IFF - Why so important?
-
IFF would be a good implementation on the sim, but there is some things that I find it to be way more important, like JDAM’s or even FLIR.
I also remember reading somewhere in the forum Dee Jay replying to a thread similar to this stating that IFF is not as “good” as people make it sound and that implementation of IFF is pretty hard considering how AI’s will react to IFF, would it be 100% accurate or would there be a possibility to say “foe” while querying a “friendly” or vice-versa?Yes, IFF would be good to have but not great. There are allot of more important things to work on.
Hi Hexx,
Yeah it would obviously be a future feature as much A.i code etc etc would be needed, but if I am right all that would need to be worked on is how it corresponds A/C on Blue and A/C on Red Side and a repeating signal algorithm for transponder ID-ing signal for FOE types.
For FRIENDLY I guess something like the F-16 Link which BMS is working on I read few months back…well look Game Development not my thing but even though this is a great discussion and as an aviationist it would be years if its ever implemented in BMS F4 but who know’s how sim will look like after next release, so we wait.
Considering 80% members want as pure avionics and features as possible it would be nice thou especially for AWACS pilots…as I posted earlier for future discussion the possibilities begin to broaden…just so eager to see what we get for 4.33 since 4.32 is awesome as is… either way the F4 sim should develop equally for virtual online pilots and SP offline player Pilots in all areas of A.i AWACS, combat, training etc etc also considering this as part of it … https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?10479--A-i-Instructor-Training-Proposal-With-the-F-16D-Shared-Cockpit-Mod-
Also thanks for responding like a gent I appreciate that!
Regards,
SkyKnight
-
O……M…G…:!::!:
nooo, mark. its a bad idea to quote skynights posts… for starters, it completely invalidates my having him on ignore…
-
IFF would be a good implementation on the sim, but there is some things that I find it to be way more important, like JDAM’s or even FLIR.
I also remember reading somewhere in the forum Dee Jay replying to a thread similar to this stating that IFF is not as “good” as people make it sound and that implementation of IFF is pretty hard considering how AI’s will react to IFF, would it be 100% accurate or would there be a possibility to say “foe” while querying a “friendly” or vice-versa?
Yes, IFF would be good to have but not great. There are allot of more important things to work on.AI would not react at all since the AI already has IFF coded, they know what team they are on already would be another way of looking at it.
-
U4 I believe is a good hint that IFF is coming to BMS if u read the what’s new…
-
U4 I believe is a good hint that IFF is coming to BMS if u read the what’s new…
well, it would be kinda cool. it would also possibly pave the way for a full Link 16 interface. that would be great.
in the meantime, its just gonna be another part of the DTC to be configured… -
yeah, keep dreaming.
-
What? Who woke me???
-
Well, it was certainly a lively discussion, thanks to all ( well, nearly all…) participants ! . I don’t think I have changed my initial view that while a quite cool feature to have, if easily implemented, that it should not be the “Holy Grail” of features that so many people seem to revere it as. And good points about the actual operation being more complex and less certain than I perhaps envisaged. I do think avionics features such as JDAM implementation and FLIR would be more beneficial. Lets see what happens then!
Cheers, Mark
-
Link 16 is not very likely to come ever: the user interface in the plane is not hard at all, and the benefits for the air combat would be super. Like a cheat. But Link 16 operation needs quite a lot of everyday work, and it is unlikely that this could be coded into BMS. Perhaps some very coarse static approximation could be found, but it is not very simple thing.
In short: (limited) Link 16 data exchange is not a problem, but actual practical operation is too complex to implement. It is not just the link, but actual operational structure behind it.
-
Well Mission Commander can Help on this alongside with the code. we already for MP flights share the ini file. I believe all those parameters can be boxed in the same file and use MC as the program to adjust such settings… Also Monsters Awacs Program could Help for Online Link changes like new Target assignments or Role change… this would be very stimulating for PvP Campaigns…
So please pass the Info u have…
-
I wonder what people are going to be asking for when IFF gets implemented.
-
-
?
the Online Squadron Collection.
basically an AWACS or GCI program that runs alongside BMS. you get one program that pulls AI info from a 2d running BMS, one interface, and then every player who is in 3D needs another program running that sends their location to the AWACS program. compatible with multiplayer pvp, using a red and blue channel.https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?11804-Online-Squadron-Collection-v2-is-out
-
I wonder what people are going to be asking for when IFF gets implemented.
Proper JDAM modeling XP
-
the Online Squadron Collection.
basically an AWACS or GCI program that runs alongside BMS.Ah, F4AWACS. We have been using that too. Admitted, a while ago and it was not like this yet. Thanks.
I thought Arty was talking some kind of Artificial Intelligence AWACS program. And that is somewhat unheard of. In proper quality. I have heard some things about GCI/C3 stuff though. -
Ah, F4AWACS. We have been using that too. Admitted, a while ago and it was not like this yet. Thanks.
I thought Arty was talking some kind of Artificial Intelligence AWACS program. And that is somewhat unheard of. In proper quality. I have heard some things about GCI/C3 stuff though.well, there is the built in AI AWACS, but I much prefer SHOWTIME to SENTRY. humans seem to make a better picture…
-
For there are so many things when considering the ID, not only electrically but many other considerations.
Like SPD/HDG/ALT/Point of origin/Geographical position…etc.
I think the AIFF in BMS can significantly reduce the chance to FRAT.
But it’s still impossible for us to upgrade a “BOGEY” to “BANDIT” by just simply TMS-Left.
HOWEVER, I’d rather my teammates ping the target first before shooting their missiles, FRAT IS NOT AN OPTION IN THE AIR!! -
Agree! AI AWACS doesn’t even tell us how many groups are within certain range(i.e. 40nm)
Always multi-group then nothing else.
Of course, no any information about the formation of those groups…it sucks!! -
I wonder what people are going to be asking for when IFF gets implemented.
A thick manual to figure out how to work with IFF!!
-
I leave a document that it may be nice to read explaining some things about the IFF (IFF.doc)