Jump to content

About ITAR and HARM EOM, MSI, etc


raus

Recommended Posts

Hey @BIGNEWY and @NineLine...

First of all, I do not intend to start a fight here, just healthy curiosity. Therefore, feel free to delete if you believe this is not pointing anywhere constructive, no hard feelings.

The reason to write these lines is the controversy about some Hornet capabilities not being implemented due to ITAR regulation putting them out of reach, to name two of them, the full MSI implementation and the EOM mode for AGM-88 Harm.

  • Why not simulating the effects?

I think there are other modules of the Hornet which are as much of a secret, or even more, than the two named above. For instance, the ECM suite is a complete secret, I think, and yet we are simulating its effects, with a lot of guesswork, to have an ASPJ in the Hornet, or the ALQ-84 of viper and hog... Then, why not just:

  • Implement a simple EOM mode, take the viper mechanics for it, and call it a day
  • Allow to lock non radar tracks, from the SA page and create L+S from there, and unbind the track lifetime from the brick timeout.

These are two simple examples. They wouldn't be 100% correct, and the real systems are surely more involved but... better a simpler implementation than nothing. I mean, I would consider more realistic to have these capabilities "simulated" or not 100% true to RW operation, than having a Hornet lacking so important capabilities. We have lived and accepted simplified systems (remember the Harm TOO mode was said to be simplified, and to later inherit from viper... and it was accepted that way, so why not other systems? )

I understand there might be purists that want it binary: either exactly as real world counterpart, or nothing... but that could be done a setting (even a server enforced setting) to allow simpler implementations, or justdiscard them completely.

 

  • Why not making clear what is accessible?

A lot of the controversy comes from not really knowing what is out of bounds. Then, why not publishing which documents are used as reference by the team? If they are open-source, as claimed, listing them for everyone interested to have a look would settle a lot of misunderstandings. We could have a look at the references upon which systems are modelled and that would save from reporting bugs that aren't such.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this idea and give some feedback 🙂

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, raus said:
  • Why not making clear what is accessible?

A lot of the controversy comes from not really knowing what is out of bounds. Then, why not publishing which documents are used as reference by the team? If they are open-source, as claimed, listing them for everyone interested to have a look would settle a lot of misunderstandings. We could have a look at the references upon which systems are modelled and that would save from reporting bugs that aren't such.

This ^^^

  • Like 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, raus said:

Why not simulating the effects?

I believe in past they have said that the problem with this is that if they happen to get it close to right, how do they prove they didn't use information that they may have access to but are unable to use (whether due to ITAR restrictions if it's public or if they have non-public info) to model/simulate it.  Yes, you could say "but it's in video X on utube", but it's a pretty touchy area when you're using/have access to higher level info for the rest and not worth them having to divert resources to prove themselves innocent.  I believe they've also said that governments keep a pretty close eye on them, so it would be noticed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
50 minutes ago, raus said:

Hey @BIGNEWY and @NineLine...

First of all, I do not intend to start a fight here, just healthy curiosity. Therefore, feel free to delete if you believe this is not pointing anywhere constructive, no hard feelings.

The reason to write these lines is the controversy about some Hornet capabilities not being implemented due to ITAR regulation putting them out of reach, to name two of them, the full MSI implementation and the EOM mode for AGM-88 Harm.

  • Why not simulating the effects?

I think there are other modules of the Hornet which are as much of a secret, or even more, than the two named above. For instance, the ECM suite is a complete secret, I think, and yet we are simulating its effects, with a lot of guesswork, to have an ASPJ in the Hornet, or the ALQ-84 of viper and hog... Then, why not just:

  • Implement a simple EOM mode, take the viper mechanics for it, and call it a day
  • Allow to lock non radar tracks, from the SA page and create L+S from there, and unbind the track lifetime from the brick timeout.

These are two simple examples. They wouldn't be 100% correct, and the real systems are surely more involved but... better a simpler implementation than nothing. I mean, I would consider more realistic to have these capabilities "simulated" or not 100% true to RW operation, than having a Hornet lacking so important capabilities. We have lived and accepted simplified systems (remember the Harm TOO mode was said to be simplified, and to later inherit from viper... and it was accepted that way, so why not other systems? )

I understand there might be purists that want it binary: either exactly as real world counterpart, or nothing... but that could be done a setting (even a server enforced setting) to allow simpler implementations, or justdiscard them completely.

 

  • Why not making clear what is accessible?

A lot of the controversy comes from not really knowing what is out of bounds. Then, why not publishing which documents are used as reference by the team? If they are open-source, as claimed, listing them for everyone interested to have a look would settle a lot of misunderstandings. We could have a look at the references upon which systems are modelled and that would save from reporting bugs that aren't such.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this idea and give some feedback 🙂

Hi, thanks for the post. 

I can not give you all the details of the source material of our projects, but we are always happy to take a look at information and if in doubt it is always best to PM myself or nineline so as not to break our 1.16 rule.

We have to be very careful about the information we use for DCS so we do spend a lot of time ensuring we are not breaking any rules. As you know just because it can be found on google does not make it legal to use for a simulator. 

 

thanks

 

 

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, raus said:

Hey @BIGNEWY and @NineLine...

First of all, I do not intend to start a fight here, just healthy curiosity. Therefore, feel free to delete if you believe this is not pointing anywhere constructive, no hard feelings.

The reason to write these lines is the controversy about some Hornet capabilities not being implemented due to ITAR regulation putting them out of reach, to name two of them, the full MSI implementation and the EOM mode for AGM-88 Harm.

  • Why not simulating the effects?

I think there are other modules of the Hornet which are as much of a secret, or even more, than the two named above. For instance, the ECM suite is a complete secret, I think, and yet we are simulating its effects, with a lot of guesswork, to have an ASPJ in the Hornet, or the ALQ-84 of viper and hog... Then, why not just:

  • Implement a simple EOM mode, take the viper mechanics for it, and call it a day
  • Allow to lock non radar tracks, from the SA page and create L+S from there, and unbind the track lifetime from the brick timeout.

These are two simple examples. They wouldn't be 100% correct, and the real systems are surely more involved but... better a simpler implementation than nothing. I mean, I would consider more realistic to have these capabilities "simulated" or not 100% true to RW operation, than having a Hornet lacking so important capabilities. We have lived and accepted simplified systems (remember the Harm TOO mode was said to be simplified, and to later inherit from viper... and it was accepted that way, so why not other systems? )

I understand there might be purists that want it binary: either exactly as real world counterpart, or nothing... but that could be done a setting (even a server enforced setting) to allow simpler implementations, or justdiscard them completely.

 

  • Why not making clear what is accessible?

A lot of the controversy comes from not really knowing what is out of bounds. Then, why not publishing which documents are used as reference by the team? If they are open-source, as claimed, listing them for everyone interested to have a look would settle a lot of misunderstandings. We could have a look at the references upon which systems are modelled and that would save from reporting bugs that aren't such.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this idea and give some feedback 🙂

Well said sir 👍

59 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, thanks for the post. 

I can not give you all the details of the source material of our projects, but we are always happy to take a look at information and if in doubt it is always best to PM myself or nineline so as not to break our 1.16 rule.

We have to be very careful about the information we use for DCS so we do spend a lot of time ensuring we are not breaking any rules. As you know just because it can be found on google does not make it legal to use for a simulator. 

 

thanks

 

 

Do you know how the team feel about improvising a bit when it comes to these features and implementing some of raus’s suggestions re the docs used? Would be great to know one way or the other. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Just now, Digitalvole said:

Do you know how the team feel about improvising a bit when it comes to these features and implementing some of raus’s suggestions re the docs used? Would be great to know one way or the other. 🙂

Where possible we need to work with the best evidence, we also use SME feedback. We spend a lot of time researching subjects and creating design documents for the team.  

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Where possible we need to work with the best evidence, we also use SME feedback. We spend a lot of time researching subjects and creating design documents for the team.  

Thanks for the speedy reply.

Though I do understand that the devs strive for authenticity, and we very much appreciate that, this particular issue raises an interesting conundrum when it comes to the authenticity of our Hornet. I for one would back what raus suggests for MSI etc. 

just my 2 pence worth. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, raus said:

Hey @BIGNEWY and @NineLine...

First of all, I do not intend to start a fight here, just healthy curiosity. Therefore, feel free to delete if you believe this is not pointing anywhere constructive, no hard feelings.

The reason to write these lines is the controversy about some Hornet capabilities not being implemented due to ITAR regulation putting them out of reach, to name two of them, the full MSI implementation and the EOM mode for AGM-88 Harm.

  • Why not simulating the effects?

I think there are other modules of the Hornet which are as much of a secret, or even more, than the two named above. For instance, the ECM suite is a complete secret, I think, and yet we are simulating its effects, with a lot of guesswork, to have an ASPJ in the Hornet, or the ALQ-84 of viper and hog... Then, why not just:

  • Implement a simple EOM mode, take the viper mechanics for it, and call it a day
  • Allow to lock non radar tracks, from the SA page and create L+S from there, and unbind the track lifetime from the brick timeout.

These are two simple examples. They wouldn't be 100% correct, and the real systems are surely more involved but... better a simpler implementation than nothing. I mean, I would consider more realistic to have these capabilities "simulated" or not 100% true to RW operation, than having a Hornet lacking so important capabilities. We have lived and accepted simplified systems (remember the Harm TOO mode was said to be simplified, and to later inherit from viper... and it was accepted that way, so why not other systems? )

I understand there might be purists that want it binary: either exactly as real world counterpart, or nothing... but that could be done a setting (even a server enforced setting) to allow simpler implementations, or justdiscard them completely.

 

  • Why not making clear what is accessible?

A lot of the controversy comes from not really knowing what is out of bounds. Then, why not publishing which documents are used as reference by the team? If they are open-source, as claimed, listing them for everyone interested to have a look would settle a lot of misunderstandings. We could have a look at the references upon which systems are modelled and that would save from reporting bugs that aren't such.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this idea and give some feedback 🙂

Agree totally, very well put.

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love what the OP has said and agree 100% that I would prefer to have functioning systems that are not 100% real than not have the systems at all.

On the other hand, as Big Newy has said, ED uses SME's. Simulation of certain systems could potentially place both ED and those SMEs in hot water, and it is not just a black and white matter.

To give two examples:

1. ED uses educated guess work to make something that functions well. And their educated guess falls very close to the mark. ED now looks like they may have used classified sources, and the SME looks like they have provided that source either directly or directly with such feedback as. "This button should be over here"

2. ED uses educated guesswork to make something that functions well. The result is close but with an obvious discrepancy. Now it looks like they used classified sources and deliberately changed some factor to avoid prosecution.

In both instances the onus may fall upon on ED and the SME, potentially in separate cases, to prove no wrong doing. This can be difficult to prove as the proof relies on an absence of evidence, so the implication is you are hiding something.

It is a fine line to tread and on the whole ED does it well. Perhaps the importation of systems from other platforms may be a way ahead. E.g. Importing the CAS page from the A10 would be clearly not a use of classified F18 documents and give the players a functional system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 10:15 PM, rob10 said:

I believe in past they have said that the problem with this is that if they happen to get it close to right, how do they prove they didn't use information that they may have access to but are unable to use (whether due to ITAR restrictions if it's public or if they have non-public info) to model/simulate it.

The part I'd like clarification on is why this doesn't apply to the Viper, which uses the same HARM modes and is roughly around the same timeframe as simulated in DCS. Is ITAR aircraft-specific rather than system-specific? In other words, is it not the HARM mode itself that is an ITAR issue, but rather the Hornet's implementation of the HARM mode that is the issue?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...