Datalink question

[Malc]

Is this correct? When I have package flight 2.1 and 2.2 in the datalink slots three and four, they show as 3 and 4 on the HSD. If I move them to slots five and six, they show as 21 and 22. IIRC, earlier versions would show 2.1 and 2.2 as 21 and 22 (in green ink), no matter which slots they were programmed into.

[Planehazza]

@Malc:

Is this correct? When I have package flight 2.1 and 2.2 in the datalink slots three and four, they show as 3 and 4 on the HSD. If I move them to slots five and six, they show as 21 and 22. IIRC, earlier versions would show 2.1 and 2.2 as 21 and 22 (in green ink), no matter which slots they were programmed into.

I noticed this two, but as a habit, I always put package members from another flight (so 21,22 etc.) in slot 5 and 6 anyway.

[Red Dog]

I believe it was the same behaviour before.
Left column is your flight (you get AA cursors IMD as well)
Right column is other package flight you don’t get AA cursor IDM)

i’m not sure if the 3-4 id on MFd is realistic or not (it would be better if they kept 21-22 as input.)
but i use this quite often (to get AA IDM) and I noticed a long time ago that the HSD reported 3&4. So it’s definitely not one of the recent updates that introduced it.

Yet the 3-4 / 21-22 discrepancy I can’t explain

[Malc]

@Planehazza:

I noticed this two, but as a habit, I always put package members from another flight (so 21,22 etc.) in slot 5 and 6 anyway.

Ordinarily, so do I, preferring to keep slots 1-4 for my own flight - I like to take advantage of the different colour for faster recognition. I don’t know why I put the other flight in 3 and 4 this time…

Happy it’s not only me though

[Malc]

@Red:

I believe it was the same behaviour before.
Left column is your flight (you get AA cursors IMD as well)
Right column is other package flight you don’t get AA cursor IDM)

Yep, you are right enough - here is a similar picture from 4.32.7 - I guess I just never noticed it before…

[Blu3wolf]

@Red:

I believe it was the same behaviour before.
Left column is your flight (you get AA cursors IMD as well)
Right column is other package flight you don’t get AA cursor IDM)

i’m not sure if the 3-4 id on MFd is realistic or not (it would be better if they kept 21-22 as input.)
but i use this quite often (to get AA IDM) and I noticed a long time ago that the HSD reported 3&4. So it’s definitely not one of the recent updates that introduced it.

Yet the 3-4 / 21-22 discrepancy I can’t explain

If you input them in the 13 and 14 slots, and they have their ownship numbers as 21 and 22 (unchangeable in BMS) Im not sure how that would work.

No discrepancy exists between current versions and older ones, anyway.

[Red Dog]

If you input them in the 13 and 14 slots, and they have their ownship numbers as 21 and 22 (unchangeable in BMS) Im not sure how that would work.

that’s exactly what’s illustrated in the first picture and discussed in the following post isn’t it?

[Blu3wolf]

@Red:

that’s exactly what’s illustrated in the first picture and discussed in the following post isn’t it?

those are BMS screenshots, are they not? We already know exactly how it works in BMS, do we not?

As per your comment, I was ruminating on how it would work in the IDM for a less hypothetical, more prototypical, jet.

[Planehazza]

@Red:

that’s exactly what’s illustrated in the first picture and discussed in the following post isn’t it?

@Blu3wolf:

those are BMS screenshots, are they not? We already know exactly how it works in BMS, do we not?

As per your comment, I was ruminating on how it would work in the IDM for a less hypothetical, more prototypical, jet.

You two are a right married couple

[Frederf]

That is pretty weird. My previous understanding was that slots 1 2 3 4 were cyan and had ID above, altitude below, and supported additional DL info (radar locks and so on) while slots 5 6 7 8 were green and only supported altitude label below.

The screenshots in this thread show mixed behavior. Malc’s second screenshot is showing coloration based on address and not slot. Also it’s showing the DL ID above the #5 slot instead of nothing.

This might be a really cool functionality but it is definitely different than before.

[Red Dog]

just tested: vanilla KTO on both 4.32 & 4.33

4.32:

4.33

I don’t see any change.
I can’t explain Malc’s picture, but the behaviour between 4.32, 4.33.2 is consistent and shows the exact same

[Frederf]

I look at Malc’s screenshots again and with a new look I see no change since 4.32. Slots #1-#4 are cyan with labels 1, 2, 3, 4. Slots #5-#8 are green with labels = DL ID. Everyone gets altitude lower label. It’s all perfectly normal. I was seeing ghost problems.

earlier versions would show 2.1 and 2.2 as 21 and 22 (in green ink), no matter which slots they were programmed into.

I don’t think this is true.

[Malc]

@Frederf:

I look at Malc’s screenshots again and with a new look I see no change since 4.32. Slots #1-#4 are cyan with labels 1, 2, 3, 4. Slots #5-#8 are green with labels = DL ID. Everyone gets altitude lower label. It’s all perfectly normal. I was seeing ghost problems.

I don’t think this is true.

Hi Frederf,

No, you are correct. I was getting confused with what I thought I remembered from 4.32 and 4.33 - after I revisited 4.32 I found everything is the same between the same two versions.

I’d still like to try to find confirmation of the labelling though 1-4 report as 1-4 irrespective of flight numbers programmed, but whether that is true to like (I suspect it is) I don’t know… Seems illogical to me though.

[Frederf]

I think the single-digit labels are correct. The MLU M1 doc shows them (even if they are in green) but moreover since slots #1-#4 can show their FCR contacts as well with their donor labels. Having a blob of reported contacts with both their altitudes and donor ID numbers could be confusing. Also it would be consistent with the 1 2 3 4 assignment OSB labels on the FCR page.

In the MLU M1 tape only 4 addresses were possible.

MLU M2 (8 addresses possible) tape doc says “IDs 1 to 4 represent your 4-ship team package with the ID (1-4) above the aircraft symbol.” and further “The second four ship package (Team IDs 5-8) is displayed with their team address (two digit number) above the symbol.”

I think they tried to keep it as consistent as possible during the expansion. While it’s possible they strip the leading digit if your address matches the other address, there’s a chance that not all of the flight will have the same leading digit and that would cause confusion.

[Red Dog]

No, you are correct. I was getting confused with what I thought I remembered from 4.32 and 4.33 - after I revisited 4.32 I found everything is the same between the same two versions.

Happens all the time.
ppl make assumptions based on memory. Often memory is wrong or confused.
This leads the forum discussion confusing even for old seasonned pilots.
Don’t trust memory or feeling or impression, get facts !! go back and test. then the discussion is way more productive

[Malc]

@Red:

Happens all the time.
ppl make assumptions based on memory. Often memory is wrong or confused.
This leads the forum discussion confusing even for old seasonned pilots.
Don’t trust memory or feeling or impression, get facts !! go back and test. then the discussion is way more productive

My original point was about labels, 3 and 4 rather than 21 and 22, which Frederf seems to have clarified.

[Planehazza]

I had an odd one recently where I was #1 in a 3ship SEAD flight. #2 got shot down or crashed, and #3 changed colour in the IDM. I should have checked to get more info, but IIRC, we were 21,22, and 23 in the IDM (with the AI STRIKE being 10). Once #2 in my flight vanished, my #3 changed to 13 in green on the HSD, rather than staying as blue 23.

If it happens again, I’ll make sure to document it properly.

[Darkman]

Hmm, that bug was fixed, or so we thought. It’s the one listed as follows in the U2 changelog:

• Better management of IDM addresses, fixes for IDM inconsistencies when a flight in the package was destroyed

Can you confirm you’re running 4.33.2?

[Planehazza]

@Darkman:

Hmm, that bug was fixed, or so we thought. It’s the one listed as follows in the U2 changelog:

Can you confirm you’re running 4.33.2?

Doh, that’s two for two I’m still on 4.33.1 as I’m mid campaign.

[Malc]

@Planehazza:

Doh, that’s two for two I’m still on 4.33.1 as I’m mid campaign.

That’s a LOL!