in development Data Transfer Unit (DTU)

[kgillers3]

50 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

Well it doesn't say anywhere that it's classified in the document, everywhere I checked it says it's not.

Besides that I don't think that mentioning that a system exists or that the DTC hold the data for that system is any issue. Anyone can read on wikipedia that mode 4 uses a crypto algorithm and a digital key or that ECM is designed to mess with electronics like radar. The issue comes when it goes into the details.

I can't go into the details because I don't have access to classified materials in the first place. All ED needs to do is simulate the effects of such systems, not actually implement them in detail.

 

Multi tasking so I apologize, yes there are more detailed things out there and we agree it’s the inner workings, of which can’t be accurately replicated without knowing the inner workings. Pending the system tho some of that stuff could potentially be in that manual which is why we said these things. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by kgillers3

[AlphaOneSix]

23 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Well it doesn't say anywhere that it's classified in the document, everywhere I checked it says it's not.

It says right on the cover page that unless you are DoD or a DoD contractor, you are not authorized to have the document. So if you have it, and you are not one of those two categories, you would be wise to not spout it all over the Internet.

[FalcoGer]

Distribution notice doesn't mean classification. I am not an US citizen, I am not exporting it from the US. Someone wasn't supposed to give it to me doesn't mean I am not allowed to have it.

If it were classified it would state it's classification. Confidential, secret or top secret. But it does not.

Edited October 15, 2021 by FalcoGer

[AlphaOneSix]

3 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

Distribution notice doesn't mean classification. I am not an US citizen, I am not exporting it from the US. Someone wasn't supposed to give it to me doesn't mean I am not allowed to have it.

If it were classified it would state it's classification. Confidential, secret or top secret. But it does not.

 

"This document includes MDHS proprietary rights. Recipient agrees not to reproduce, disclose to others, or transfer to other documents all or any part of this document for any purpose except as authorized in writing by MDHS."

Whatever, man. You know better than everyone else here. I'll just start reporting your posts and let the mods handle it. If they say it's fine then I guess it's fine.

Edited October 15, 2021 by AlphaOneSix

[FalcoGer]

On 6/5/2021 at 10:18 AM, WHOGX5 said:

To be honest, a proper mission planner isn't completely necessary. All we need is a .lua file covering all the editable options that doesn't get removed after every patch, then a third-party software like CombatFlite could allow us to easily edit those options. If we have to wait for an official ED mission planner, I'm afraid that's going to take years until we see it implemented.

I don't think that's reasonable. You have to see the situation (read: have the game started) to plan a mission. Creating a lua file which is read when you start the game up or having special options that only allow to be changed from the main menu doesn't do it. If you have a static mission anyhow, then you might as well use the mission editor.

This isn't something that takes years of research and subject matter experts crawling through manuals and dealing with potentially classified sources and legal issues. It's simply UX and UI design. The aircraft systems already have been or will be modeled separately. The functionality is already there in the mission editor. What needs to be done is work on integrating that, and that shouldn't take years.

There is also the issue of automatically populating threats that are not available on the map for things like the F16 and probably the AH64 as well. when I get in the KA50 I see those blue rings on the abris and I wonder who put that there. I certainly didn't and the map didn't show anything so in theory no one knows about those units, but every single one is marked. That's not cool. Unknown threats should not be placed automatically but if you have intel about it, you should be able to place it manually. If you do have them on the map then automatic threat point placement may still be inhibited by the aircraft's storage capacity for such threat points and thus priority must be given in some fashion (such as by distance to the flight path).

  

On 6/11/2021 at 9:43 PM, Tippis said:

That's just it: we do have something.

I don't think we do. We have the JF17 with the countermeasure settings in special options and that's it. DTC includes other things. Waypoints and other points of interest (threats, hazards, checkpoints, fix points, bulls), CMDS settings, presets for comms, possibly airfield database with things like frequencies, runways, etc, datalink settings and ids, iff settings, weapon loadout, laser codes, routes, possibly multiple routes.

Some of which is set up through the mission editor, some of which is set up by magic and some of which can not be set up at all.

Things like weapon loadout is automatic. iff doesn't exist. datalink is locked to the group you have in the mission editor, the best we have there is setting a group id in the A10 after the fact and that's not possible with any other aircraft that has any sort of data link. ka50 is limited to 4 aircraft on the same uhf/vhf frequency and doesn't have group ids and datalink is all set up with hard switches (read: no dtc).

Then the viggen and jf17 can have some stuff set up via F10 map points, which is the closest thing we have but it's awkward and intrusive to other people because those points are public and shared and it's very limited and of course UX sucks. No labels, no lines and rather hard to see rings, possibly brown on brownish yellow.

We don't have anything right now that is satisfactory.

Edited October 16, 2021 by FalcoGer

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't think we do. We have the JF17 with the countermeasure settings in special options and that's it.

We also have the Viggen DTC, the auto-generated and -populated settings in the F-16 and F-18 (and MIrage, to a lesser extent), the kneeboard-driven interface of the Harrier, the “prepare mission” feature of the A-10 and Ka-50, and a myriad of inconsistent kneeboard and ME settings that, while not all of them are actually handled by a DTC system, should be consolidated into the same kind of UX/UI setup.

Like I said, we already have something. That something is already a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions. Adding more to that mess isn't “infinitely better than what we already have” because it is what we already have. And, pretty much by definition, it's a mess — it doesn't become better by becoming more. So the only real actual improvement is to make it a centralised API and UI that everyone hooks into. Asking the individual module makers to implement a solution will not make things better, just more, and will make the eventual move to a working solution far more painful and more unlikely.

[WHOGX5]

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't think that's reasonable. You have to see the situation (read: have the game started) to plan a mission. Creating a lua file which is read when you start the game up or having special options that only allow to be changed from the main menu doesn't do it. If you have a static mission anyhow, then you might as well use the mission editor.

This isn't something that takes years of research and subject matter experts crawling through manuals and dealing with potentially classified sources and legal issues. It's simply UX and UI design. The aircraft systems already have been or will be modeled separately. The functionality is already there in the mission editor. What needs to be done is work on integrating that, and that shouldn't take years.

There is also the issue of automatically populating threats that are not available on the map for things like the F16 and probably the AH64 as well. when I get in the KA50 I see those blue rings on the abris and I wonder who put that there. I certainly didn't and the map didn't show anything so in theory no one knows about those units, but every single one is marked. That's not cool. Unknown threats should not be placed automatically but if you have intel about it, you should be able to place it manually. If you do have them on the map then automatic threat point placement may still be inhibited by the aircraft's storage capacity for such threat points and thus priority must be given in some fashion (such as by distance to the flight path).

  

I don't think we do. We have the JF17 with the countermeasure settings in special options and that's it. DTC includes other things. Waypoints and other points of interest (threats, hazards, checkpoints, fix points, bulls), CMDS settings, presets for comms, possibly airfield database with things like frequencies, runways, etc, datalink settings and ids, iff settings, weapon loadout, laser codes, routes, possibly multiple routes.

Some of which is set up through the mission editor, some of which is set up by magic and some of which can not be set up at all.

Things like weapon loadout is automatic. iff doesn't exist. datalink is locked to the group you have in the mission editor, the best we have there is setting a group id in the A10 after the fact and that's not possible with any other aircraft that has any sort of data link. ka50 is limited to 4 aircraft on the same uhf/vhf frequency and doesn't have group ids and datalink is all set up with hard switches (read: no dtc).

Then the viggen and jf17 can have some stuff set up via F10 map points, which is the closest thing we have but it's awkward and intrusive to other people because those points are public and shared and it's very limited and of course UX sucks. No labels, no lines and rather hard to see rings, possibly brown on brownish yellow.

We don't have anything right now that is satisfactory.

 

You're arguing as if I said that a .lua would be the end all solution. It would be a stopgap measure. Like you said, we have nothing that is satisfactory, but having a .lua would alleviate a lot of the problems we face. And regarding the threat circles, they can be enabled/disabled for individual units in the mission editor so if things are visible that shouldn't be, that's on the mission creator. I can't speak for every airframe as I pretty much solely fly the F-16, but the reason that threat circles can't be added or removed in the F-16 is that they haven't been properly implemented threat yet. Every threat circle should be tied to a steerpoint, but as it is right now, they just magically appear.

4 hours ago, Tippis said:

We also have the Viggen DTC, the auto-generated and -populated settings in the F-16 and F-18 (and MIrage, to a lesser extent), the kneeboard-driven interface of the Harrier, the “prepare mission” feature of the A-10 and Ka-50, and a myriad of inconsistent kneeboard and ME settings that, while not all of them are actually handled by a DTC system, should be consolidated into the same kind of UX/UI setup.

Like I said, we already have something. That something is already a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions. Adding more to that mess isn't “infinitely better than what we already have” because it is what we already have. And, pretty much by definition, it's a mess — it doesn't become better by becoming more. So the only real actual improvement is to make it a centralised API and UI that everyone hooks into. Asking the individual module makers to implement a solution will not make things better, just more, and will make the eventual move to a working solution far more painful and more unlikely.

Would it be far more painful than waiting for a DTC for an entire decade, ever since the release of the A-10C, before DCS World even existed? Going in to the sub menus every single flight to setup the exact same settings for years on end? Because that's what a lot of us have been doing. It's not like creating a .lua, that changes values in other .luas that already exist, would take thousands of man hours to implement. It would be an incredibly bare bones, temporary solution that'd give third-parties something to work with, and I'd be surprised if it took more than a couple of weeks for all the DTC options to be implemented into something like CombatFlite.

And I don't agree with your opinion that implementing a stopgap like this would decrease the likelihood or increase the difficulty of implementing a proper solution. Lately it has become quite apparent that ED wants to implement something akin to the Joint Mission Planning System. That's great, but it's gonna take a long time to make. A few years ago ED released pictures of an entire DTC menu covering pretty much every setting you could possibly want to set in an aircraft, even switch state when starting cold. That system could've been rolled out ages ago if it weren't for the JMPS. At least that's my analysis of the current situation.

The reason a JMPS system would take such a long time to implement, is that it covers all things related to mission planning and is way beyond a DTC in scope. If they pull it off, the JMPS should cover everything from simply placing steerpoints to providing fuel and drag calculations, climb profiles, calculating weapon delivery profiles, etc; pretty much anything that relates to the mission planning process. All these things would have to be worked out for each air frame in the sim That's why some sort of stopgap measure, like a .lua, would be a great interim solution.

Even in a controlled environment like a DCS community there is so much time that has to be spent and so many hoops that have to be jumped through in preparation for each mission, simply because we're 100% reliant upon the .miz file. Every single thing you want to set, from steerpoints to radio presets to laser codes, has to be set in the mission file itself unless you want to input everything manually and drastically increase the risk of something being input incorrectly. And that doesn't even cover the things you can't set in the mission editor, like countermeasures, MFD setup, etc. So a JMPS would be better than a .lua, but a .lua would be infinitely better than having nothing at all for the foreseeable future.

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

Would it be far more painful than waiting for a DTC for an entire decade, ever since the release of the A-10C, before DCS World even existed?

Yes.

Every new bespoke solution further delays that functionality. It's a case of ripping the band-aid off vs. piling on more band-aids on top of old rotting layers that are slowly being grown over by the skin. The kinds of bare-bones solution you're describing already exists — that's kind of the whole point. Not only that, it exists in half a dozen different ways, all incompatible with each other.. The “temporary improvement” you're envisioning isn't one: it's not different from what exists and working on it will only make it take longer before a permanent solution can be made, and make it harder to even make it at all, thus increasing the chances that it won't be temporary at all.

5 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

And I don't agree with your opinion that implementing a stopgap like this would decrease the likelihood or increase the difficulty of implementing a proper solution.

Of course it will. The more disparate and bespoke solutions there are, the more will have to be rebuilt when a proper solution comes around, to the point where it will eventually not be cost-effective to do it at all: the gain is just no longer there and would just break things. The more cruft you accumulate, the more you'll dread the moment when all that cruft has to be cleared out — it is better not to accumulate it at all since doing so will make the transition easier and quicker, and that holds true even if said cruft happens to include the odd little gem. At some point, you simply have to stop creating new hacky solutions to a systemic problem and stop pushing the major rework further into the future.

The difficulty increases by simple definition: if you build a system on top of a bespoke hacky solution, you are all but guaranteed that you either end up with something that cannot be replicated later, or something that requires all kinds of extra work to be compatible with the new common system. Feature freezes exist for a reason.

[NeMoGas]

Unless ED fixed it the option to remove threat circles (hidden on MFD) does not work. Making them invisible on map does, but then they can't been seen or controlled on map by a tac com.

Edited October 16, 2021 by NeMoGas

[Hobel]

Will the apache get a DTC in the near future?

Or at least as a bridge until then the F10 map variant as they already use other modules?

[Eaglewings]

It would nice to know if the DTC would be implemented for the Apache. I want to assume this would take care of having to input Waypoint, Control M, Hazard, Target etc in TSD page.

Having to do this in every mission is somewhat a pain in the backside especially when for some reasons you crash and have to start the mission again. 

[Agrrregat]

Yeah, at least option like for Viggen but this topic has been discussed countless of times for Warthog, Hornet, Viper etc. for many years.

I bet community will find a "temporary" solution, like with DCSTheWay, or Bailey's DiCE. 

 

[Hobel]

16 hours ago, Agrrregat said:

Yeah, at least option like for Viggen but this topic has been discussed countless of times for Warthog, Hornet, Viper etc. for many years.

And why doesn't ed use this solution?  At least as a transition.

I also use these mods but when they are in a 4 ship or participate in a big event these tools become almost useless.

In the viggen I give the route as flight lead and the others can just load it.

It could be so simple...

 

[frostycab]

3 hours ago, Hobel said:

And why doesn't ed use this solution?  At least as a transition.

I also use these mods but when they are in a 4 ship or participate in a big event these tools become almost useless.

In the viggen I give the route as flight lead and the others can just load it.

It could be so simple...

 

They might well do exactly this, but things take time. Right now I imagine they’re 100% focussed on squashing bugs that detract from being peoples’ ability to fly and fight effectively. After all, it’s not like one dev is going to get all that set up and running in an afternoon. 

[Agrrregat]

23 minutes ago, frostycab said:

They might well do exactly this, but things take time. Right now I imagine they’re 100% focussed on squashing bugs that detract from being peoples’ ability to fly and fight effectively. After all, it’s not like one dev is going to get all that set up and running in an afternoon. 

Well, DTC solution should be working for most of modules in DCS, so we are not talking here about one dev working on it in one afternoon or/and focusing on fixing bugs, bugs will be always here and there in this game.

This is known for years that DCS need to have it, and community is beging for DTC for long years, equaly like for dynamic campagin and better AI.

 

[Hobel]

  

40 minutes ago, frostycab said:

They might well do exactly this, but things take time. Right now I imagine they’re 100% focussed on squashing bugs that detract from being peoples’ ability to fly and fight effectively. After all, it’s not like one dev is going to get all that set up and running in an afternoon. 

 

 

yes that is correct But it can't be that we are now waiting +10 years for a DTC option?
a simple option to insert waypoints.
while individual people are releasing programs like Theway or DCS DTC for F16.

And 3rd developer also offer this option.

 

This is very frustrating.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Hobel

[Scaley]

ED have been working on a DTC solution for many years. I suspect they will be somewhat reluctant to release something for one specific module. Personally I'd think it's many many times more likely that we will get good third party solutions. 

[Dallas88B]

The AH-64D manual says "The DTU sub-page allows the crew to read from and write to the data transfer cartridge (DTC). Currently this format is non-functional"

I expect I am not alone in seeing that the DTU would/could be useful to DCS Mission makers and players alike. It could allow all sorts of data to be loaded into the Apache that could improve the player experience. Route details, loaded weight, targets, maps, and "other graphical control measures to enhance situational awareness are loaded into the aircraft via the DTU and displayed on the TSD"

I am curious to know if the further development of the AH-64D might see or will see the availability loading some type of DTU package to support these sort of functions in game. Anyone know? Can ED comment?

Really enjoying the Apache and the challenge of learning the Aircraft and its systems just like to say thank you to ED developers and the supporting SMEs. 

 

[Eaglewings]

The AH-64D manual says "The DTU sub-page allows the crew to read from and write to the data transfer cartridge (DTC). Currently this format is non-functional"
I expect I am not alone in seeing that the DTU would/could be useful to DCS Mission makers and players alike. It could allow all sorts of data to be loaded into the Apache that could improve the player experience. Route details, loaded weight, targets, maps, and "other graphical control measures to enhance situational awareness are loaded into the aircraft via the DTU and displayed on the TSD"
I am curious to know if the further development of the AH-64D might see or will see the availability loading some type of DTU package to support these sort of functions in game. Anyone know? Can ED comment?
Really enjoying the Apache and the challenge of learning the Aircraft and its systems just like to say thank you to ED developers and the supporting SMEs. 
 

DTU is in development.
ED hinted about it in two Fridays ago in their newsletter if I am not mistaken.
They want to design a DTU that will be common to all aircrafts that has the DTU feature so the work will be in collaboration with other third party developers.

And yes DTU would make mission planning and storing very interesting.

[Dallas88B]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I like the information your providing. I must go back and look at that newsletter. Certainly missed that ! 

thanks again. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dallas88B

[Scaley]

DTU has been being talked about by ED, and requested in the forums, since before DCS was DCS. If you go back to the original A-10C module code you'll see some bits of code set up for accepting input from some kind of DTU system. As far as I know no one has ever seen any kind of demo, information, or description from ED of what we'll get, or when. As Raptor has said they have said they are wanting to make something that is workable across many/all aircraft. I suspect there will be a great many community produced tool coming along shortly to do a lot of what we ned for DTU functionality.

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Scaley:

DTU has been being talked about by ED, and requested in the forums, since before DCS was DCS. If you go back to the original A-10C module code you'll see some bits of code set up for accepting input from some kind of DTU system. As far as I know no one has ever seen any kind of demo, information, or description from ED of what we'll get, or when. As Raptor has said they have said they are wanting to make something that is workable across many/all aircraft. I suspect there will be a great many community produced tool coming along shortly to do a lot of what we ned for DTU functionality.

this already exists and the tool is called "the way".

 

 

[Scaley]

The Way is good for what it does, but it certainly isn't a DTU replacement. What would make life much easier would be to be able to actually configure things before being in the aircraft - weapon settings, radios, points (all of them, not just waypoints), routes, etc. 

[Hobel]

Am 8.7.2022 um 04:44 schrieb Scaley:

The Way is good for what it does, but it certainly isn't a DTU replacement. What would make life much easier would be to be able to actually configure things before being in the aircraft - weapon settings, radios, points (all of them, not just waypoints), routes, etc. 

I completely agree with you, I therefore see the path more as a stopgap solution, the Aapche once again shows exactly how incredibly important a proper DTC is for other modules as well.

[Floyd1212]

Two notes on using The Way:

1) It doesn't work for VR users, but for pancake users, it is a great tool.

2) If you send your selected points to the TSD while in NAV PHASE, you will create waypoints.  If you switch to ATTACK PHASE, it will send them as TGT points.

Now if only there was an "export" and "import" feature for The Way, we would be one step closer...