Why are we getting Datalink of this is a Block I? - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2019, 04:26 AM   #11
L0op8ack
3rd Party Developer
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: China
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocrachon View Post
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...e-capabilities



^-- Flat out says Block I did not have Datalink like Block II

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/secur...ighter.450130/



^--- Indicates that prior to 2014 (which is Block I) they did not have Datalink (Source is also from Pakistan)

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/20...r-chinese.html



^--- Shared Datalink not till Block III it sorta sounds like? (Quote from China)

So I am confused, are we getting a Block 2 or Block 1?

Datalink (Enhanced version LINK-16) was described in detail in the flight manual(CN and EN versions) since 2006.
L0op8ack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:41 AM   #12
Hatefury
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L0op8ack View Post
Datalink (Enhanced version LINK-16) was described in detail in the flight manual(CN and EN versions) since 2006.
Good to know. The work you've shown so far looks excellent. Looking forward to some more in depth information and of course the aircraft itself.
Hatefury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:42 PM   #13
chief
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 318
Default

I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct. That's all we need on multiplayer servers is a J17 with 2040 technology and weapons. The Phoenix is bad enough
chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:52 PM   #14
AeriaGloria
Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 739
Default

We’ll be fine. I’m sure the manufacturers downplayed the utility of the datalink. Who knows what “block II has datalink” means. It could mean a more advanced datalink that provides weapons quality lock target transfer for more than the C-802. There has to be reason it is in the 2006 manual.
AeriaGloria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 11:22 PM   #15
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief View Post
I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct.
whatever they have is likely much more authoritative than the sparse information available from googling, sources which often don't even agree with each other
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

Last edited by probad; 08-13-2019 at 11:24 PM.
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 11:27 PM   #16
ShadowFrost
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief View Post
I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct. That's all we need on multiplayer servers is a J17 with 2040 technology and weapons. The Phoenix is bad enough
Funnily enough, other than the guidance bug (not losing track/ability to regain track) its probably the most correct missile in DCS currently other than the Aim-7 (AIM-7 has improved guidance g-restrictions, quite basic still but is an API limitation, which have not made their way to other missiles). It can't be told when to go pit-bull due to missile API limitations which are being worked on/improved. But actual weapon performance is the closest of any DCS missile (besides the aim-7 potentially) due to it having G-restrictions and lofting before pit-bull. But it still has a good ways to be improved as the G-restrictions and lofting aren't matching where they should but that is currently waiting once again on the missile API.

You don't exactly get to just make a module for DCS, they will have to provide information to ED and go through ED's approval process before release to ensure it is up to standards in terms of accuracy for what is available through DCS.
ShadowFrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 12:02 AM   #17
chief
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 318
Default

Well after chatting with an ex F14 pilot, it sure sounds like ED has got the phoenix wrong.
chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 12:55 AM   #18
ShadowFrost
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief View Post
Well after chatting with an ex F14 pilot, it sure sounds like ED has got the phoenix wrong.
Edit- Its likely limitations of the API, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Plenty of forums on Heatblurs side for that kind of thing.

Last edited by ShadowFrost; 08-14-2019 at 06:15 AM.
ShadowFrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 04:42 AM   #19
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,114
Default

its also both fallacious and rude to drag in the issues of another developer here
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 05:09 AM   #20
AeriaGloria
Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 739
Default

Well now it’s got me wondering about how the rwr and missile warning info is displayed
AeriaGloria is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.