investigating SADL and EPRLS ON/OFF

[Tarres]

Maybe it´s a "core related" bug instead of an A10C bug.

Premise: only SADL/EPRLS units must be present in the TAD page. No L16 or L4 equipped aircraft. So in DCS only ground units EPRLS equipped and A10C/C2 must be present in the TAD. ERPLS is an Army system, so it´s not present on airplanes AFAIK.

In the attached miz and track, if a unit with the "EPRLS" is ON in the "advanced waypoints", this unit appears in the TAD regardless the type of DL.

In the mission, an IA Hornet can be seen in the TAD if the ERPLS is set to on. It seems that the "ERPLS on/off" code enable or disable the DL in general (L16/L4/SADL/ERPLS).

If set to "ERPLS OFF", the Hornet is not present in the TAD. But the Hornet is prevented to use their DL.

SADL HORNET EPRLS ON.mizSADL HORNET EPRLS OFF.miz

EPRLS OFF Hornet NOT visible in SADL.trk EPRLS ON Horner visible in SADL.trk

[Snoopy]

So what you're saying is you don't want the gateway modeled in DCS so the A-10 can get Link 16 equipped aircraft data (which to be fair and to your point right now only AI aicraft data is shared not client)? 

 

This is the first time I've seen someone report a bug for a feature most want to actually work (i.e. have the gateway modeled so SADL and Link 16 equipped aircraft can talk)

[Tarres]

No. The gateway is present (WiP) in the A10C2.

The A10C (first version) doesn’t have an Arc-210 so no gateway is available so only the SADL datalink must be functional.

The bug is more related with the use of the eprls on/off code that enables or disabled the “datalink”.  When the A10C was launched it was a “standalone module” so no other DL was implemented.

Now we have 3 or 4 different DL and the eprls code now enables or disabled the DL “all of them”.

This is a bug report for the A10C, the first one, without the ARC-210 and the associated gateway.

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:52 PM by Tarres

[Yurgon]

12 hours ago, Tarres said:

In the mission, an IA Hornet can be seen in the TAD if the ERPLS is set to on. It seems that the "ERPLS on/off" code enable or disable the DL in general (L16/L4/SADL/ERPLS).

I don't understand your point, so let me try and clarify if I get it right: a player controlled A-10C (not A-10C II) should not be able to see any F/A-18C on the TAD. Is that what you're trying to convey?

[Tarres]

If I understand correctly, yes. Only eprls systems can be present in a SADL net and in our case in the TAD.

For the A10C2, with the proper implementation of the arc-210 and the gateway for the L16(TNDL) IA and human L16 equipped aircrafts (15,16,18,A10C2) as you said, can be present in the TAD.

Prior to the arc-210 upgrade (and the TNDL WiP) I don’t remember to have in the A10C (not the C2) a picture in the TAD with other airframes different of the A10C (no E3, 18…)

So I presume that it’s more a “core bug” due to the partial implementation of the TNDL that conflicts with the old EPRLS implementation.

 

 

 

[Yurgon]

17 minutes ago, Tarres said:

Prior to the arc-210 upgrade (and the TNDL WiP) I don’t remember to have in the A10C (not the C2) a picture in the TAD with other airframes different of the A10C (no E3, 18…)

It's my understanding this has been possible in the A-10C (and also A-10C II) module and what you're describing as a bug would have been a bug for a long time.

It's also my understanding that other friendly aircraft, particularly E-3 AWACS, can serve as a gateway between SADL and Link 4/Link 16. So the only bug, as I understand it, is that the gateway works even without such an asset present in the mission.

But frankly, that whole datalink thing is a bit of a mess and has been for basically ever, where A-10C players can currently see AI Hornets and Vipers, but not player controlled ones, yet player controlled Hornets can see player controlled A-10Cs on their SA page. It's all work in progress, AFAICT.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this doesn't look like something that would be easy to address, nor does it make a lot of sense to me to fix this particular issue without addressing the bigger picture.

Edited Wednesday at 10:26 PM by Yurgon

[Tarres]

Yes. This is the point.

It’s part of the biggest picture as you said.

[BIGNEWY]

Isn't this more a question of what units should and should not have EPLRS? Maybe that needs checking.