11 comments

  • Stitch4223 28 minutes ago
    “Hi Codex, please find attached website about the specification of my Battlesuit and use the documented API to create a plugin for Home Assistant that shows groups of sensor data.

    You are only allowed to use commands that retrieve data, you are not allowed to perform actions on the suit.

    Treat the suit like its API is not robust and in worse shape than a cheap toy: perform read calls slowly and sequentially with at least one minute in between.

    If possible please group data in meaningful categories, just like the tank and radar dome.

    My Home Assistant is the default on the local network, credentials are in credentials.txt.

    Please send me a text when you’re done. Kthnxbye”

  • alhirzel 1 hour ago
    Reminds me a lot of the Tactical Microgrid Standard (aka TMS aka MIL-STD-3071) [1], probably just because TMS uses DDS as well. I would really like to know if there is a protocol that functions like DDS but caters to real-time guarantees and prioritizes (at a "simple protocol" level) usability on embedded systems with no dynamic memory allocation. It would also need to be just-as-functional with non-real-time systems. One problem with DDS is that it is too heavy-handed to implement well on an embedded system.

    [1] https://battery.army.mil/system-integrator-hub/tms/

    • p_l 1 hour ago
      Pretty sure there are DDS implementations that provide most of that, maybe with memory pools instead of no-allocations.

      Other than that, PX4 uses an in-memory only pub/sub for internal data bus, somewhat inspired by DDS

  • lowbloodsugar 11 minutes ago
    “Fire your goddamned missiles!.json”

    “Think russian^H^H^H xml”

  • j-pb 2 hours ago
    First I was excited, then I saw that it's based on DDS.
    • budman1 2 hours ago
      why the hate on DDS?

      seems like a perfect fit.

      • j-pb 1 hour ago
        DDS is the least bad of the stuff that has come out of OMG, but it's not a nice middleware still. There is no underlying algebra of that composes nicely when compared to Zenoh for example, and the "vendor independence" and compatibility is usually a joke. There's a reason ROS is moving away from it again.
        • bahmboo 1 hour ago
          There's a standard that has OMG as the acronym? OMG. I'm not even going to bother to search for that!
          • jjmarr 58 minutes ago
            Object Management Group I think. Better known as the inventors of UML.
            • __d 26 minutes ago
              UML was phase two of OMG. It originally developed CORBA.
  • throw1234567891 1 hour ago
    Nah, they haven't open sourced anything: https://github.com/rheinmetall. They just published the documentation. Really weird, what's the point?
    • pixelesque 1 hour ago
      They've got the IDL files as well for the APIs, but you can't use them without their libs:

      > The data model is defined using a custom format .rmodel based on the ddkit > framework (rmodel-api).

      > Please note that the .rmodel data model is for documentation purposes only and > does not reflect the actual interface used on the communication layer. Network > communication is only possible through the provided libraries.

  • karmicthreat 1 hour ago
    This looks like ROS2 for missiles.
  • 9dev 2 hours ago
    Am I just too ignorant of Miltech, or is this that in large parts recreating Standard messaging primitives that other protocols and systems have been providing for decades already (so invented elsewhere?)
    • pixelesque 1 hour ago
      DDS sort of took over from CORBA in the military domain, and the statically-typed IDL was still quite similar to CORBA last time I looked at it, so that takes you back to around 1998 when CORBA was being used a lot in the military in my experience.

      What other protocols and systems were you thinking of that can provide (depending on broker) hard-realtime delivery that can be used in safety-critical systems?

      • ls612 19 minutes ago
        Stupid question, but why didn’t the DOD mandate IP compatibility for literally all comms like 20+ years ago? Is it pure corruption/incompetence or is there a good reason?
    • esseph 2 hours ago
      Every mil company designs unique bespoke things often with some exceptions, and even the "open systems" mostly aren't open by any stretch of the definition.

      Obscurity is part of the allure, not a repulsive factor.

      You don't want a hostile nation suddenly and easily understanding your systems.

      • smalltorch 2 hours ago
        On the other hand, its good to design systems where it wouldn't even matter if the hostile nation state knows exactly how it works.

        This is a principle in cryptography, but carries nicely to other things.

        • timcobb 1 hour ago
          I feel like this is always the best design whenever possible.
      • touisteur 1 hour ago
        Asterix is an actual standard for radar data, coming from civilian radar systems. I wish it was updated somehow for 3d beam-steered (and moving) sensors, but still it covers most of the industry's needs... I keep hearing so many grumblings of replacing it (it is binary, unforgiving, quirky, very 80s...) and of course fragmentation is back in.
      • 0cf8612b2e1e 1 hour ago
        I have to assume that so many people require access to the specs that an interested party can surely acquire them.

        World of Tanks has repeatedly had military personnel updating the technical specifications with details they have found in the secret manuals.

      • graemep 1 hour ago
        Hat sounds like a particularly weak form of security by obscurity
      • mc32 1 hour ago
        Also you do not want them to benefit from your smart design choices. You want them to suffer from their bad choices and not learn from your success. (Yes, of course you could have bad design choices that you don’t realize someone else has solved more intelligently.)
        • ufocia 1 hour ago
          Bad design choice is probably why they open sourced it.
  • exabrial 2 hours ago
    I cannot find boomstick anywhere in here
  • mrhcon 2 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • nicechianti 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • jjmarr 1 hour ago
    Open the C++ example up and the first thing I see:

    ```cpp std::cout << "Received ReportCoordinateFrameSettings" << std::endl; ```

    Generally, I've heard `std::endl` instead of \n has bad performance because it forces the statement to print immediately. And because cout is guaranteed to flush anyways when the program ends, you're adding a delay for no reason.

    I wonder if there's something I'm not seeing that led to them adopting this rule. e.g. "abnormal program termination" caused by the weapon blowing itself up circumventing a buffer flush?

    • __d 31 minutes ago
      For a long time, std::endl demonstrated that you were a proper C++ programmer, not some neckbeard C apologist. It wasn’t until C++ had „won“ that it became acceptable to use \n again.
    • aftbit 51 minutes ago
      This seems like an incredibly unimportant quibble... I would imagine they just used std::endl b/c that's what most random tutorials used in the 2000s and that's how the engineer learned. If you are printing a debug string, you probably don't care that much about perf in the first place.