Jump to content

MSI Info & Designation on RDR ATTK Page Coming?


wilbur81
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey, Team.

 

This has been mentioned elsewhere (see pic), but just wanted to inquire as to whether or not offboard MSI tracks will be designate-able on the RDR ATTK page and/or will allow for Alt & Speed when highlighting under the TDC?

image.png

Thanks for all your hard work!


Edited by wilbur81
  • Like 7

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this "no evidence" tag? There is in the NATOPS manual. Also, I've seen many credible people here talk about this particular functionality, and it seems strange to me that ED is unaware about it. 

 


Edited by LaFleur
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, NineLine said:

NATOPS does not include sensor and weapon data. 

I was about to say the same thing. Thanks 9L.

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

NATOPS does not include sensor and weapon data. Further, we have no documents that indicate that a data-link only target can be designated in any document. Thanks.

A1-F18AC-742-100 does, however.

 

That document describes the entire MSI system in detail and furthermore explains that for an MSI track, the radar can be commanded to "look" for it, based on existing track data. It also differentiates between raw radar hits and MSI tracks, when it comes to acquisition. It states that: The radar system, forward looking infrared (FLIR) system, data link, high-speed antiradiation (HARM) missile, and overlay controlled stores (OCS) are used to provide sensor inputs to MSI.

 

The radar can attempt to acquire a track present in the MSI system, even if it's not detected by the radar yet. We already have this functionality in DCS, with the LITENING Radar Slave function, where you can point a silent radar to an aircraft that is tracked with the TPOD. As far as the radar is concerned, the aircraft tracked with the FLIR is an off-board track. This is because the FLIR is part of the MSI suite (and should be able to create a track file too).

 

 So, we're halfway there. 🙂 All that remains is to expand the same functionality to data-link tracks (alongside the rest of the MSI and radar functionalities).


Edited by Harker
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

HP Reverb G2, Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harker said:

A1-F18AC-742-100 does, however.

 

That document describes the entire MSI system in detail and furthermore explains that for an MSI track, the radar can be commanded to "look" for it, based on existing track data. It also differentiates between raw radar hits and MSI tracks, when it comes to acquisition. It states that: The radar system, forward looking infrared (FLIR) system, data link, high-speed antiradiation (HARM) missile, and overlay controlled stores (OCS) are used to provide sensor inputs to MSI.

 

The radar can attempt to acquire a track present in the MSI system, even if it's not detected by the radar yet. We already have this functionality in DCS, with the LITENING Radar Slave function, where you can point a silent radar to an aircraft that is tracked with the TPOD. As far as the radar is concerned, the aircraft tracked with the FLIR is an off-board track. This is because the FLIR is part of the MSI suite (and should be able to create a track file too).

 

 So, we're halfway there. 🙂 All that remains is to expand the same functionality to data-link tracks (alongside the rest of the MSI and radar functionalities).

 

@HarkerThe term "offboard" is used to refer to datalink MSI tracks specifically. An onboard track is radar and/or FLIR etc (anything but F/F, PPLI, SURV).

 

Just a piece of trivia, the Litening radar slave function we have is based on an avionics implementation prior to MSI. Basically, that's how it was done before they just invented the idea the FLIR would contribute to sensor fusion. That was removed, as it's unnecessary when you can simply command the radar to STT onto a FLIR-only HAFU (placing Attack or Az/El cursor over it and Castling toward format; Fast Acq). The A/A slaving modes we see on the ATFLIR in-game are what it was changed to, hence the lack of any direct radar-to-FLIR button on that.

 

Other things: when a trackfile does have Radar contribution, a circle should appear inside the main HAFU shape, and outside the rank number/L&S star. A FLIR-only track would be angle only and without the circle.

 

Also, designating a non-radar L&S should display NO RDR on the Attack format (bottom left region). With an AMRAAM selected, "NO RDR" is also drawn on the HUD under the TD box. (Picture attached.) (AMRAAM could technically be launched without radar but then you run into probably missile guidance issues since the radar is used to send it datalink commands even though the fact the radar is looking at its target is technically irrelevant).

 

Side note. A 20 year old F18 sim-that-shan't-be-named, which Wags actually worked on actually had all this fleshed out well, with designateable datalink tracks and stuff.

 

Additionally I'd note that whole reason the HUD says RADAR when you have an L&S is because there can be multiple sensor contributors.

 

Paging @Mo410 if he has any additional comments. Lol

 

(pic from this cool show: https://youtu.be/JwsIkiZEVhI?t=1636)

 

A9F3BD53-11B3-4260-9D80-61F4682A8F96.jpeg


Edited by Jak525
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jak, is that from a Legacy or Super HUD? Obviously Wags' old Hornet sim that shall not be named was the Super, but I'm sure you know that.

Love it, fellas. Keep it comin'... 👍

 

**EDIT** Never mind, just saw that it was from the JETSTREAM show with Canadian Hornets.


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NineLine said:

NATOPS does not include sensor and weapon data. Further, we have no documents that indicate that a data-link only target can be designated in any document. Thanks.

I'm pretty sure I had this discussion with @Santi871 and he has documentation that points toward this.

But honestly, just based on pure educated guesses and logic, just the name of it definitely gives you enough details to know this: Multi Sensor Integration. Currently, there's no "integration", just a bunch of sensor doing their separate things. There's a lot of SMEs who have hinted at this too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Jak, is that from a Legacy or Super HUD? Obviously Wags' old Hornet sim that shall not be named was the Super, but I'm sure you know that.

Love it, fellas. Keep it comin'... 👍

 

**EDIT** Never mind, just saw that it was from the JETSTREAM show with Canadian Hornets.

 

A Hornet, C Hornet, and Super Hornet avionics were practically identical in this timeframe—i.e. APG-65/73 radar—avionics-wise, especially regarding sensors/weapons systems. For a time they literally gave them the exact same OFP (software) designations.


Edited by Jak525
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jak525 said:

A Hornet, C Hornet, and Super Hornet avionics were practically identical in this timeframe avionics-wise especially regarding sensors/weapons systems. For a time In fact they literally ran the exact same OFP (software).

Cool. Appreciate the info. Hopefully we can see more if this integration happen to our DCS Hornet. 👍

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jak525 said:

@HarkerThe term "offboard" is used to refer to datalink MSI tracks specifically. An onboard track is radar and/or FLIR etc (anything but F/F, PPLI, SURV).

 

Just a piece of trivia, the Litening radar slave function we have is based on an avionics implementation prior to MSI. Basically, that's how it was done before they just invented the idea the FLIR would contribute to sensor fusion. That was removed, as it's unnecessary when you can simply command the radar to STT onto a FLIR-only HAFU (placing Attack or Az/El cursor over it and Castling toward format; Fast Acq). The A/A slaving modes we see on the ATFLIR in-game are what it was changed to, hence the lack of any direct radar-to-FLIR button on that.

 

Other things: when a trackfile does have Radar contribution, a circle should appear inside the main HAFU shape, and outside the rank number/L&S star. A FLIR-only track would be angle only and without the circle.

 

Also, designating a non-radar L&S should display NO RDR on the Attack format (bottom left region). With an AMRAAM selected, "NO RDR" is also drawn on the HUD under the TD box. (Picture attached.) (AMRAAM could technically be launched without radar but then you run into probably missile guidance issues since the radar is used to send it datalink commands even though the fact the radar is looking at its target is technically irrelevant).

 

Side note. A 20 year old F18 sim-that-shan't-be-named, which Wags actually worked on actually had all this fleshed out well, with designateable datalink tracks and stuff.

 

Additionally I'd note that whole reason the HUD says RADAR when you have an L&S is because there can be multiple sensor contributors.

 

Paging @Mo410 if he has any additional comments. Lol

 

(pic from this cool show: https://youtu.be/JwsIkiZEVhI?t=1636)

 

A9F3BD53-11B3-4260-9D80-61F4682A8F96.jpeg

 

Yes, "offboard" is for non-ownship tracks in the context of MSI, but I was just speaking from the radar's perspective, that it can be commanded to search for a contact it has not detected itself. I could've used another term, but I was merely referring to that particular feature. As far as the radar is concerned, as an isolated entity, any track not created by itself is the same. So if the one thing is possible, the other should be as well.


But a picture is worth a thousands words and the picture you posted from this really nice series speaks for itself and settles the matter. Nice find!

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

HP Reverb G2, Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 7:16 AM, Harker said:

A1-F18AC-742-100 does, however.

 

That document describes the entire MSI system in detail and furthermore explains that for an MSI track, the radar can be commanded to "look" for it, based on existing track data. It also differentiates between raw radar hits and MSI tracks, when it comes to acquisition. It states that: The radar system, forward looking infrared (FLIR) system, data link, high-speed antiradiation (HARM) missile, and overlay controlled stores (OCS) are used to provide sensor inputs to MSI.

 

The radar can attempt to acquire a track present in the MSI system, even if it's not detected by the radar yet. We already have this functionality in DCS, with the LITENING Radar Slave function, where you can point a silent radar to an aircraft that is tracked with the TPOD. As far as the radar is concerned, the aircraft tracked with the FLIR is an off-board track. This is because the FLIR is part of the MSI suite (and should be able to create a track file too).

 

 So, we're halfway there. 🙂 All that remains is to expand the same functionality to data-link tracks (alongside the rest of the MSI and radar functionalities).

 

I agree with that post. 

 

After reading you, I just looked for the doc U mentioned and found a website that had it ready for download (18usd though) 

Took me 5'... 

In there, Work package 13 00, page 8 mentioned how MSI tracks can be FACQ or established as L&S from STT and so on  (based on MC15) 

So locking MSI track should be a thing for us too I guess... 

Rig: MB Gigabite z390UD, CPU Intel I7 8700k, RAM 32G DDR4 3200 Gskill ripjaws, GPU MSI RTX2080SuperOC, HDD Crucial mx500 1tb M2 sata, PSU Corsair 850W, watercooling Corsair h100,

 

Controlers TM f/a 18 stick on Virpil warbrd base, TM cougar f16 stick on cougar base, Cougar F16 throttle on TUSBA, ch pedals, TM cougar MFD

 

27" monitor with trk IR 5 and HP Reverb HMD.

 

 

Modules F18, F16, F86, Mig15, FW 190D9, Nellis range map, Aggr campaign, Middle East map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed we are missing the "NO RDR" cue, the radar contribution circle, some MSI trackfile HAFUs (IIRC), and designating MSI L&S without radar contribution. There is plenty of OS evidence and documentation available for all of those, a some have already pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LaFleur said:

@Wags @BIGNEWY Let's hope ED sees this thread and reconsiders the incorrect "no evidence" tag.

I'm certainly curious... 

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 4:41 PM, VIXEN413 said:

I agree with that post. 

 

After reading you, I just looked for the doc U mentioned and found a website that had it ready for download (18usd though) 

Took me 5'... 

In there, Work package 13 00, page 8 mentioned how MSI tracks can be FACQ or established as L&S from STT and so on  (based on MC15) 

So locking MSI track should be a thing for us too I guess... 

I found that $18 usd document too... but didn't pull the trigger. 🙂 I'm confident that ED is looking in the right places for as much Lot 20 data as possible... just interested in the information that is being brought forth here by Jak and others.

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

I found that $18 usd document too... but didn't pull the trigger. 🙂 I'm confident that ED is looking in the right places for as much Lot 20 data as possible... just interested in the information that is being brought forth here by Jak and others.

You do realise that this document is restricted outside US right? Also humans are prone to error so if you have evidence and you think the tag is wrong you can remove it


Edited by IkarusC42B Pilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

You do realise that this document is restricted outside US right? Also humans are prone to error so if you have evidence and you think the tag is wrong you can remove it

 

I live in the United States. But posting or publishing such a document here or anywhere else in the public online space would be out of play, yes (whether in or outside of the U.S.).

 

As far as "...tag is wrong you can remove it"  what are you talking about?


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - GTX 1070 SC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that this document is restricted outside US right? Also humans are prone to error so if you have evidence and you think the tag is wrong you can remove it
No one is trying to use this document for any meaningful purpose, this is a video game and all we can see at most is the front end of the system, not how it works in reality. ED doesn't need to know the latter either. DCS only shows how things look. Also, no one is publishing it, posting it or directly quoting it.

I happen to work for a government agency that works with restricted documents a lot and I can tell you that this is practically the opposite of restricted, seeing as it's so easily available online. If the US DoD cared about it, that website that's accessible with a simple Google search, wouldn't have it available.

As for the tag, it's clear from this document, as well as other, more open sources, that what we're talking about here is true and the MSI system has a lot of functionality that is currently not present in the DCS Hornet.
  • Like 1

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

HP Reverb G2, Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Need i remind you the price were paying?

Are you implying that DCS is expensive and thus not a video game? The modules are priced just a little more than mainstream video games. Have you seen the prices for actual simulator software used to train people?

Besides, DCS is advertised and marketed as a game, not as a training tool. ED made a good decision to emphasize that.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

HP Reverb G2, Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Harker said:


 




Besides, DCS is advertised and marketed as a game, not as a training tool. ED made a good decision to emphasize that.

No. Dcs is advertised as a simulator and never emphasized the word game unless you mean digital battlefield game in wich case youre disingenious and it has nothing to do with the simulation of hornet.


Edited by IkarusC42B Pilot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...