This project is read-only.

MS2525B support

Aug 22, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The current code supports MS2525C. How hard would it be to support MS2525B?  Or does it already?

Aug 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Edited Aug 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

There are some differences but I don't think the more commonly used symbols are affected. The 2525C standard has this to say about the most visible changes.

 a. Added appendix F, “Use of Warfighting Symbols in Pseudo-Three-Dimensional Displays.”

b. Added appendix G, “Emergency Management Symbols.”

c. Changed “military operations other than war (MOOTW)” to “stability operations (SO).”

d. Replaced the term “affiliation” with “standard identity.”

e. Modified the space dimension frames to differentiate them from the air dimension frames.

So while it is not properly a subset, for most practical purposes it is.



Aug 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM

The most common affiliations are unchanged: H, F, N, U

But it looks like the frames for the less common affiliations have changed quite a bit from 2525B to 2525C.

Pending:  (B) yellow clover with '?' in middle   (C) yellow clover with dashed outline

Assumed Friend: (B) blue, '?' label on upper right  (C) blue with dashed outline

Suspect: (B) red with '?' label on upper right  (C) red with dashed outline

Exercise Assumed Friend: (B) blue, "X?" label on upper right  (C) blue with dashed outline, "X" label on upper right


For most purposes, the MS2525C standard and MS2525B standard look the same, especially if we aren't using tactical graphics, but if a military customer decided to be a stickler for strict compliance with MS2525B, I was curious about the difficulty for me to "back-port" MilSym to handle the older standard.  There's always a chance that it used to be that way and the necessary graphics files are available somewhere.  Or the magic ("do what I need") configuration setting.  Hence my question.



Aug 26, 2012 at 11:28 PM

There are quite a few "minor" changes between 2525B and 2525C including slight changes to some of the point symbols (e.g, space), the addition of new symbol decoration, and as you alluded to, changes in some of the multi-point tactical graphics in Appendix B - especially labels. This project was not designed to support 2525B nor are the classes designed with the flexibility to provide backwards compatibility.

However, as a value add, someone could certainly modify the existing classes to provide a measure of backward compatibility. Since most of the changes in point symbology are minor, tracking down the code that leads those changes would not be hard and are generally isolated to a few methods in a few classes. The information that would be required within any given class to support 2525B, such as the symbol code, is almost always present.

Having said that, the changes mentioned in your last message affect the layout of some external labels (the X's and whatnot) which is generally a royal pain to get looking and acting just right.

Personally, I would check with whatever ministry or program office or customer base is driving the current 2525B choice and determine whether they're planning, or are interested in, an upgrade.