Iff you could have one thing in the next update it would be. (Archive)
-
Declare is mandatory with or without IFF. … IFF is just an help (one more ID criteria) but can’t be the only one => what happens in case of IFF failure or wrong code?!
The problem with this, though, is that it’s real life procedure. In real life, both sides have RoE, which pretty much always requires a firing clearance from someone higher up the chain of command WHILE the pieces are moving. In BMS, one side (humans) can simulate this RoE, but they will not be effective against a force (AI) that can and will just throw their missiles as soon as they are in range.
Adding the fact that all AI have a perfect knowledge on who is who at all times (AFAIK) and you end up in a very uneven situation.
And I know the trouble with AI is that you can’t have certain procedures in place, because then they’d be a sitting duck for every human player not following any RoE… As I said a few posts before though, having the A-code available for something could already help in distinguishing human pilots, and possibly (when being able to set a certain range for BLUFOR) to some extent also AI that aren’t in the package.
-
…all AI have a perfect knowledge on who is who at all times (AFAIK)…
Your “AFAIK” is 100% spot-on…
-
Declare is mandatory with or without IFF. … IFF is just an help (one more ID criteria) but can’t be the only one => what happens in case of IFF failure or wrong code?!
Ah, I see. Would still be nice for when AWACS decides if a plane is friend or foe by rolling a dice. A bunch of times I’ve gotten annoyed friendly AI calling buddy spike when I lock up something the AWACS called out as a hostile. Would certainly have prevented the frowning debrief I received after being cleared hot on an F-15I
-
The problem with this, though, is that it’s real life procedure. In real life, both sides have RoE, which pretty much always requires a firing clearance from someone higher up the chain of command WHILE the pieces are moving. In BMS, one side (humans) can simulate this RoE, but they will not be effective against a force (AI) that can and will just throw their missiles as soon as they are in range.
Adding the fact that all AI have a perfect knowledge on who is who at all times (AFAIK) and you end up in a very uneven situation.
Yes …
But for balance AI are dumb.
-
Declare is mandatory with or without IFF. … IFF is just an help (one more ID criteria) but can’t be the only one => what happens in case of IFF failure or wrong code?!
Ok, this is what I want somebody to explain to me about IFF interrogation. I understand the standard transponder functions of the ATC/air defense system side of the IFF (the out of an aircraft and in on a radar). What I want somebody to explain to me is if the AIFF interrgator on the CCIPed Block 50/52s (and MLUs, F-16A ADF, et al.) interrogates more than one aircraft at a time. IIRC correctly from the MLU manual it does and may have a specific scan volume and direction.
Now I agree that people that haven’t looked into IFF think this is a magic panacea for IDs, it’s not! It can only ID to bogey level due to broken transponders, bad codes etc. You still have to use other methods like on board NCTR, AWACs NCTR, etc. to upgrade to a bandit/hostile level. In Falcon, to be prudent you would still need to get an NCTR, AWACs declare, visual ID before you took a shot.
Where I think the rub is that IFF interrogation if it can interrogate more than one aircraft at a time, it is a huge help to your sort. Much like seeing your datalinked package members in your radar, you now know who you can basically ignore and who you need to put the extra attention towards to get the solid ID. Is this not huge SA boost and a potential life saver in crowded airspace, like say a BARCAP on the FLOT?
EDIT to add: I would be fine with there being some chance built in of a bad transponder that would have a friendly not interrogate as such. I don’t know if the code could support continually tagging that contact as bad IFF, which it would need to do so you couldn’t just cheat the system with a re-interrogation. IMO, a 5-10% chance that a contact is not IFFed friendly would be a good amount to keep you honest (but maybe a touch on the high side for realism). But to specifically model each aircraft in the 3d world as having a functional transponder and individual squawk code is a bit of overkill (which I know has been discussed before as a reason not to model IFF). There is going to be a few random instances in RL of transponders being on board but shut off or wrong codes besides for combat/avionics failures. The ATC system in Falcon is not robust enough to need squawk codes, but then again my understanding of IFF interrogation is that it is the encrypted side of the house that doesn’t have anything to do with your Mode A/C/3/S 4 digit code.
-
Well ok i got many answers… But imagine i live in a country that the airforce till couple of years ago it doesnt had an Awacs so IFF even broken is mandatory (exept if a friendly awacs from USAF is near by from Aktion AB). So you had 2 choices. 1 to believe the IFF or to obtain visual contact and then engage. Most of the pilots where using the second method thats why Greek f-16C block 30 have a beam light at the right side of the nose to be used at night for visual identification (technique from Mirage f-1cg witch until their last day where flying “blind” without a Radar) and its another reason that if your eyes isnt 20-20 you fail to get to the school. Anyway i said to much i guess… if not IFF give some love to other aircraft as well we need new models and Phantoms please… they are been like that messy and ugly in 3D world of falcon since the release of the game!!!
-
Well ok i got many answers… But imagine i live in a country that the airforce till couple of years ago it doesnt had an Awacs so IFF even broken is mandatory (exept if a friendly awacs from USAF is near by from Aktion AB). So you had 2 choices. 1 to believe the IFF or to obtain visual contact and then engage. Most of the pilots where using the second method thats why Greek f-16C block 30 have a beam light at the right side of the nose to be used at night for visual identification (technique from Mirage f-1cg witch until their last day where flying “blind” without a Radar) and its another reason that if your eyes isnt 20-20 you fail to get to the school. Anyway i said to much i guess… if not IFF give some love to other aircraft as well we need new models and Phantoms please… they are been like that messy and ugly in 3D world of falcon since the release of the game!!!
Again that’s a standard “hard” ID method, IFF would a “soft” method that you used before that to figure out which of all the contacts you had on your scope were for sure friendly, you then go in for the visual ID on the contacts that didn’t reply IFF friendly. It helps in that case too and is debataly more important without AWACs because you now don’t have to try to get a visual on a bunch of contacts. This is probably why IFF interrogators have been so popular on non-USAF F-16s. The USAF F-16s had to wait on IFF because that Air-Air was the F-15s job which have had interrogators for a long time.
-
Active Sky Next support? hehehehehe
-
- IFF can show dozens of replies to FCR and HSD pages. From local knowledge, it is mostly used to see other friendly aft positions, mainly in fornt of you, so you can better plan your actions, position yourself and know when to place your cursors until your radar will pick the bandit. In no way it is the green-light-provider for a shot, but it will help you know what is out there and where it is, quicker than the radar.
Once again, if one has not seen this system really works onboard a fighting viper, he cannot have the full picture of how helpful it is just by the manuals.
-
Would like to see more ground/ground forces focus for development. Miss the old AF there’s a war going on down there. Tweaking the ground graphics would be nice.
-
- IFF can show dozens of replies to FCR and HSD pages. From local knowledge, it is mostly used to see other friendly aft positions, mainly in fornt of you, so you can better plan your actions, position yourself and know when to place your cursors until your radar will pick the bandit. In no way it is the green-light-provider for a shot, but it will help you know what is out there and where it is, quicker than the radar.
Once again, if one has not seen this system really works onboard a fighting viper, he cannot have the full picture of how helpful it is just by the manuals.
Exactly, it makes the sort much quicker, SA tool, does not declare a bandit.
-
“one” thing I didn’t see in this thread yet - joystick usability discussed elsewhere: option to smooth axis (for those spikey days) and identifying joysticks by id rather than order (for profile stability/exchange)
This.
I spend so much time reordering my controllers to be in the right order after a computer restart. It has become so bad that I dread rebooting my computer. It reminds me of the Falcon 3.0 days when I was 10 years old and had to do a selective startup into Windows to get it to work; I memorized each item back then. The reordering of controllers is such a pain.
It would also be nice to have an updated interface if at all possible. Running a monitor at 2560x1440 makes the main Window quite small.
Having Weapons Delivery Planner built into BMS would be a huge bonus. Maybe even expand the capability of it to include full mission planning.
Obviously updating the avionics to enhance the realism is great. However, there are some older parts of BMS that could use some updating to bring the sim as a whole up to date.
-
ground unit control…:p /hides
-
detail the F-22 and its interior
-
-
detail the F-22 and its interior
Would love that one too, but the F-22 is pretty much classified. Could only guesstimate most of it.
-
Would love that one too, but the F-22 is pretty much classified. Could only guesstimate most of it.
just model it off the Prepar3d’s IRIS F-22
-
ground unit control…:p /hides
why hide? it would be really nice to be able to tell that well-supplied good morale tank battalion to just run over the opposition already. the strategic AI is overcareful with it’s battalions IMO. in the current korea campaign i’m flying it’s day 3 and the war is over. i haven’t seen an enemy plane in 10 sorties. the strat AI is moving too slowly though. it’ll probably take until day 6 to claim pyongyang, when it should just move in a straight line there. there’s nothing in the way.
-
idle-detent:
Maybe the bms team could see if they could add a mechanic to the ‘idle detent’ that makes starting the plane more intuitive. Currently when i try to teach this to my friends, that is the part of the ramp start that they always seem to struggle to understand, and we simply have to fall back to rote memorization on the throttle movements and positions for the start-up.
Not sure what they could do, though. Add a throttle animation into the ‘actual’ detent position? So people can see what’s going on visually?
-
just model it off the Prepar3d’s IRIS F-22
Sorry, but the FM, avionics suite would not be very realistic. The IRIS model is a guesstimation.