jamming platforms (think EA-6B), which are far more complicated and often require multiple people to operate them.

Jammers in our aircraft are way more simple to operate as they're heavily automated; they usually only have a single mode dial which should be pretty self-explanatory, operation mostly consists of being able to turn it on and turn it off.

The most complicated system we have at the moment is the F-16C, which has a few more to it, but right now most of it isn't simulated.

With that said Wags has implied recently that EW (specifically electronic attack) will have more focus moving forward.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

We should get a lot of things but this is going to be a static page. It can be used for CIT stuff and other flight management functions. (Wingmen fuel and loadout, etc.)

Okay, thanks - I'm more knowledgable of the F-16 than I am the Hornet.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

I can only go off of personal experience and how the new people I interact view the game. But I obviously don't have any hard numbers or actual evidence and neither do you.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right, it doesn't mean the converse is true either, but you're the one constantly making claims about the populations, I recommend you stop doing that unless you can actually quantify it with data.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Only what ED told, but that's also not corroborated by any hard data nor is it up to date. DCS has been growing in popularity mainly through GS, the Reapers and Drewsky. And you can imagine that those audiences don't want the same thing as hardcore milsim squadrons or even old school players.

Again, I'm not a hardcore milsim player - I want modules, systems, assets and maps that are as representative of their real-world counterparts as possible, but how I use them and what missions I build out of them should be (and is) completely up to me; it can be as casual or as hardcore, as historical or as fictional as I like (well, within the confines of what I have to work with).

This is also the goals of DCS and its modules, and it's also the perfect balance of realism and sandbox, and it also caters to the most playstyles.

Much of my missions amount to free flight, and 99.9% of them are SP only and are pretty simple.

But if people come to DCS and they have a problem with that when it actually gets closer to being true, then they might be playing the wrong game.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

There are many aspects of the game that are not exactly high fidelity anyway. This is mainly due to not enough available resources and OPSEC/ITAR considerations but it's true.

How is that an argument for other things staying low fidelity?

The goal is expressly realism and more fidelity (as far as the modules themselves are concerned), and it sounds like people are taking an issue with that, when it actually gets closer to being the case, which to me just sounds silly, what are these people expecting?

If high fidelity and realism don't suit you, that's absolutely fine, but then aren't you making a mistake by downloading something that is explicitly stated to try and provide exactly that?

It's like buying a red car, and then taking issue that the car is red - if you don't want the car to be red, then aren't you making a mistake by buying a car that's red?

 

And if it's due to classification, technical or someresource hurdle, then I don't have a problem with it, again, that's where the "where possible" bit comes in.

I'm under no delusion that anything in DCS is going to ever be 100% true to life - the very fact we're playing on consumer hardware should pretty much tell you that.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all, and where we can get closer to reality, IMO we should - it's the goals of the game, and the goals of the modules.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

The only people I've seen being surprised by VRS as it exists in the game are Mover and Casmo. Actual helicopter pilots. That alone should tell you about how realistic it's represented.

Then the solution is to correct it, not reduce the fidelity of the flight models.

x being unrealistic/low-fidelity isn't a justification for y being unrealistic/low-fidelity too.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

In most modules the radar limitations are also not simulated accurately anyway. I'd bring up the same thing if people were asking for true, realistic radar simulation on par with the Mirage.

Yes, and for me, I would love to have RADAR simulation on par with the Mirage.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Sure. And they tell each other not to buy the Mirage because it's too difficult to learn.

I searched both the RAZBAM and Eagle Dynamics discords for the phrase "don't buy the Mirage" or "don't buy the M2000" and "too difficult to learn".

I found no matches in the RAZBAM discord for "don't buy the Mirage/M2000", and only one match in the ED discord, but the quote was "don't buy the Mirage (yet)".

There were no matches for "too difficult to learn" in the RAZBAM discord, but there were 7 results in the ED discord:

About half of these were asking people what they should move onto next, that isn't too difficult to learn:

• One was asking about WWII aircraft, and the response they got was that none of them have complicated systems, but they are more difficult to fly.
• One of them got the AV-8B and A-10C II recommended, stating that they're fun if you're willing to learn.
• 2 of them either got the F-16 recommended or were interested in it.

The remaining half were people saying 'x isn't too difficult to learn' and one was saying about how people bite off more than they can chew before learning and end up being drawn away and giving up.

So just who are these people you're referring to, telling people not to buy the Mirage in the discord servers?

 

The other thing I'll bring up here is that "too difficult to learn" is completely arbitrary, and everyone will draw different lines.

For me, I'm finding the A-10Cs CDU very difficult to learn, it seems to have tonnes of pages and I barely have any idea what I'm doing. The AH-64D also looks to be somewhat of a nightmare.

But the solution to both of these is for me to learn them, not make the developers either reduce the fidelity of them, or not include similar systems in future modules, just because I'm personally ignorant of how to use them and haven't spent the time to learn them properly.

I got frustrated with the Spitfire and Fw 190 A-8 because I found taking them off to be impossible - it very much wasn't a fun experience for me. But what I did is devote time to practicing and learning how to do it properly and now I can take them off without too much trouble - it's far from perfect, but it's much more reasonable. 

It's the same with everything, and if people don't want to learn and practice, then I'm sorry, that's on them. Just like it's on me to learn and practice whatever things I don't know how to use or understand.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Sure, but knowing how something works doesn't mean they can legally implement that.

For NATO systems, all of the necessary and pertinent information, is located in non-classified -1s (flight manual) or equivalent for our modules (which developers should already have access to, and it would probably be pretty impossible to make a module without it). Hell, the manuals for the modules themselves often contains the information required (or at least, the majority of it).

We don't need to know any of the crypto stuff, beyond HOLD and ZERO functions (which just controls whether or not the keys are available or not), and again this is described in manuals developers should already have access to.

All HOLD does is store the M4 keys so if you turn the IFF system off or shut down and restart your aircraft, you don't have to reload the keys (they get automatically zeroized), speaking of loading keys, this could be done via the ground crew menu, in exactly the same fashion as the KY-28 keys in the Tomcat.

ZERO zeroizes the keys (effectively deletes them), meaning you won't respond to M4 interrogations, and you'll most likely get an IFF warning in the cockpit, for DCS missions, there shouldn't be any need to touch this.

 

The only thing we need to keep track of for M4, is the state of the transponder, what key is selected for the interrogator and the interrogated, and what coalition they're on.

Then so long as:

• Transponder on (in the majority of cases this means IFF Master mode to LOW/NORM).
• M4 control switch on.
• Interrogator and interrogated have the same key selected.
• Interrogator and interrogated belong to the same coalition.
• Interrogator and interrogated keys aren't zeroized (IFF off/aircraft shut down or master mode to ZERO).
• Interrogator (for the interrogating aircraft) and/or transponder (for the interrogated aircraft) aren't otherwise disabled (for instance, due to damage).

Then a friendly reply is generated. If one of those conditions aren't satisfied, no reply is generated (which may be accompanied by warnings in the interrogated aircraft). Half of this is already implemented in DCS, we have friendly replies modelled, with some modules going into more fidelity than others, but so far only the coalitions need to match to get a friendly reply.

And for the most part, all of the controls are there and can be interacted with, they just don't do anything.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

And the last time this was brought up on Hoggit, BN subtly implied that IFF is off limits.

And I quote:

Quote

IFF is something we want to improve for sure, but it will take time, we do have higher priorities currently, and a full schedule.

But if you think you will get real world IFF in any simulation you are in for a shock, it is a sensitive topic, and we have to comply with international laws for all of our projects and tasks, so wherever you see it, it will be a representation of the real thing only.

[source]

So no, it's something they want to improve for sure, but is lower on the list.

But as for his real-world IFF in any simulation thing, all the information we need is or should be already available to developers - it's contained in unclassified manuals that are basically a prerequisite to have, in order to develop a full-fidelity module in the first place.

And a "representation of the real thing only" is exactly the same as any other system in DCS World. We only need to have pilot controls and displays modelled, everything else isn't necessary. The only other detail is scan volume and abiguities, which are both already modelled in some modules.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:33 AM, WobblyFlops said:

And most people in the know agreed that even though it's public knowledge how they work, it's a pretty scary line to toe regardless.

Again, everything relevant is largely already there from the pilot's perspective, it just doesn't do anything - it's little different than tuning a radio.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Northstar98