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

[Rongor]

In my opinion, if you don't like the detailed study part of DCS aiming to be a study sim, then DCS might not the best choice to play. There are games available for your needs.

The complexity of DCS modules is dictated by the complexity of the real world counterpart, the legal access to real world data and by limits of coding and performance.

The complexity is not dictated by any poll evaluating the amount of time 'average' players are willing to invest in a game.

DCS modules have to offere complexity. Otherwise not only the tag study sim would be questionable but also you would take away the necessary effort it takes people who are interested in study sims to accomplish their goal to study and hence kill their achievement.

 

These days I find mainly 2 categories of players: The first category are using autostart and glance on Chuck's guides how to employ weapons. The fun is obviously in getting airborne 'somehow' and shoot stuff up. Second category enjoys the fun of thourougly studying a module up and down, knowing every bolt and screw. To use this knowledge to then make efficient use of the aircraft is their achievement, regardless if they do combat, transport, CSAR or formation flying.

 

Luckily DCS (so far) seems to cater for both categories of players and I guess ED will continue to do so. There is no need to fight for the one or the other of these two routes.

 

 

But of course, ya know, it's a study sim 

[Fairey Gannet]

I just don't really see much point in debating this topic. IFF is a real thing, though now it is simplistic in representation. It should be high fidelity, IFF is pretty important. When more detailed, code will be another entry on your kneeboard sheet (same way as coords for INS alignment or other variable data), and setting it up is as complicated as setting TACAN. Some servers have "Simple communications" option, adding the same option for an IFF can't be that much of a problem - both mechanics exist as of now. 

I don't really understand an issue here. DCS strives to replicate reality as close as possible. Yes, there are simplifications, reasons of those may vary from lack of data to hardware constraints, studio manpower or obligations or simply in the works, but not out yet. In that formula, every change that is bringing DCS closer to simulated reality is good, we like it or not. I am against gatekeeping or elitism, it leads nowhere. And on server/mission level there are concessions that can be made for not-so hardcore players. I respect them - after all even "simplified" DCS flying is pretty damn complex anyway.

Besides, IFF M1, 2 and 3 are listed as "on progress" in DCS: Roadmap thread. Good, that means modules like L-39 will be reworked, as that one, for example, has non-clickable IFF panel.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Fairey Gannet

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

I just don't really see much point in debating this topic. IFF is a real thing, though now it is simplistic in representation. It should be high fidelity, IFF is pretty important. When more detailed, code will be another entry on your kneeboard sheet (same way as coords for INS alignment or other variable data), and setting it up is as complicated as setting TACAN. Some servers have "Simple communications" option, adding the same option for an IFF can't be that much of a problem - both mechanics exist as of now. 

I don't really understand an issue here. DCS strives to replicate reality as close as possible. Yes, there are simplifications, reasons of those may vary from lack of data to hardware constraints, studio manpower or obligations or simply in the works, but not out yet. In that formula, every change that is bringing DCS closer to simulated reality is good, we like it or not. I am against gatekeeping or elitism, it leads nowhere. And on server/mission level there are concessions that can be made for not-so hardcore players. I respect them - after all even "simplified" DCS flying is pretty damn complex anyway.

Exactly.

4 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

Besides, IFF M1, 2 and 3 are listed as "on progress" in DCS: Roadmap thread. Good, that means modules like L-39 will be reworked, as that one, for example, has non-clickable IFF panel.

Fairly sure the IFF system the L-39 uses is the Kremniy-2 system (SRO-2), whch has 12 codes to select from (same as the MiG-21bis at least, just a different interface).

But what would be good is the ability to add custom IFF transponders for aircraft, in exactly the same fashion as radios on voice chat.

[Fairey Gannet]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Exactly.

Fairly sure the IFF system the L-39 uses is the Kremniy-2 system (SRO-2), whch has 12 codes to select from (same as the MiG-21bis at least, just a different interface).

But what would be good is the ability to add custom IFF transponders for aircraft, in exactly the same fashion as radios on voice chat.

Well, if IFF modes are in the works, I suppose there can be some settings for non-uniformed systems to still be usable. Most planes were not designed to operate together, as sometimes we can see on servers, but there still has to be way to let them do that - otherwise some modules would be totally useless just because their IFF systems can't talk to each other. I mean L-39 to MiG-19 and 21 - no problem. But same L-39 to F-16? Two different system architectures. And that would actually be an excluding factor, if you couldn't use your expensive module with your friends. Not some "IFF too detailed" moaning. I think though, if coalition code will be set on server/in mission, it will also be put in aircraft with preset codes - preset radio channels without manual tuning are a thing for some airplanes. And that is just one line in kneeboard "IFF channel - THAT". 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Fairey Gannet said:

Well, if IFF modes are in the works, I suppose there can be some settings for non-uniformed systems to still be usable. Most planes were not designed to operate together, as sometimes we can see on servers, but there still has to be way to let them do that - otherwise some modules would be totally useless just because their IFF systems can't talk to each other. I mean L-39 to MiG-19 and 21 - no problem. But same L-39 to F-16? Two different system architectures. And that would actually be an excluding factor, if you couldn't use your expensive module with your friends. Not some "IFF too detailed" moaning. I think though, if coalition code will be set on server/in mission, it will also be put in aircraft with preset codes - preset radio channels without manual tuning are a thing for some airplanes. And that is just one line in kneeboard "IFF channel - THAT". 

Personally, I would like one of these 2 options:

• Make one of the SRZO codes compatible with the side specific M4 A key and another for the side specific M4 B key, and have the assignments be user definable. So say you have a REDFOR MiG-21bis, and make it so SRZO code 3 causes a friendly response to the RED M4 A key and make say 7 cause a friendly response to the RED M4 B key. This should be able to be set via the mission editor. 
• Allow for a custom transponder system (like the current voice chat, which allows us to add custom radios), and have that tied to the in-cockpit power switch, zeroize/self-destruct switches. Code and mode selection being done via a GUI.

[Frederf]

It is not required for IFF to function to fly together. It happens in reality where some participants don't have compatible equipment or any at all. Framing of IFF as a go/no-go item is lacking substance. It sounds more like a video game fan railing against removal of fast travel in an MMORPG than anything else.

I think IFF would be passed in net code as all the info including what system type it is. There are many types of IFF and IFF-like systems in history that DCS might be called upon to model. There is 1943 Mark II, pre-SIF Mark X, Soviet tactical, SOD-57, even light signals like the P-51 has underwing, a flag held out of a WWI biplane, plus plenty I don't know about. Shared info of objects shared over network is a powerful tool and it would be a mistake for the underlying structure to not be scalable beyond the narrow example of 50-90s NATO mk xii.

[Fairey Gannet]

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I would like one of these 2 options:

• Make one of the SRZO codes compatible with the side specific M4 A key and another for the side specific M4 B key, and have the assignments be user definable. So say you have a REDFOR MiG-21bis, and make it so SRZO code 3 causes a friendly response to the RED M4 A key and make say 7 cause a friendly response to the RED M4 B key. This should be able to be set via the mission editor. 
• Allow for a custom transponder system (like the current voice chat, which allows us to add custom radios), and have that tied to the in-cockpit power switch, zeroize/self-destruct switches. Code and mode selection being done via a GUI.

Yeah, something like that seems reasonable! Anyway, in whatever direction it will go, for sure there will be a solution, otherwise using some planes together would be problematic or simply impossible.  

[lmp]

2 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

• Make one of the SRZO codes compatible with the side specific M4 A key and another for the side specific M4 B key, and have the assignments be user definable. So say you have a REDFOR MiG-21bis, and make it so SRZO code 3 causes a friendly response to the RED M4 A key and make say 7 cause a friendly response to the RED M4 B key. This should be able to be set via the mission editor. 
• Allow for a custom transponder system (like the current voice chat, which allows us to add custom radios), and have that tied to the in-cockpit power switch, zeroize/self-destruct switches. Code and mode selection being done via a GUI.

Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.

[Fairey Gannet]

1 hour ago, lmp said:

Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.

You either pinged wrong guy, or wrong part of the post, as @Frederf is an author of an idea, so I think he can elaborate better than me.  All I can say, I said before - whatever the solution will be, probably there will have to be a way, at mission/server level, to allow realistic IFF for different airframes to cooperate.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Fairey Gannet

[lmp]

Oh, sorry about that, that's what the forum "quote" feature did and I didn't check if the author was correct . I was just putting my two cents in rather than trying to discuss with anyone in particular. At any rate, I agree that, if we get a proper simulation of IFF (and I hope we will), there should be some way to make it work across systems in the less hyper-realistic missions.

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, lmp said:

Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.

I'm the author of that quote.

Yes, it should be handled as in the real world (or as close to).

I just thought of a way of doing sort of a cheat while being just a teensy bit closer to reality, while sticking to similar implementations of other systems purely for aircraft with incompatible transponder systems.

But all of this should be at the discretion of the mission editor.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Northstar98

[lmp]

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But all of this should be at the discretion of the mission editor.

In that case, it's a nice solution. It should please just about everybody. I hope ED listens and we will see improvements here soon.

[LowRider88]

On 2/9/2022 at 6:45 AM, Rongor said:

In my opinion, if you don't like the detailed study part of DCS aiming to be a study sim, then DCS might not the best choice to play. There are games available for your needs.

The complexity of DCS modules is dictated by the complexity of the real world counterpart, the legal access to real world data and by limits of coding and performance.

The complexity is not dictated by any poll evaluating the amount of time 'average' players are willing to invest in a game.

DCS modules have to offere complexity. Otherwise not only the tag study sim would be questionable but also you would take away the necessary effort it takes people who are interested in study sims to accomplish their goal to study and hence kill their achievement.

 

These days I find mainly 2 categories of players: The first category are using autostart and glance on Chuck's guides how to employ weapons. The fun is obviously in getting airborne 'somehow' and shoot stuff up. Second category enjoys the fun of thourougly studying a module up and down, knowing every bolt and screw. To use this knowledge to then make efficient use of the aircraft is their achievement, regardless if they do combat, transport, CSAR or formation flying.

 

Luckily DCS (so far) seems to cater for both categories of players and I guess ED will continue to do so. There is no need to fight for the one or the other of these two routes.

 

 

But of course, ya know, it's a study sim 

I prefer DCS stick to the Sim crowd.  It is too difficult to cater to both audiences with a single platform.  It is false advertising to dumb down the platform, and the other audience has other options out there like CoreBlunder.

Something so basic as opening a bug report is made so difficult because it necessarily has to be done on an open forum, and gets challenged by folks too accustomed to arcade playing.

[WobblyFlops]

On 2/9/2022 at 12:43 PM, Northstar98 said:

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.

To some degree. But if you compare the details to actual study sims (which exist for civilian airframes), you'll see how simplified DCS really is. This type of balance is not really explicitly pointed out to not alienate the hardcore simmers but generally, study sim means that you can use the sim itself to prepare for a real life checkride/B course/ground school, whatever. The only DCS module that meets these standards is maybe the C-101 and even that's a stretch. 

 

On 2/9/2022 at 12:43 PM, Northstar98 said:

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.

As I've said, it's not that simple. Many people state that doing even as much as the other sim can easily land you in hot water if you do it as an actual company with military contracts. 

 

What you essentially don't understand is that DCS has a stated goal that you constantly cite; being as realistic as possible. But as many SMEs pointed it out, if it was indeed as realistic as possible, you'd have several hundred pages long documents for a single weapon. DCS exists between study level sim and arcade sims. The way the majority of people use it, falls closer to the arcade side of things. And the Discord that I've referenced about the Mirage is neither the ED Discord nor the Razbam Discord but you're not on that, so you won't find that anyway. And I'm not obligated to prove anything. If you actually interact with people who are starting out, you'll see that my statements are pretty reasonable.

On 2/9/2022 at 11:00 AM, QuiGon said:

the RAZBAM discord which is well known for it's rather casual community

The Razbam Discord is probably the best place on the entire internet if you want to learn about a tiny bit of the stuff that never makes it into DCS by actual SMEs. 

[Northstar98]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

To some degree. But if you compare the details to actual study sims (which exist for civilian airframes), you'll see how simplified DCS really is.

I am fairly aware of numerous simplifications in DCS, why is that an argument for keeping it simplified, or making other components more simplified?

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

This type of balance is not really explicitly pointed out to not alienate the hardcore simmers but generally, study sim means that you can use the sim itself to prepare for a real life checkride/B course/ground school, whatever. The only DCS module that meets these standards is maybe the C-101 and even that's a stretch.

That's the first time I've heard that definition used, sounds like you're describing professional simulator rather than study level, which is most commonly taken to mean that it requires players to follow procedures more in line with what a real pilot would need to do to operate the aircraft. Or in other words, a better representation of reality.

Often contrasted with survey level, which is more like that other WWII sim, which has some elements that represent reality, but procedures are more simplified and less interactive, and only using generic controls.

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

As I've said, it's not that simple. Many people state that doing even as much as the other sim can easily land you in hot water if you do it as an actual company with military contracts.

Such as?

And from a development and implementation perspective, it really is that simple, very much in common, generally speaking, with radios.

And again, a lot of the controls and displays already can be interacted with, they just don't do anything.

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

What you essentially don't understand is that DCS has a stated goal that you constantly cite; being as realistic as possible. But as many SMEs pointed it out, if it was indeed as realistic as possible, you'd have several hundred pages long documents for a single weapon. DCS exists between study level sim and arcade sims.

Firstly, let's have an example.

Secondly, that seems like a very interesting (and pretty arbitrary) goalpost for 'as realistic as possible'.

And you realise that real weapon delivery manuals (things like -34-1-1s) aren't that long for a single weapon?

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The way the majority of people use it, falls closer to the arcade side of things.

Any actual evidence beyond your personal anecdotes? 

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

And the Discord that I've referenced about the Mirage is neither the ED Discord nor the Razbam Discord but you're not on that, so you won't find that anyway.

Oh, so this so-called majority of DCS users are found on a Discord server that isn't even the main ones, or even the official third party one.

Or to put it another way, these people aren't found on any of the main places (at least as far as Discord is concerned) where the community has the most presence, and yet you're constantly claiming that the majority of the community as a whole wants x and doesn't want y.

 

I also searched the official Hoggit discord, again no matches for "don't buy the Mirage" referencing it being too complicated (2 of the 3 were saying don't buy it for BVR capability because it's more limited, and don't buy it for AG as there are better platforms).

And when I searched the hoggit discord for "too difficult to learn" I got exactly 2 matches, both of which saying 'x wasn't too difficult to learn'.

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

And I'm not obligated to prove anything.

Correct, you're not obligated to prove anything.

It just means that you're now actively harming your case by refusing to back it up.

It always rings massive alarm bells for me when people affirm a position, but when asked to prove it, refuse to do so, especially in the face of contradictory evidence.

And the first thing that personally comes to my head whenever anyone refuses to justify their claims is that A.) they can't provide a justification for it and B.) their claim is probably ill-founded or outright bogus.

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

If you actually interact with people who are starting out, you'll see that my statements are pretty reasonable.

You realise everyone on here was at some point 'starting out'? And at some point had zero knowledge about any of this stuff? Including me.

On 2/11/2022 at 12:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The Razbam Discord is probably the best place on the entire internet if you want to learn about a tiny bit of the stuff that never makes it into DCS by actual SMEs.

Well, with regards to IFF, they're more on the side of making it more realistic than not, as evidenced by what they've actually done with it so far. They've also said that the main thing holding them back is core IFF functionality, and that they could make it more realistic (the things mentioned here actually have already come to the Mirage). Note that these are a year old at this point.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Northstar98

[WobblyFlops]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I am fairly aware of numerous simplifications in DCS, why is that an argument for keeping it simplified, or making other components more simplified?

Several things go into consideration when adding more fidelity to certain features, that much is pretty well known. Cost-benefit analysis, technical feasability and legal implications. The IFF is technically feasible, but it has potential legal pitfalls and it only matters to hardcore milsim players. 

 

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

That's the first time I've heard that definition used, sounds like you're describing professional simulator rather than study level

There are quite a few entertainment products for the civilian side that allow real pilots to study system logic, procedures in a realistic manner and fully implemented avionics to prepare for a type rating. 

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And from a development and implementation perspective, it really is that simple, very much in common, generally speaking, with radios.

And again, a lot of the controls and displays already can be interacted with, they just don't do anything.

Transponder, sure, but if you're talking about IFF as a whole, it's significantly more complex than radios and when you start to fully implement interrogators that's when you potentially meet these legal hurdles. And without realistic interrogators, why would they spend resources on transponders?

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Any actual evidence beyond your personal anecdotes? 

There is no evidence. My personal anecdotes are plenty good enough because in real life, the vast majority of decisions that you take in day to day life aren't the result of a carefully constructed study and empirical data but personal anecdotes, assumptions and guesses. If there is no hard data (and the vague statements by ED were pre pandemic as far as I'm aware), we can go on based on personal anecdotes pretty well. And if you actually spend time on the ED Discord, you'll very quickly see how casual the vast majority of the playerbase really is. But then again, I'm not obligated to prove anything, I'm just spending my time trying to explain why realistic IFF will not be a thing in the near future or likely ever.

 

I also never stated the the majority of people say not to buy the Mirage. I've seen that maybe twice, once on a Discord, once on Hoggit. The vast majority of casual people do hang out on the ED Discord though and you'll see that fairly easily if you actually spend time there without looking for specific search terms. 

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It always rings massive alarm bells for me when people affirm a position, but when asked to prove it, refuse do so, especially in the face of contradictory evidence.

 

I really do not care. I was feeling nice and explaining to you what reasons contribute to the fact that IFF will remain as is but if you don't believe me, you're free to do whatever you want. We can easily return to this question in a few years and we'll see how realistic the IFF is by then. If you actually cared about the truth, the very thread you linked has many people explain why IFF is both a sensitive issue and why the vast majority of the community wouldn't care about it, only milsim squadrons. And if you truly think that IFF as a whole is as simple as using the radios then this conversation really has no point. It's drastically more complex than that.

[Northstar98]

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Several things go into consideration when adding more fidelity to certain features, that much is pretty well known. Cost-benefit analysis, technical feasability and legal implications. The IFF is technically feasible, but it has potential legal pitfalls and it only matters to hardcore milsim players.

Well again, BN has said they want to improve it.

Techanical feasibility is all there, and in fact has already been done in the JF-17.

Potential legal pitfalls is questionable, as all the necessary information for our purposes is contained in flight manuals that developers should already have access to (seeing as without them, making a module in the first place probably wouldn't be feasible), especially for the F-5E (for which the -1 and -34-1-1 are available for download from the DCS user files).

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

There are quite a few entertainment products for the civilian side that allow real pilots to study system logic, procedures in a realistic manner and fully implemented avionics to prepare for a type rating.

Yep, sure are, but the definition you used is more for professional simulators than simply study simulators generally, of course different products may go into more fidelity than others. That's true even between DCS modules.

But again merely the lack of fidelity in one isn't a justification for keeping it that way by itself.

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Transponder, sure, but if you're talking about IFF as a whole, it's significantly more complex than radios and when you start to fully implement interrogators that's when you potentially meet these legal hurdles. And without realistic interrogators, why would they spend resources on transponders?

No it really isn't.

We already have fairly realistic interrogators, just they're magical with regards to replies (it always generates friendly replies for aircraft on the same coalitionn regardless of how their transponder is set up, at least in thee majoirty of cases).

But ambiguities and errors are already present in some modules, and again, you can already interact with it, it just doesn't have any function - in that sense, half the work is already done.

No-one is asking for an accurate component level simulation or accurately simulating it beyond a more simplistic approximation which I've already detailed, we just want something more realistic than what we have now. And for which, again, all the information we need should already be available to developers.

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

There is no evidence. My personal anecdotes are plenty good enough because in real life, the vast majority of decisions that you take in day to day life aren't the result of a carefully constructed study and empirical data but personal anecdotes, assumptions and guesses.

True, but in real life the vast majority of things I do aren't making arguments and jutifying them. And where I use assumptions and guesses in the first place it's usually along the lines of "when do I need to leave to reach [insert place here] at [insert time here]?", or "what's the fastest way to get home from here?".

Pretty different than what we're doing here...

If I am making an argument for something being true though, it would serve me well to actually have some evidence for it.

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

If there is no hard data (and the vague statements by ED were pre pandemic as far as I'm aware), we can go on based on personal anecdotes pretty well.

You're claiming there is data though, you always use terms like "the vast majority" - that's a quantitative statement.

But what you never do seem to do is back them up, in fact you outright refuse to do so.

Unless you're taking your personal anecdotes (which are almost certainly going to have a very small sample size, and be very limited, and this is almost by your own admission) and then making an incredibly sweeping generalisation about the community as a whole based on that.

And replicating a system based on SME feedback alone, in the absence of other data, is absolutely not the same thing here.

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

And if you actually spend time on the ED Discord, you'll very quickly see how casual the vast majority of the playerbase really is. But then again, I'm not obligated to prove anything, I'm just spending my time trying to explain why realistic IFF will not be a thing in the near future or likely ever.

There you go again, making claims about population sizes, while failing to justify them.

Does the ED Discord (which from my limited use, at least in the general channel, typically mostly consists of conversations between the same 10-ish people) represent the "vast majoirty" of the player base?

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

I also never stated the the majority of people say not to buy the Mirage. I've seen that maybe twice, once on a Discord, once on Hoggit. The vast majority of casual people do hang out on the ED Discord though and you'll see that fairly easily if you actually spend time there without looking for specific search terms. 

I never said you did, but you did imply that in the RAZBAM discord, people tell others not to buy the Mirage owing to complexity, a claim that so far seems completely false.

And I even went out of my way to find evidence for you!

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

I really do not care. I was feeling nice and explaining to you what reasons contribute to the fact that IFF will remain as is but if you don't believe me, you're free to do whatever you want.

I thought you wouldn't.

And I'm really very sorry that my bar for truth is a little bit higher than "trust me bro".

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

We can easily return to this question in a few years and we'll see how realistic the IFF is by then. If you actually cared about the truth, the very thread you linked has many people explain why IFF is both a sensitive issue and why the vast majority of the community wouldn't care about it, only milsim squadrons.

This one?

I saw a grand total of 1 person in the thread make the argument that only milsim squadrons would care, 1. And looks like he got downvoted, and disagreed with. Which is hardly surprising, as he's making the same claims without evidence the same way you are.

There are some others saying we can't do IFF because x, but then the OP and several others chimed in to say that what they were bringing up wasn't relevant for what was being asked for. Again, the similarities here and there are striking.

There are far more people making the claim that for what we need, it isn't sensitive nor is it complex, in fact we already have a module that does basically eveything we need.

One SME chimed in about mode 5, which for the vast majority of modules in DCS including the F-5E (which to remind you, is what this thread is about), isn't a thing we need to be concerned about in the slightest, especially seeing as mode 5 isn't even present IRL on a lot of our modules.

Sounds like it's got less with "actually caring about the truth", and you having confirmation bias for your own conclusion, selecting literally 1 or 2 posts, pretending that represents the majority, while ignoring everything to the contrary.

On 2/11/2022 at 1:48 PM, WobblyFlops said:

And if you truly think that IFF as a whole is as simple as using the radios then this conversation really has no point. It's drastically more complex than that.

No, I said that in DCS it's functionally equivalent to tuning the radios, and from the player's perspective it's no more complicated. Seriously, operation of IFF interrogators pretty much relies on turning it on, and matching numbers, or in the case of M4, a single letter - almost exactly like a regular radio.

The only thing I'm aware of that's more complicated is the F-16, which additionally allows you to program codes, keys and modes changing based on time and position. But even that's fairly simple - you program it in the same way you already can and just input a time when it comes into effect. The same is true for position events, but it's instead of time its north/south/east/west of a certain steerpoint, like the Maverick.

The only other complexities we need to care about, things like azimuth and ambiguities in position, are already implemented for some modules.

And if you're going to disagree with me, explain exactly how, and how they're relevant to DCS.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

Hidden petty arguing. 

Please keep to the rules when posting and treat everyone with respect. 

 

Regarding IFF its a complex subject which has some levels of secrecy, modelling IFF has to be done with public unclassified data only, so we are limited no matter how we model it. 

For the F-5E as far as I am aware there are no plans to adjust its IFF capability. 

thanks

[Northstar98]

On 2/12/2022 at 11:31 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Regarding IFF its a complex subject which has some levels of secrecy

AFAIK, that mostly concerns things like crypto and real world codes (especially for mode 4 and 5).

But this is way out of scope for what's being asked for.

Mode 5 is largely absent in our RW modules (only module in DCS with it to my knowledge is the F-16CM).

Mode 4 encryption can be perfectly approximated by making it coalition specific, you only need to keep track of the coalition and the key selected for the interrogator and interrogated. We really do not need to know anything about the actual waveform or what the keys actually are, and it would be completely out of the pilot's scope regardless.

On 2/12/2022 at 11:31 AM, BIGNEWY said:

modelling IFF has to be done with public unclassified data only, so we are limited no matter how we model it.

Which is absolutely sufficient for what's being asked for, all of the pertinent information is already contained in flight manuals (-1s or equivalent) for our modules, which I would've thought would be a prerequisite for developing a module in the first place.

 

For NATO Mark 12 systems:

For M1, M2 and M3 it's a simple matter of if the codes match between the interrogator and the interrogated, a positive identification is generated. If they don't match, an ambiguous reply is generated.

A positive identification is already implemented in DCS, but an ambiguous reply shouldn't be too difficult either, and again, the responses are detailed in unclassified weapon delivery manuals (such as a -34-1-1 or equivalent).

The only thing I'm not sure about is what modes certain aircraft can interrogate, though I'm confident it's at least mode 4.

Our F-16 can definitely do all of them (and the INTG pages are already functional, and can be interacted with (apart from the couple setting, which couples the interrogator to the transponder, so they share the same settings i.e which modes are enabled/disabled and what code/keys they're set to).

 

For M4, there should be 5 conditions to generate a friendly reply:

• IFF master mode knob in LOW or NORM (the difference between them is sensitivity)
• IFF M4 selector switch on.
• Same key (A or B) is selected for the interrogator and the interrogated.
• Interrogator and interrogated belong to the same coalition (approximating encrypted nature of M4)
• Codes not zeroized (i.e ZERO not selected on M4 control switch and master ZEROIZE switch not enabled (if applicable), HOLD selected (if IFF mode knob set to off/aircraft shut down)).

If the code is zeroized or the aircraft is otherwise not responding to an M4 interrogation (for instance if the wrong key is selected, or the M4 transponder is disabled for whatever reason), it should generate applicable warnings in applicable aircraft (usually a warning light and a VMU message). In the F-5E, this will be the IFF caution light illuminating.

If any of those are not satisfied, no reply should be generated.

The replying aircraft should also display indications that its responding to an M4 interrogation and this will depend on the aircraft (though what it does, is in the -1 or equivalent), for the F-5E and numerous others, this is the reply light illuminating and an audible tone (depending on the status of the M4 reply monitor switch). In the F/A-18C this is the M4 OK advisory appearing in the left DDI, in the F-16 it's an audible tone and an indication in the DED.

 

For Soviet Kremniy-2 systems (using the SRO-2/SRZO-2 - such as the MiG-19P, MiG-21bis and L-39) if the same code is selected between interrogator and interrogated (there are 12 of them), a friendly reply is generated. If they don't match, either no reply or an ambiguous reply should be generated.

For Parol systems so long as the system is set to automatic, and the interrogator and the interrogated belong to the same coalition, a friendly reply is generated. I'm not sure what happens in the other modes (KD, ±15 etc), as I'm not as familiar with it, presumably so long as the setting match, a friendly reply is generated.

 

It should be said that all of the above can already be interacted with for basically every module (with few exceptions), they just don't do anything. Positive/friendly replies are already implemented, and in at least a few cases, already accounts for position errors, and azimuth/elevation constraints (at least definitely the Mirage 2000 and F-16CM).

FC3 aircraft should retain the magic M4 system there is now, and it should just require that the interrogated aircraft's IFF is on to generate a friendly reply.

 

IFF policies (i.e which modes and what codes/keys are in use at what time(s)/positions) should be at the discretion of the mission editor, and it should be possible to set a M2 code from within the editor (at least for aircraft that don't provide for altering it in flight, which is the vast majority of them).

It would be good for aircraft without compatible IFF systems, to have a custom transponder (in exactly the same breath as voice chat custom radios), which can be interacted with via a window (again, like voice chat), just requiring in the cockpit that the IFF system be on.

For things like mode 3/A and mode C, these are reliant on AI ATC improvements anyway, right now ATC doesn't even bother about your altitude or identification (beyond your callsign).

On 2/12/2022 at 11:31 AM, BIGNEWY said:

For the F-5E as far as I am aware there are no plans to adjust its IFF capability.

Doing the F-5E all by itself would be pretty pointless anyway, and its 'capabilities' are its transponder only, and all necessary information about it is contained in the -1, page 1-107 to 1-109.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Northstar98

[WobblyFlops]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

AFAIK, that mostly concerns things like crypto and real world codes (especially for mode 4 and 5).

 

This is my last post in this thread, and I'm just pointing one thing out for you. Just because something is available in the unclassified manual that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be implemented. And just because something is publically known it doesn't necessarily mean it can be implemented. The guy in the thread you were referring to was an SME. He said that IFF is too close to sensitive areas even without getting into how the actual crypto works. Similar thing was implied by the A-10 pilot in an AMA on Hoggit. When dealing with these systems (and IFF is a compartmented system, which means that even pilots don't necessarily have full access to all the information pertaining to the crypto as much of this stuff is controlled by the NSA) showing a healthy amount of respect towards (as the dude said), perceived sensitivity of these issues is also very important. Some things may be so sensitive (or perceived as so sensitive) that even guessing at them or implementing them in a simplified manner would cause concerns. And ED have government contracts and have to abide by many regulations.

 

The Air Force has already pulled down a module on a civilian sim platform (the 'old sim) that was available for commercial use due to ITAR and that was an unclassified trainer. There's also another study level offering for the same trainer by developers who make stuff for different platform (name rhymes with that paranormal FBI TV show) and that traininer is still not possible to be released publically. And none of that information is classified. ED surely has very knowledgable people who work out these issues and if they say that IFF can't be implemented for Western platforms even at the level of the JF-17 then it can't be. End of story.

[Northstar98]

On 2/12/2022 at 4:31 PM, WobblyFlops said:

This is my last post in this thread, and I'm just pointing one thing out for you. Just because something is available in the unclassified manual that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be implemented. And just because something is publically known it doesn't necessarily mean it can be implemented.

Correct, fortunately however we have evidence that for IFF, for the level of fidelity being asked for, isn't the case; there's already a module that does basically everything being asked for, and as for the rest of them, most, if not all of the things pertinent are already implemented and can be interacted with (which would require having that documentation, especially for the F-16), it just doesn't have any effect.

And some functions are already planned for certain modules.

On 2/12/2022 at 4:31 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The guy in the thread you were referring to was an SME. He said that IFF is too close to sensitive areas even without getting into how the actual crypto works.

Again, said SME was specifically talking about mode 5 IFF, which is as good as completely out of scope for DCS, especially so for the F-5E (and for the vast majority of other modules).

Look, I'll post the quote in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

Quote

[...]

Short answer - its impossible to do an in depth simulation of mode 5 IFF due to the rules, regulations, EOs, treaties, etc.

Long asnwer? Not much better but I will try to provide some detail, but understand the sheer volume of rules.. I don't know how I could possibly summarize it

So first things first, it is classified pursuant to EO 13526, see DoD 5220 22-M DTM--09-019

COMSEC as well. Extensive measures in place to deny unauthorized persons from gaining access. see same link as above.

Those parts of the sytem that are not strictly classified are controlled, either as Controlled Cryptographic Items or Controlled Unclassified Information. Thus, for all practical purposes they are classified as well.

Maybe it makes more sense to explain the "why." So... IFF mode 5 is new, and thus a ripe issue. In addition to the transition, the characteristics of the system are such that there's a ton of technology transfer to NATO allies going on. When information moves it has a tendency to be diverted, so there are thousands and thousands of pages of rules and regulations on each component system concerning who you must get permission from to discuss or show any information regarding each subsystem, and what requirements to tech transferee must demonstrate regarding capability and interoperability before it will be approved. This is red tape at its finest, distribution authorities created and tasked with acting as custodian over defined pieces of information, others tasked with evaluating whether allied equipment met required interoperability standards, COMSEC Joint Management offices acting as interagency representatives, I see several such bodies created just to help stakeholders navigate the security. In addition to the rules themselves there are manuals written to help those that must navigate this minefield find the applicable rules or regulations and know who to talk to.

Just as a comment, while IFF mode 5 is new (2020 is when it became standardised, and it first came in 2007), Mark 12 M1/2/3/4 are going on for 50-60 years old at this point.

Pretty clear that he's speaking specifically about mode 5.

There is another paragraph and all of it is in complete agreement with what I've said:

Spoiler

Quote

So yes, its classified, but why does it matter? In a sim, all IFF does is respond friendly or doesn't respond. It doesn't matter so much how it does that, DCS doesn't need to model the higher bandwidth waveform, it just models the performance. It doesn't have to decrypt the new crypto algorithm, utilize time dependent authorization or have any idea what asynchronous position reporting is. In real life you've got uninteresting aspects that don't need to be simulated, like interference with civil aviation capabilities. But the sim isn't real life, its a dead world. Real world you have thousands of moving vehicles on the ground, commercial aviation everywhere, saturated RF spectrums. Just look at link16, at most we use maybe a handful of timeslots out of every 1028. That's actually a good example -- everyone seems reasonably happy to datalink even though all of technical stuff is missing. Why bother with deconfliction and the like when its not busy when thee are so many things that would bring life to the world of DCS? I respect the realism thing though.

Anyway, hope that helps.

 

And again, the information required should already be available to developers, and they've already used that information to have the current stuff be able to be interacted with (especially for the F-16CM, whose INTG pages are fully functional, beyond the couple setting).

On 2/12/2022 at 4:31 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Similar thing was implied by the A-10 pilot in an AMA on Hoggit. When dealing with these systems (and IFF is a compartmented system, which means that even pilots don't necessarily have full access to all the information pertaining to the crypto as much of this stuff is controlled by the NSA) showing a healthy amount of respect towards (as the dude said), perceived sensitivity of these issues is also very important.

Why are you talking about the full access to all of the information, especially about crypto?

This has already been addressed:

The full thing isn't necessary in the slightest - all we need to know is how you turn on/turn off, change codes and enable/disable modes, and how positive replies are displayed to the pilot - all of which is already present in DCS.

Approximating crypto can be as simple as checking the coalition - and that's exactly how the current magic implementation of IFF handles it.

On 2/12/2022 at 4:31 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Some things may be so sensitive (or perceived as so sensitive) that even guessing at them or implementing them in a simplified manner would cause concerns. And ED have government contracts and have to abide by many regulations.

Again, the pertinent information is contained in manuals developers have access to.

But to address this common talking point, did you know that everything electronic warfare related is contained in classified supplements? Even for things like the F-5Es RWR?

Interesting that we have a guessed implementation or an implementation in a simplified manner for something whose operation and description is contained in a classified supplemental manual, but the system that's just in the regular old flight manual is off the table.

On 2/12/2022 at 4:31 PM, WobblyFlops said:

ED surely has very knowledgable people who work out these issues and if they say that IFF can't be implemented for Western platforms even at the level of the JF-17 then it can't be. End of story.

But they haven't said that, have they?

Nothing BIGNEWY has said above contradicts anything I've said, and in the hoggit thread, said the following:

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.

As for the rest, it's in complete agreement with what's being said.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Northstar98

[travelaround]

The correct way to use F-5 is to fight under the command of ground early warning radar or early warning aircraft. With the help of voice command, the battle strategy is planned and the friend or foe recognition is carried out. In DCS, early warning aircraft or ground early warning radar will tell you whether you are targeting the enemy or your own people.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, travelaround said:

The correct way to use F-5 is to fight under the command of ground early warning radar or early warning aircraft.

Yes, I imagine that F-5s would be under the direction of some command and control element, be that from GCI or AEW&C aircraft.

1 hour ago, travelaround said:

With the help of voice command, the battle strategy is planned and the friend or foe recognition is carried out. In DCS, early warning aircraft or ground early warning radar will tell you whether you are targeting the enemy or your own people.

Yes, but that's because DCS' classification is currently magic, it doesn't allow for ambiguous targets.

It also shouldn't preclude higher fidelity IFF functionality, and it can be applied to the AI as well.

For instance, how would the AI know the whatever aircraft is a friendly or a hostile? If the responding aircraft responds with the correct mode and code, it should return as friendly (at least in the case of M1 and M4). If they receive no reply or a reply but with the wrong code, they should be marked as ambiguous.

This was much better explained in this thread.

[travelaround]

11分钟前，Northstar98说：

例如，人工智能如何知道哪架飞机是友好的还是敌对的？如果响应的飞机以正确的模式和代码响应，它应该返回友好（至少在 M1 和 M4 的情况下）。如果他们没有收到回复或回复但代码错误，则应将其标记为不明确。

There is no way. For an aircraft like the F-5, the operations are carried out entirely under the leadership of the ground command post. The pilot does not need to know much information, and only needs to follow the instructions of the ground commander to fight. When the commander asks the pilot to do visual identification, the pilot does the visual identification, and when the commander asks the pilot to fire directly, the pilot fires directly.
But we don't have a commander in DCS, we can only be our own commander with limited information. So no matter how the aircraft's system is simulated, we can't get a real combat experience. In fact, a more intelligent air control and command system, as well as a more intelligent air defense network system, are the problems that DCS most need to solve.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, travelaround said:

There is no way. For an aircraft like the F-5, the operations are carried out entirely under the leadership of the ground command post.

Yes, I imagine they would be.

But now we're more talking about how the AI goes about identifcation, and IFF functionality should be a part of that.

In the case of the F-5, it would mean setting your transponder up uppropriately such that you appear as friendly to friendly units interrogating you.

1 minute ago, travelaround said:

When the commander asks the pilot to do visual identification, the pilot does the visual identification, and when the commander asks the pilot to fire directly, the pilot fires directly.
But we don't have a commander in DCS, we can only be our own commander with limited information. So no matter how the aircraft's system is simulated, we can't get a real combat experience. In fact, a more intelligent air control and command system, as well as a more intelligent air defense network system, are the problems that DCS most need to solve.

I agree, and this is kinda what I was talking about in the post you're responding to.