.CAM/.TRN/.TAC format

[Sherlock]

Look at the specs I've documented for all previous versions. You'll see that the changes are generally not all that radical. Add a field here, expand the width of a field there, nothing earth-shattering.

Ok. So what do you envision for a utility to "backversion" AF CAM files so we can edit them in TacEdit? I'm digging this topic!

[lightning]

Right now I can successfully backport everything but the units file. To backport the units successfully I just have to spend some more time on figuring out the format changes that happened with Package units. As for a utility, basically I'd envision a little .EXE that can read in later-version .CAM/.TRN/.TAC files, and that would then save them in version 71 format so you can use TacEdit to modify them.

This would alleviate the need to write a completely new TacEdit from the ground up (in the short term) and would essentially make newer formats editable (albeit, by discarding information that's only present in newer versions). Ultimately the right thing to do would be to write a new TacEdit around all this (tedious, but 100% doable) if we want to be able to modify the newer file formats directly.

[Sherlock]

Right now I can successfully backport everything but the units file. To backport the units successfully I just have to spend some more time on figuring out the format changes that happened with Package units. As for a utility, basically I'd envision a little .EXE that can read in later-version .CAM/.TRN/.TAC files, and that would then save them in version 71 format so you can use TacEdit to modify them.

This would alleviate the need to write a completely new TacEdit from the ground up (in the short term) and would essentially make newer formats editable (albeit, by discarding information that's only present in newer versions). Ultimately the right thing to do would be to write a new TacEdit around all this (tedious, but 100% doable) if we want to be able to modify the newer file formats directly.

Just a note that SP4.2 versions of the CAM come up as Version 73 in TacEdit (not version 71).

I'm all for writing a newer version of TacEdit but, then, I don't have to do it (nor could I).

I know I will be happy to get any "crumbs" you are willing to throw our way in the way of a utility that backports the newer AF versions (or anything else).

[lightning]

I'll post some reader/writer code for all the files (v71 and earlier) in a couple weeks. Hopefully during that time I can also get the rest of the details at least up to v73 included. Then we can at least round-trip stuff into and out of TacEdit without any restrictions.

[Sherlock]

I'll post some reader/writer code for all the files (v71 and earlier) in a couple weeks. Hopefully during that time I can also get the rest of the details at least up to v73 included. Then we can at least round-trip stuff into and out of TacEdit without any restrictions.

Sweet! Can't wait to check it out!

[Snake Man]

Now wait a minute, have we tracked down the real information stored in the F4AF version .cam files, ie the parts that aren't readable with TacEdit?

[lightning]

Now wait a minute, have we tracked down the real information stored in the F4AF version .cam files, ie the parts that aren't readable with TacEdit?

Some, but not not all, yet. It's a bit of a process. I'd still be interested for someone to tell me why we actually should give a damned about the AF format, per-se, when AF will consume files in the older format??

[Sherlock]

Look at the specs I've documented for all previous versions. You'll see that the changes are generally not all that radical. Add a field here, expand the width of a field there, nothing earth-shattering.

Now wait a minute, have we tracked down the real information stored in the F4AF version .cam files, ie the parts that aren't readable with TacEdit?

Some, but not not all, yet. It's a bit of a process. I'd still be interested for someone to tell me why we actually should give a damned about the AF format, per-se, when AF will consume files in the older format??

I guess I'll ask this question again as it gets to what Snake Man is asking also... what were the expansions to fields or added fields that make the difference between a SP4.2 .CAM (version 73) file and a 2008 Allied Force .CAM (version 83) file? It sounds like you've looked at them a little lightning, right? But you need to check into them in more detail to answer the question, right?

I guess I would sum up things this way... If what is in there is not known and/or understood, then how can a decision be made to just discard it?

To answer your question "I'd still be interested for someone to tell me why we actually should give a damned about the AF format, per-se, when AF will consume files in the older format??".... I would point out that Lead Pursuit modified the Falcon.exe and changed the .CAM format for a reason. Perhaps it was to accommodate the enhanced engineering repair capability? Or perhaps it was to better support the "Add Package" capability? I don't really know but evaluating what the difference is in the CAM file may answer the question. If we know what is there and, more importantly what is does (why it is there) then a better decision can be made as to whether we want to go to the trouble to bring it along for editing or just discard it and use the older format.

[Snake Man]

I agree that we should find out what the data contains in the F4AF unknown .cam parts and then make decision if anything should be done about it.

[Cougar FFW04]

Hi Lightning,

Very nice job.

Go on please, it opens so much perspectives for all Falcon flavors with respect to campaign management and Tactical engagement creation.

Thanks a lot

[lightning]

I've posted the preliminary parser code for the CAM/TRN/TAC files on my SVN repository at:

http://svn2.assembla.com/svn/lightnings ... k/F4Utils/

The relevant code is under the Campaign subfolder:
http://svn2.assembla.com/svn/lightnings ... /Campaign/

This code has been sitting around for almost a year now in various states waiting for me to merge it all together, which I finally did on a request from Falcas. Anyone else with a need to use this to read from the CAM/TRN/TAC files, please let me know and I can work with you to guide you on the usage. I have a couple of minor Wiki updates to make as well -- but they're low priority for now, so again, contact me if you're working with this data and need assistance. Also -- The code in the code repository currently supports reading from, but not writing to, CAM/TRN/TAC files. It will be a very small effort to add support for writing changes as well, I just have not had a chance to get that far with it yet due to other priorities.

AFAIK this code works with file versions up to around v73...but I have not tested exhaustively.

[Sherlock]

Great to see you back lightning. Do you plan to address .cam versions beyond v73 including up to v83?

[Luk]

contact me if you're working with this data and need assistance. Also -- The code in the code repository currently supports reading from, but not writing to, CAM/TRN/TAC files.

hi lightning.
I am very interested in CAM/TAC files decoding. But I am currently AF only - so as Sherlock wrote in previous post - any info about ver 83 would be fine.
BTW - I have no idea what to do with your "decoded?" files. But it looks important . Do you have some decoded AF *.cam file, which is readable by tacedit please? I would check used objectives...
Luk

[lightning]

There's still work to be done in terms of converting AF .cam files back to a format usable by non-AF TacEdit, but I'll keep you posted, whatever happens.

[Sherlock]

There's still work to be done in terms of converting AF .cam files back to a format usable by non-AF TacEdit, but I'll keep you posted, whatever happens.

Thanks Mucho! You get that done and I'll buy you a case of your favorite beer (or other favorite beverage)! I live "down the road" from you southeast of Tucson.

Another item you might want to turn your considerable talents to is deciphering the bcockpit.dat and bpadlock.dat files (from Allied Force) which appear to be binary conversions of the older SuperPAK versions (which were ASCII Text). Just a suggestion!

[lightning]

Another item you might want to turn your considerable talents to is deciphering the bcockpit.dat and bpadlock.dat files (from Allied Force) which appear to be binary conversions of the older SuperPAK versions (which were ASCII Text).

Martin "Pegasus" Schmitt already did that back in September -- see here:

http://www.viperpits.org/smf/index.php? ... 9#msg72089

[Luk]

Martin "Pegasus" Schmitt already did that back in September -- see here:

http://www.viperpits.org/smf/index.php? ... 9#msg72089

Does it mean, we are just step away to create at least one generic light-blue russian pit for eastern ACs???!!!
It is perhaps the only thing I miss heavily in AF...
Luk

[Sherlock]

Another item you might want to turn your considerable talents to is deciphering the bcockpit.dat and bpadlock.dat files (from Allied Force) which appear to be binary conversions of the older SuperPAK versions (which were ASCII Text).

Martin "Pegasus" Schmitt already did that back in September -- see here:

http://www.viperpits.org/smf/index.php? ... 9#msg72089

Wow! I had no idea....looks like I need to stop by Viperpits more often. Thanks for that lightning! That's a huge step forward for us AF flyers.