Let's talk about IFF

Thanks, I'm glad there are still others out there that feel the same. I couldn't agree more with what you said!

The problem is not just the FC3 aircraft, it's the same with the high fidelity modules (currently the MiG-21 and M2000 are the only high fidelity modules with IFF interrogaters). They all can recieve magical IFF responses from their targets, even if the target has its IFF system deactivated or isn't even equipped with (compatible) IFF transponders. That means you can even interrogate a Bf-109 and it will still tell you every time if it is a friend or foe which it shouldn't...

I have no hopes that it will be any different with the Hornet.

Heatblur even developed a more sophisticated IFF transponder for their Viggen, which is useless currently as none of the interrogater euipped aircraft has the required functionality implemented to actually make use of it:

When we developed the Viggen we actually developed a simple transponder based IFF challenge/reply system. The issue is that it's.. well, useless in the context of DCS because the only aircraft equipped with this level of detail would be the Viggen.

 

I believe we deactivated the code and the IFF panel buttons work but do not do anything.

:(

Razbam said no IFF in Harrier because that info is strictly unavailable. While a primitive approximation or emulation of generic IFF would be possible, it would never be a simulation it seems. Besides, what this really boils down to is an overhaul of the AI, anyway, which we all agree is badly needed, and there's plenty of fuss about wanting the factions to be more configurable, I including civilian and neutrals.

Hopefully an AI overhaul will come right after they convince DCS to stop seizing up on me =p

With the upcoming Phantom module and the preexisting system in the Mig 21 module, it would be interesting to see an implementation of combat tree. I play SP, make scale models and am big on historical accuracy. It seems modeling something from the Vietnam era would negate most of the classification issues and information availability of modern IFF in currently flown aircraft. BG Ritchie talks about combat tree in his interview for the documentary series Dogfights. Would be fun to implement alongside the unreliable missiles of the era. Pilots of the era sometimes turned off or the volume down on some of the buzzers and sensors because they were overloaded. They relied on their eyeballs (Phantoms had a WSO), good comms, and the energy advantage of the Phantom in dogfights. Of course, in MP I'm not sure many MiG-21 pilots would want to fly against a combat tree equipped Phantom.

I just saw a post on one of Wags' Hornet YT videos asking about IFF. I started to type out a long post about the difficulties of implementing IFF properly and accurately in modern front line fighters but he was just asking if it was on the agenda, he wasn't asking about the details of how it would be modeled.

I think the OP has some interesting ideas for implementing at least a basic open source IFF on MP servers, it would add a level of realism and complexity I think most DCS fans would appreciate. No need to get into daily transponder code changes, encryption, and anything hush hush. Just "OK I got a good sqwawk back, that's a a good guy". The details of EW would just open up a can of worms. People could try and hack the code or get some kind of advantage in MP just like they would in real warfare as in combat tree in Vietnam. Israeli fighter pilots were known to speak Arabic on adversary radio comms. Once you get hyper realistic, I think that would start to take the fun out of MP real quick. It would be interesting for historically accurate scripted campaigns or Wild Weasel missions in the Vietnam era in SP.

I think the OP has some interesting ideas for implementing at least a basic open source IFF on MP servers, it would add a level of realism and complexity I think most DCS fans would appreciate. No need to get into daily transponder code changes, encryption, and anything hush hush

Exactly this! Although it shouldn't be a problem to implement basic code usage, meaning you can enter codes and on interrogation the IFF returns a positive if the code is set to be recognized as friendly. There is no need to go into the inner workings of the IFF for this.

But while codes would be a nice addition I would already be happy if DCS would just take notice of the presence of an active IFF transponder. So far you can even get positive IFF responds if the target has it's IFF transponder deactivated or doesn't even has an IFF transponder to begin with. It is already possible in most modules to activate or deactivate the transponder, it just has no effect...

There are some news:

We will first implement a simplified IFF system because it's something we can do in the near term. We hoped to have it available this week, but there was a holiday in Russia this week and it moved our schedule back a bit. Also, our avionics and flight model team has been working crazy hours for the past two months and they need a break.

 

Later, we hope to implement a much more realistic IFF system, but that will take much more time. Not just because of the rather complex avionics changes and additions (much more complex than most of you appreciate), but also because it will need to involve a rather extensive change to the AI.

 

Thanks

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3529418&postcount=182

That is indeed great news! I've been waiting so long for something like this! :thumbup:

That is indeed great news! I've been waiting so long for something like this! :thumbup:

Well, at least we can hope now.. ;)

I haven't read all the posts above as a full disclaimer. The one problem I have beyond the amount of work it will take ED to improve IFF (which may or may not take away from more important things IMO), is that modelling systems to their fullest is great, until it meets with the non-reality that this sim CANNOT reproduce.

What I'm talking about is human factors, time as a resource, and the lack of a punishment for friendly fire events or breaking of ROE. Say I fly my happy hornet into the AO where I spot and shoot down a friendly helicopter or two. I may feel bad about it at, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me. I continue about my business as if I haven't just stolen xx minutes of that helicopters life. If there was a true threat of friendly fire= simulated court-martial where you have to uninstall DCS, then maybe the IFF system should be modelled full fidelity as well. Until then it's only going to create confusion and frustration on MP servers anyway. I would love to think we'd all play by the rules but you damn well know some people are going to shoot first and ask questions about that bogey later.

I haven't read all the posts above as a full disclaimer. The one problem I have beyond the amount of work it will take ED to improve IFF (which may or may not take away from more important things IMO), is that modelling systems to their fullest is great, until it meets with the non-reality that this sim CANNOT reproduce.

 

What I'm talking about is human factors, time as a resource, and the lack of a punishment for friendly fire events or breaking of ROE. Say I fly my happy hornet into the AO where I spot and shoot down a friendly helicopter or two. I may feel bad about it at, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me. I continue about my business as if I haven't just stolen xx minutes of that helicopters life. If there was a true threat of friendly fire= simulated court-martial where you have to uninstall DCS, then maybe the IFF system should be modelled full fidelity as well. Until then it's only going to create confusion and frustration on MP servers anyway. I would love to think we'd all play by the rules but you damn well know some people are going to shoot first and ask questions about that bogey later.

Well, you've got a valid point there and if ED will implement such a in-depth IFF system it will definitely lead to some confusion and frustration, that's true. But I don't think it will be that bad. There are already quite a lot of airplanes in DCS that can't do IFF interrogations, but the friendly fire accidents with these planes are not out of bounds IMHO.

Isn't there already auto kick/ban functionality for an adjustable amount of TKs in DCS? If not, then this is definitely something that needs to be added.

the community has a capacity to self-regulate

if someone tk's and other people are allowed to lay in on them, i guarantee everyone will start respecting pid more because nobody wants to be the next "that guy".

and far from driving people away, in the end it is only going to attract people because everyone recognizes the value in doing well the things that require discipline.

else why do people love aar and carrier landings even when they suck at it?

I'll be happy to have AWACS to declare the aircraft type. Given that AWACS say it is a Mig 29, for me this is hostile ;)

I'll be happy to have AWACS to declare the aircraft type. Given that AWACS say it is a Mig 29, for me this is hostile ;)

That is indeed a feature that is missing in DCS (I haven't noticed it at least) and it would be great if it could be added. But, it has nothing to do with the IFF system onboard the aircraft, which makes it a bit OT here ;)

I haven't read all the posts above as a full disclaimer. The one problem I have beyond the amount of work it will take ED to improve IFF (which may or may not take away from more important things IMO), is that modelling systems to their fullest is great, until it meets with the non-reality that this sim CANNOT reproduce.

 

What I'm talking about is human factors, time as a resource, and the lack of a punishment for friendly fire events or breaking of ROE. Say I fly my happy hornet into the AO where I spot and shoot down a friendly helicopter or two. I may feel bad about it at, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me. I continue about my business as if I haven't just stolen xx minutes of that helicopters life. If there was a true threat of friendly fire= simulated court-martial where you have to uninstall DCS, then maybe the IFF system should be modelled full fidelity as well. Until then it's only going to create confusion and frustration on MP servers anyway. I would love to think we'd all play by the rules but you damn well know some people are going to shoot first and ask questions about that bogey later.

It appears that you are placing the onus for identifying a friendly unit on the shooter and not at all on the target that may have neglected to squawk the proper code. I think that having a fairly realistic IFF in game would be very interesting and would provide for more in depth missions from the Mission Builder community.

In terms of priorities for ED though, I would prefer that they figure out some other aspects of the game before pursuing a more realistic IFF code.

One method for implementing a more sophisticated IFF without a very high mission author burden is to have a globally-designated red and blue team code (or code set, Mode 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) and all units default to using values referenced from the mission team value.

Then all custom deviations, oh I want this flight to be some custom code(s), would be deviations from a reasonable baseline. We must remember that whatever is default behavior will be the behavior in practice 99% of the time.

One method for implementing a more sophisticated IFF without a very high mission author burden is to have a globally-designated red and blue team code (or code set, Mode 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) and all units default to using values referenced from the mission team value.

 

Then all custom deviations, oh I want this flight to be some custom code(s), would be deviations from a reasonable baseline. We must remember that whatever is default behavior will be the behavior in practice 99% of the time.

That's a good idea. It would be similar to the the standard laser code of 1688. :thumbup:

We must remember that whatever is default behavior will be the behavior in practice 99% of the time.

agreed, and i think your proposal is both reasonable and practicable.