TXDSG

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, AvroLanc said:

ED will not implement something based on hearsay, rumours or anything not found in publicly available documentation.

 

And that is what is the problem, even when the manufacturer presents something, pilots knows it, the whole doctrinal military responsible to use those knows it. ED will not make it unless they get their hands on the classified material - that is not even required.

 

The DCS World is not a emulator, it is a simulator. That can simulate known things, without knowing anything.

 

Like the IFF system. ED does not want to implement because they cover behind the claims that it is classified.

While in fact the whole IFF system functionality and capability is well known public and unclassified information. It is well known how it works, what is its purpose and what are the results. One can walk in the library and get the books even the IFF systems. Walk in the universities and get the research studies about these systems.

 

But what ED can not get access is the exact frequencies and the codes. They can not get access how the signal processing happens, what are the encryptions etc.

And all that is completely irrelevant information as DCS World is not even capable to model such things.

 

Put even in simpler manner.

DCS fans believe that to ED to make a light bulb lit up on the ceiling when a switch is flipped on the wall, that ED needs to know everything in the physics that makes it so. That they need to model all the wires, their resistance, heat generation etc. How the wires are twisted, what material they go through etc. Just so that in the simulator that they could get a simple light lit up on the ceiling.

No, nothing of that kind is required as only thing required to know is that when the switch is flipped, a light is lit. Some educated guesses for the bulb parameters and that's it is.

One does not know nothing about physics how that "magical thing works".

 

Similar thing is with the IFF system, radars etc.

And when you cover behind that "If we do not have official documentation, it is not get done" and when the information is classified (even if it is publicly known) they can just avoid implementing anything. And if there are laws that makes it criminal to even handle such documentation, they can't do it either way even when guessing wouldn't brake laws.

 

[BarTzi]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

And that is what is the problem, even when the manufacturer presents something, pilots knows it, the whole doctrinal military responsible to use those knows it. ED will not make it unless they get their hands on the classified material - that is not even required.

 

 

 

They have SME's to fill in the holes in the documentation especially for that. I can name a few instances in which such SME's were very helpful in fixing some bugs \ issues. 

[Fri13]

Just now, BarTzi said:

Apperantly they do not have a lot of available sources to work with, as they got the type of target lines wrong. Saying "ED should have this documentation" is like saying "I don't have any valid document".

 

Saying that is like saying that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Just now, BarTzi said:

It doesn't because it has to be coded, and you don't know that ability was coded in.  Who said this capability of the AI to know who is targeting what, is not limited to a section of aircraft?

 

No it doesn't need to be coded as it already exist there. Go testing the AI in DCS for general use and you will find how simple it is.

 

Just now, BarTzi said:

 You are implying a handoff (AI aircraft sending a target to another AI aircraft).

 

Because it is already automatic between ALL UNITS in DCS. Target hand-off is default capability of AI.

 

Just now, BarTzi said:

That never happened in the video. They happen to end up attacking the same target. They could have just launched an AGM-65F at their first pair, and then targeted the remaining targets in the area, which happened to be the one targeted by the AI flying with Wags.

 

What you do not understand is that what I said, the AI does already things that they would be capable to do with the real hornet. Even when the ED modeling in DCS doesn't now have it, but they do because the AI function in DCS does it regardless is the AI a fighter, a SAM or a single AKM soldier.

 

[AvroLanc]

8 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And that is what is the problem, even when the manufacturer presents something, pilots knows it, the whole doctrinal military responsible to use those knows it. ED will not make it unless they get their hands on the classified material - that is not even required.

 

The DCS World is not a emulator, it is a simulator. That can simulate known things, without knowing anything.

 

Like the IFF system. ED does not want to implement because they cover behind the claims that it is classified.

While in fact the whole IFF system functionality and capability is well known public and unclassified information. It is well known how it works, what is its purpose and what are the results. One can walk in the library and get the books even the IFF systems. Walk in the universities and get the research studies about these systems.

 

But what ED can not get access is the exact frequencies and the codes. They can not get access how the signal processing happens, what are the encryptions etc.

And all that is completely irrelevant information as DCS World is not even capable to model such things.

 

Put even in simpler manner.

DCS fans believe that to ED to make a light bulb lit up on the ceiling when a switch is flipped on the wall, that ED needs to know everything in the physics that makes it so. That they need to model all the wires, their resistance, heat generation etc. How the wires are twisted, what material they go through etc. Just so that in the simulator that they could get a simple light lit up on the ceiling.

No, nothing of that kind is required as only thing required to know is that when the switch is flipped, a light is lit. Some educated guesses for the bulb parameters and that's it is.

One does not know nothing about physics how that "magical thing works".

 

Similar thing is with the IFF system, radars etc.

And when you cover behind that "If we do not have official documentation, it is not get done" and when the information is classified (even if it is publicly known) they can just avoid implementing anything. And if there are laws that makes it criminal to even handle such documentation, they can't do it either way even when guessing wouldn't brake laws.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. And have done over the last two and half years of Hornet rollercoaster. 
 

However, ED don’t, and that’s what we’re fighting against. Half of it is legal, half is an unwillingness to delve deep dev time into a system when they have an excuse not to. 
 

I don’t know the answer. 

[BarTzi]

4 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Because it is already automatic between ALL UNITS in DCS. Target hand-off is default capability of AI.

 

Show it then. Because they simply iterate over every available target in the area - that doesn't have anything do to with D\L. 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, BarTzi said:

They have SME's to fill in the holes in the documentation especially for that. I can name a few instances in which such SME's were very helpful in fixing some bugs \ issues. 

 

Exactly, features and capabilities that there are no documentation or documentation doesn't clearly explain can be used. It is not "hearsay" or "rumor" etc even when it is not widely publicly known. ED just jumps around in these things that what they really use and what they don't use case by case.

 

 

Just now, BarTzi said:

Show it then. Because they simply iterate over every available target in the area - that doesn't have anything do to with D\L. 

 

As I said, you can go testing the AI in DCS in its basic form. It is well known how all units in same group share the same information.

And AI knows everything that happens inside their circle of detection. Step in and out of that and you become either completely visible or non-existing, even when it is just 1 meter difference in distance.

[BIGNEWY]

We can only use public information, we have international, and local laws to consider when simulating any system. If we dont have enough information for a system guess work isnt going to cut it.

 

thanks

[Joni]

Like jdams, tgp coordinates and many other things, this will most likely be implemented in a couple of months once they read the documentation again. Don't worry.

 

Let's trust ed.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Joni

[Joni]

4 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

And that is what is the problem, even when the manufacturer presents something, pilots knows it, the whole doctrinal military responsible to use those knows it. ED will not make it unless they get their hands on the classified material - that is not even required.

 

The DCS World is not a emulator, it is a simulator. That can simulate known things, without knowing anything.

 

Like the IFF system. ED does not want to implement because they cover behind the claims that it is classified.

While in fact the whole IFF system functionality and capability is well known public and unclassified information. It is well known how it works, what is its purpose and what are the results. One can walk in the library and get the books even the IFF systems. Walk in the universities and get the research studies about these systems.

 

But what ED can not get access is the exact frequencies and the codes. They can not get access how the signal processing happens, what are the encryptions etc.

And all that is completely irrelevant information as DCS World is not even capable to model such things.

 

Put even in simpler manner.

DCS fans believe that to ED to make a light bulb lit up on the ceiling when a switch is flipped on the wall, that ED needs to know everything in the physics that makes it so. That they need to model all the wires, their resistance, heat generation etc. How the wires are twisted, what material they go through etc. Just so that in the simulator that they could get a simple light lit up on the ceiling.

No, nothing of that kind is required as only thing required to know is that when the switch is flipped, a light is lit. Some educated guesses for the bulb parameters and that's it is.

One does not know nothing about physics how that "magical thing works".

 

Similar thing is with the IFF system, radars etc.

And when you cover behind that "If we do not have official documentation, it is not get done" and when the information is classified (even if it is publicly known) they can just avoid implementing anything. And if there are laws that makes it criminal to even handle such documentation, they can't do it either way even when guessing wouldn't brake laws.

 

 

This is the most meaningful post I've seen in years.

 

It depicts how this works 100% accurate.

 

The developer doesn't need to know how much liters of blood stops circulating to the brain when doing high Gs in order to simulate blackout. They just make the picture darker when reaching a certain amount sustained and that's all.

 

Most people don't get this.

 

I understand laws and how a company works, I run one myself, but it would be nice to see more care about suggestions, and kindness. 

[Wizard_03]

Lots of things regarding the datalink are very sensitive. Go figure. 

 

"Guessing" would be a great way to get them in trouble at worst. Or waste developmental time and resources at best, if they have to take it out after the fact.

[Joni]

1 minute ago, Wizard_03 said:

Lots of things regarding the datalink are very sensitive. Go figure. 

 

"Guessing" would be a great way to get them in trouble at worst. Or waste developmental time and resources at best, if they have to take it out after the fact.

 

 

I agree. Guess is not the way.

 

Informed decisions without the need of an explicit word is the way. SMEs is the way. 

 

If they can't get it right that way, maybe the roof wasn't that high.

[toilet2000]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

And that is what is the problem, even when the manufacturer presents something, pilots knows it, the whole doctrinal military responsible to use those knows it. ED will not make it unless they get their hands on the classified material - that is not even required.

 

The DCS World is not a emulator, it is a simulator. That can simulate known things, without knowing anything.

 

Like the IFF system. ED does not want to implement because they cover behind the claims that it is classified.

While in fact the whole IFF system functionality and capability is well known public and unclassified information. It is well known how it works, what is its purpose and what are the results. One can walk in the library and get the books even the IFF systems. Walk in the universities and get the research studies about these systems.

 

But what ED can not get access is the exact frequencies and the codes. They can not get access how the signal processing happens, what are the encryptions etc.

And all that is completely irrelevant information as DCS World is not even capable to model such things.

 

Put even in simpler manner.

DCS fans believe that to ED to make a light bulb lit up on the ceiling when a switch is flipped on the wall, that ED needs to know everything in the physics that makes it so. That they need to model all the wires, their resistance, heat generation etc. How the wires are twisted, what material they go through etc. Just so that in the simulator that they could get a simple light lit up on the ceiling.

No, nothing of that kind is required as only thing required to know is that when the switch is flipped, a light is lit. Some educated guesses for the bulb parameters and that's it is.

One does not know nothing about physics how that "magical thing works".

 

Similar thing is with the IFF system, radars etc.

And when you cover behind that "If we do not have official documentation, it is not get done" and when the information is classified (even if it is publicly known) they can just avoid implementing anything. And if there are laws that makes it criminal to even handle such documentation, they can't do it either way even when guessing wouldn't brake laws.

 

Biggest issue here is the slippery slope. Simulations can definitely take shortcuts and not emulate the behavior, but this causes all sorts of issues. Knowing how the thing works "inside and out" and not just "out" can tell you a lot more on its behavior then simple logic like "if this then draw this".

Here are some DCS examples done in the past to "simulate" in a shortcut manner like you described:
- Thermal Imaging in DCS in general. There is no "heat", just a fancy color filter.
- Radars before the Hornet and the new radar API, they were very simple all seeing eyes (except for range, elevation and azimuth limitations)
- EW and jammers (even nowadays, we are starting to see more advanced behaviors)

- Targeting and bombing solutions in some modules (those perfect death dot without any accurate way of getting height-above-target)
- TGPs and their perfect digital zooms. The behavior should be closer to what Heatblur did with the LANTIRN. When using zoom levels (not FOVs), the quality should degrade.
- TGPs and tracking modes, including perfect area track. Area track never drifts or lose track. Point track cannot lock on any object, only some specific objects that are qualified as "point trackable".
- Range limitation for laser designators (a floating point in the sky basically)

I honestly understand ED very well about taking their time to get not only a good grasp of the behavior, but some backing documentation on at least a general overview of the inner workings of the thing they're trying to simulate. Otherwise you end up shooting yourself in the foot with something half-baked.

Edited January 19, 2021 by toilet2000

[Wizard_03]

44 minutes ago, Joni said:

 

 

I agree. Guess is not the way.

 

Informed decisions without the need of an explicit word is the way. SMEs is the way. 

 

If they can't get it right that way, maybe the roof wasn't that high.

As a rule of thumb if it's not in public available docs I don't expect it. Then I'm not disappointed.

 

But we'll see what happens like you said. There's lots of things they were able to get in the sim that I didn't expect. The "everything is subject too change" slogan works both ways. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harker]

As a rule of thumb if it's not in public available docs I don't expect it. Then I'm not disappointed.
 
But we'll see what happens like you said. There's lots of things they were able to get in the sim that I didn't expect. The "everything is subject too change" slogan works both ways. 

I also don't expect everything that's in public docs. Do I think we should get it? Yes. But I don't think we'll get all of it. Things such as a full HSI simulation or full functionality of the Radar page options (such as RF channels, duty cycle options etc). Although they're explained in great detail, down to the electronics and the signal processing where applicable, in public documentation, I don't think we'll see all of them in DCS.

[Wizard_03]

3 minutes ago, Harker said:

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

As a rule of thumb if it's not in public available docs I don't expect it. Then I'm not disappointed.
 
But we'll see what happens like you said. There's lots of things they were able to get in the sim that I didn't expect. The "everything is subject too change" slogan works both ways. 

I also don't expect everything that's in public docs. Do I think we should get it? Yes. But I don't think we'll get all of it. Things such as a full HSI simulation or full functionality of the Radar page options (such as RF channels, duty cycle options etc). Although they're explained in great detail, down to the electronics and the signal processing where applicable, in public documentation, I don't think we'll see all of them in DCS.

Exactly, Well I'm sure they also have resource limitations can't expect them to model every single nut and bolt. 

 

But for stuff like the data link and EW suite, since it's an active duty Frontline fighter, I wouldn't expect too much more beyond what we have now. And what we have now is pretty comprehensive considering the state other ED products have to live with for a long time regarding those sort of capabilities. Let alone other Sims.

 

Glass half full thinking. 

[Joni]

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Exactly, Well I'm sure they also have resource limitations can't expect them to model every single nut and bolt. 

 

But for stuff like the data link and EW suite, since it's an active duty Frontline fighter, I wouldn't expect too much more beyond what we have now. And what we have now is pretty comprehensive considering the state other ED products have to live with for a long time regarding those sort of capabilities. Let alone other Sims.

 

Glass half full thinking. 

 

 

Why can the A10c, also a frontline asset, have so much SADL modeling and not the FA18c (with L16)?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Joni

[Wizard_03]

6 minutes ago, Joni said:

 

 

Why can the A10c, also a frontline asset, have so much SADL modeling and not the FA18c (with L16)?

 

It doesn't, many of the SADL functions are missing or just got added with tank killer update. 

 

And DCS A-10C had a military customer attached too it. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Joni]

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

It doesn't, many of the SADL functions are missing or just got added with tank killer update. 

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

Why can I mess with the network settings, transmit text messages (anyway the rhino has this with the addition of the cas page not the legacy), broadcast spi, etc with the A10c but with the FA18c all MIDS and TGT pages are like taboo?

[Wizard_03]

9 minutes ago, Joni said:

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

Why can I mess with the network settings, transmit text messages (anyway the rhino has this with the addition of the cas page not the legacy), broadcast spi, etc with the A10c but with the FA18c all MIDS and TGT pages are like taboo?

You can go read the forums if you don't believe me those discussions have been going on for 10 plus years. What it has is quite bare bones compared to the real deal, but anyways. 

 

First off SADL does not equal Link16.

 

Second what the network can and cannot do are key performance points. 

 

Why cant we have a modern Russian fighters in the game? Same answers, documentation and secrecy laws.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Joni]

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

You can go read the forums if you don't believe me those discussions have been going on for 10 plus years. What it has is quite bare bones compared to the real deal, but anyways. 

 

First off SADL does not equal Link16.

 

Second what the network can and cannot do are key performance points. 

 

Why cant we have a modern Russian fighters in the game? Same answers, documentation and secrecy laws.

 

 

None of the above get to any point. I don't get what you're trying to pull off here. You're repeating things I already said like SADL isn't L16.

 

I'm just asking a question, one that rises many others.

 

Quote

Why can the A10c, also a frontline asset, have so much SADL modeling and not the FA18c (with L16)?

 

So you're saying that the same functionality available in both planes don't have the same importance in military secrecy? So troops are in more danger if the hornet's systems are simulated for public than if the A10c's are? I know I'm going too far now, but the point you won't catch is that there has to be coherence.

 

I already googled the funcionality of the TXDSG and got a public document that depicts more usability than what was shown in the video.

 

So I think this has more to do with this than any other thing:

 

Quote

However, ED don’t, and that’s what we’re fighting against. Half of it is legal, half is an unwillingness to delve deep dev time into a system when they have an excuse not to. 

 

 

[Wizard_03]

SADL may not be as sensitive as Link16, USAF may have requested they add more features for their desktop trainers and were ok with that making it into the commercial version. Any number of reasons, but We don't know since none of us here work for ED and they are not under any sort of obligation to share their decision making with us.

 

But I guarantee you ED has Google as well and it's quite obvious to all of us and them they we are missing functionality. But we can only guess why they add or don't add certain things to their products. 

 

However all that nonsense aside, even If they "could" there still the question of developmental resources and they don't owe us anything beyond what's listed in the product page and even that is written by them and subject to change. There's no reasoning for the levels of entitlement on these or many of the other threads floating around these forums.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Wizard_03

[BarTzi]

32 minutes ago, Joni said:

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

Why can I mess with the network settings, transmit text messages (anyway the rhino has this with the addition of the cas page not the legacy), broadcast spi, etc with the A10c but with the FA18c all MIDS and TGT pages are like taboo?

MIDS messeges are just a number of pre set messeges in the legacy, and it has no keyboard of any kind, so you won't be able to type any. Those pages are blank because ED probably doesn't have a valid source describing the functionality of those systems. If they have no idea what it does, I think they should not try to guess.

[Joni]

30 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

SADL may not be as sensitive as Link16, USAF may have requested they add more features for their desktop trainers and were ok with that making it into the commercial version. Any number of reasons, but We don't know since none of us here work for ED and they are not under any sort of obligation to share their decision making with us.

 

But I guarantee you ED has Google as well and it's quite obvious to all of us and them they we are missing functionality. But we can only guess why they add or don't add certain things to their products. 

 

However all that nonsense aside, even If they "could" there still the question of developmental resources and they don't owe us anything beyond what's listed in the product page and even that is written by them and subject to change. 

 

 

Too many "obligation" or "owe" words there. Customers are not interested in who ows who or how right one or the other is, or any other negative things like those.

 

You're missing the point. Just like I don't know if the usaf may have requested bla bla bla, you don't know that either, so you end up using the same type of hollow arguments that you are trying to expose, to defend something that wasn't even at risk in the first place.

 

Thanks.

22 minutes ago, BarTzi said:

MIDS messeges are just a number of pre set messeges in the legacy, and it has no keyboard of any kind, so you won't be able to type any. Those pages are blank because ED probably doesn't have a valid source describing the functionality of those systems. If they have no idea what it does, I think they should not try to guess.

 

I think you missed this 

Quote

(anyway the rhino has this with the addition of the cas page not the legacy)

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Joni

[Wizard_03]

Yeah I guess I am missing the point, where did ED state they were going to give us the ability in the hornet to hand off system targets to Link16 members? 

[Joni]

15 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Yeah I guess I am missing the point, where did ED state they were going to give us the ability in the hornet to hand off system targets to Link16 members? 

 

Where did Joni say ED said they were going to give us the ability in the hornet to hand off system targets to Link16 members?