later in early access Data Transfer Unit (DTU)

[Sinclair_76]

I know it's a lot to ask. But the amount of information you can feed into the system is a lot more than currently used by fw assets. There needs to be a way to feed all that info to the aircraft besides fat fingering for the better part of 30min with the amount of entry errors to boot.

data

Comms VHF/UHF/FMx2/HF for every unit

Waypoints/TGT/coordinating measures/Route's/Maps

Laser codes

Default modes for systems

 

[LieutenantFalcon]

+1 soooo much

 

Punching in 50 different settings and waypoints before every single flight in the F-16, F-18 or A-10C is such a dealbreaker, and most often is necessary on multiplayer and even singleplayer missions. Getting the Apache is a hard no for me till we get DTC functionality, it'll just be more obscure file editing and MFD-mashing before I even get airborne.

[Northstar98]

+1 but it's important to note that we will also need a mission planner (maybe available in the lobby before start on mp, or via a ground crew menu, or both), that has the capability to edit all these things, depending on the aircraft.

[Raptor9]

ED has been talking about DTC functionality for the F-18 for some time now (or at least thats on their list of features to be added at some point). So I think it would be reasonable to expect that they might migrate such functionality to other aircraft like the F-16 and AH-64, but that's pure speculation on my part and depends on what they end up implementing.

[Northstar98]

On 3/13/2021 at 5:59 PM, Raptor9 said:

ED has been talking about DTC functionality for the F-18 for some time now (or at least thats on their list of features to be added at some point). So I think it would be reasonable to expect that they might migrate such functionality to other aircraft like the F-16 and AH-64, but that's pure speculation on my part and depends on what they end up implementing.

I mean they need a mission planner that's universal really, obviously what you can do should be aircraft specific. The AH-64D, F-16 and F/A-18 would be more involved and some aircraft not so much or hardly at all (such as the L-39).

But it should be a universal thing, and at a minimum should provide what we have with the mission editor currently (i.e waypoints, special waypoints, additional parameters for the aircraft (mostly just default countermeasure programs atm), radio presets etc) but available via the ground crew or something. Something more desirable would be something like that other F-16 orientated sim, offering functions that are more specific, depending on the functions of the real aircraft.

For aircraft that only have radio presets or countermeasures (such as the F-5E-3, L-39 and Yak-52), a mission planner doesn't really apply, but there still should be a ground crew menu to change them.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Northstar98
Formatting

[WHOGX5]

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.

[Northstar98]

On 6/5/2021 at 9:18 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.

To be honest, is there anything new like IADS, DTC, EW simulation etc, that won't take years until we see it implemented?

But we need to at least have the functionality of a mission planner and everything it would controls, even if it is just relegated to a data cartridge .lua file that can be operated by an external program. Though personally, something to the tune of what that other F-16 sim has is desirable.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Northstar98
formatting

[Tippis]

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.

The thing is, if ED doesn't do it, it will become a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions that all have to be supported and which will only further diverge over time. This is something that needs a centralised API that all modules can — and ultimately must — hook into, and where the core components are already tied to the ME and plane settings tabs, all of which are under ED's control.

 

It's one of those things where, irrespective of the effort involved, that effort will be insignificant compared to having to later support or, worse still, try to merge them into anything coherent. In addition, the more aircraft come out that use a DTC and which can then hook into such an API, the more worth-while that effort will have been. So the sooner it is done, the less effort will be required, and the more that effort will be rewarded. The opportunity cost of doing it may seem daunting; the opportunity cost of not doing it is almost catastrophic — it's just a catastrophe that is temporarily shunted a tiny bit further down the road.

[WHOGX5]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

The thing is, if ED doesn't do it, it will become a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions that all have to be supported and which will only further diverge over time. This is something that needs a centralised API that all modules can — and ultimately must — hook into, and where the core components are already tied to the ME and plane settings tabs, all of which are under ED's control.

 

It's one of those things where, irrespective of the effort involved, that effort will be insignificant compared to having to later support or, worse still, try to merge them into anything coherent. In addition, the more aircraft come out that use a DTC and which can then hook into such an API, the more worth-while that effort will have been. So the sooner it is done, the less effort will be required, and the more that effort will be rewarded. The opportunity cost of doing it may seem daunting; the opportunity cost of not doing it is almost catastrophic — it's just a catastrophe that is temporarily shunted a tiny bit further down the road.

Yes, you are completely correct but I feel like you've misunderstood me. An official API would be the preferred solution. What I'm saying is that a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions is infinitely better than what we have now, which is nothing. We literally have nothing at all. That's why I'd rather have a simple .lua file in saved games where you can setup your avionics with simple true/false statements and integers. They teased the DTC like over a year ago and we've seen ZERO progress since. So until we reach the year or decade when the DTC actually gets released with an official API or whatever, give us a shitty, convoluted stopgap in the meantime.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, WHOGX5 said:

Yes, you are completely correct but I feel like you've misunderstood me. An official API would be the preferred solution. What I'm saying is that a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions is infinitely better than what we have now, which is nothing. We literally have nothing at all.

That's just it: we do have something. It's a heterogeneous mess. Adding more to it can only ever make the actual solution come later. At some point, you just have to put a freeze on something not to let the technical debt grow out of control. Would that hurt some upcoming modules? Sure, but honestly, I feel that would be an annoyance well worth living with compared to having ever decreasing chances of seeing something useful.

[fargo007]

Waypoints, map data, reference points, Time on Target data, all that jazz.  

[Bedouin]

Maybe they will do it as a feature like the Harrier, where you can have Pre-Alignment 

[flanker0ne]

It would be nice to have the ability to save and load all the information on/from the User's Hard disk, like in the first versions of Black Shark with the folder ROUTES and ADDITIONAL located in the .miz or BAZAR/World

Edited September 29, 2021 by flanker0ne

[Gierasimov]

On 9/13/2021 at 9:06 PM, fargo007 said:

Waypoints, map data, reference points, Time on Target data, all that jazz.  

It all started with Hornet and evolved into "we are working on it as a core feature common to all modules", so I don't expect that to be possible for Apache only. It will be introduced at some point. Hopefully.

[MadMaxQcZ]

JF-17 module is already using Data Cartridge so I'm pretty sure ED is able to do something similar to that... Would be pretty nice

[flanker0ne]

The animation is actually very nice

 

Il 3/10/2021 at 06:56, MadMaxQcZ ha scritto:

JF-17 module is already using Data Cartridge so I'm pretty sure ED is able to do something similar to that... Would be pretty nice

[fargo007]

The animation is cool, but is that actually including pilot-created data that was never in the original miz file? 

[WarbossPetross]

17 часов назад, fargo007 сказал:

The animation is cool, but is that actually including pilot-created data that was never in the original miz file? 

That's basically the whole point. You can make your own waypoints on the F10 map, tell the chief to update the cartridge, then load it and your waypoints will be right there.

[fargo007]

5 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

That's basically the whole point. You can make your own waypoints on the F10 map, tell the chief to update the cartridge, then load it and your waypoints will be right there.

 

Gotcha, I don't have that aircraft and had no idea how it worked.

[WarbossPetross]

33 минуты назад, fargo007 сказал:

 

Gotcha, I don't have that aircraft and had no idea how it worked.

Well, now you know why folks make such a big deal out of it for the Hornet, the Viper and whatnot. Especially in multiplayer there's a difference between clicking your mouse a few times and typing in every digit for every waypoint yourself. While we're at it, in the Tomcat you can order Jester to make waypoints out of your F10 points. You still have to tell him what's what but he'll be the one doing the typing while you tend to other things.

[FalcoGer]

As ever, we want this, we'll never get this. But since you already made a list...

• IDM settings (net assignments, configuration (such as baud rate), auto reply flag, etc) and free texts (such as mission briefing, reports)
• COMM presets and COMM net setup, radio selections
• Call sign frequencies
• Authentication and reply codes (SOI and IFF, all modes, and IFF timetable plan)
• Waypoints
• Hazard points (towers, power lines, etc)
• Target and threat points, threat ranges
• control measures (friend and enemy)
• routes
• nav mode present position for EGI alignment
• engagement areas
• laser codes
• ADF settings
• weapon selections
• FCR settings
• Tail #
• ASE settings
• Priority/No fire zones
• GPS keys/ECCM
• HF setup + ECCM
• A few others

I think that's about all there is on the cartridge.

Edited October 15, 2021 by FalcoGer

[Raptor9]

@FalcoGer use caution to ensure you don't start going down a route that gets into discussing sensitive areas.  There are several in that list you just posted.

[FalcoGer]

That list is unclassified in TM 1-1520-251-10, page 173, 2.127 DATA TRANSFER MANAGEMENT.

[kgillers3]

Just because it was leaked doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unclass 

[FalcoGer]

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.

Edited October 14, 2021 by FalcoGer