Protos

Well thanks for that Peter, I managed to find those on my own. What I am looking for goes waayy back and is titled 3GOmovie_en.wmv

S~! Looking for this old Lock On Movie from 3G0. Its my all time fave. Link below. Beer Money, for anyone who gets me a working download link. Not kidding. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/1021099832/p/1

Let me be the first .... you need to take a break from thread starting .... troll some girls instead.

Oleg never really gave a crap, he was dependent on his programmer. Anyways that is another story.... back on topic.

Don't mind GG, he is good peeps, its just that he has one point of view. ED's right or wrong. GG your raping my eyes with the quote button ... paragraph form usually suffices.

:megalol: Ok you have my full support after the F16 ..... :P

There are MANY who want a nato multirole fighter F14, F16, F18 ect.... for now A-10c was first on deck. For me F16 should be next for a TREMENDOUS number of reasons but that and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee. :music_whistling:

Thanks for trying Goose, have seen those already. What I would really like to see is the new server browser/chat/friends ect ...functions.

..... wow Waldo and I thought I was tough. Wags are those tarmac tiles final ? Clouds were :/ Spinning turbine animations on startup :thumbup: Good sense of SCALE. Would love to have a look at the gui and multiplayer features.

Very nice. Cheers.

Frederf do you know if Mumble supports extensions such as the wonderful TS Noise that could add in mic clicks and limited static ???

Just a suggestion outlaw, but it might have been more polite to make your own announcement .... instead of spamming in someone else's. Where can I find out info about your new anticheat ?

Very interesting, thanks Booger. Not quite what I am hoping to see, but certainly a valiant effort for outside of game comms. The frequencies he has registered don't really need to be created till a pilot is actually in them, at which point they would auto spawn. Also TS3 would allow multiple 'radios' because it has tabs - not sure if mumble can do that ?

Good post. http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=teamspeak3sdk She is ready to go. I don't trust devs ever. Its not my job. My job as a consumer is to provide constructive negative feedback so that the sim/game gets made better. In this I have been tremendously successful, if not always popular. At this point I am quite happy that it seems it is not IF we get comms but what solution gets implemented. I can live with whichever program, assuming the implementation is half way decent. I am quite pleased to see that Wags is going hard for a really quality INTEGRATED multiplayer experience. For me thats smart and encouraging. I hope the trend continues. I can't be assed for single DCS modules.... nor do I believe that they can ever be true revenue streams in and of themselves. Recent experience seems to have born that out.

Incorrect. We will have to agree to disagree..... but a connector wouldn't take much time at all to develop. TeamSpeak 3 has almost everything built in because its token system is exceptionally secure. There should be almost nothing for a Server admin to do but input his token or key and set up the webadmin (which could be incorporated as part of a Dedicated Server) I agree that key factor is deciding which option to implement, because you are then 'tied' as you develop functionality. Its why I strongly support TS3. Regardless lets get comms and they can be improved over development cycles. Athens was not built in a day.

This subject seems to be difficult for many pilots to understand. That or they are not reading the thread before posting or just don't know what they are talking about. :music_whistling: - Mumble / TS3 integration is relatively painless, requiring low dev resources = not really delaying the next DCS module. - Mumble / TS3 is able to provide over 95% of the features the community requires. Line of sight would be the major stumbling block and that is not exactly crucial at this point, regardless of the whining for it. Line of sight would be a cpu killer at this juncture. - Vatsim is a different animal altogether and integration would require tremendous resources, significantly delaying development. - Mumble is open source = Good. -TS3 requires licensce but has a tremendous user base and is the #1 comms in the world. Much more feature rich than mumble. Also much tighter security which is very important imho. Key factor in the decision should be cpu usage vs feature set. Each will use about the same bandwidth with the same codec so that becomes a non issue. *** Quite Happy to see that its not about IF ingame comms should be implemented, but how :thumbup: P.S thanks for the info about possible mumble integration nemesis. Rep.

interesting ..... not used mumble but will investigate. Wouldn't be my first choice, but hey I will take what I can get.

The point I believe Skoop is making is (which I agree with) is that we should be moving to the new engine and just adding simpified current models into it. Yes they will be lower fidelity than the DCS series, but I don't really think anyone is going to mind if it allows us all to stay together. Not to mention its another revenue stream. Many like myself who have not purchased a DCS product would certainly be a lot more willing to do so if it allowed us to keep what we have. Personally speaking I will never purchase a DCS game for one bird. Its just me of course, but I know many who agree. I don't think from a programming perspective it is all that hard to take a completed simplified model from FC for instance and insert into A10c. Again I am less stressed about this than some. I think something along these lines will happen. Its too logical not to happen. Recently I read a post by Wags somewhere, in which he stated he would do what is best for the series and not just for the forum fanboys. Very enouraging .... to me at least.

Maybe reread some of what you wrote here ..... your more than a little intense about your own point of view.

Copy. Yes a pain, but explanation is logical. Thanks.

By all means, inform us of the 'existing packages' that might be interfaced 'properly' Always willing to learn something new.

Question. Does the main site login not work for the user files area ? I tried to go there and its asking for my registration. When I put it in, it does not accept. Do we need a separate login for user files ??

I think I spot some of the confusion. Here is what I propose. Most large servers usually have a TeamSpeak or similiar 3rd party comms. I will use TS3 for demonstration purposes. Btw what I am suggesting is hardly rocket science. Any competent coder who knows DCS could pump it out in under a half day. - TS has the capability to create channels on the fly and assign them different security clearances. So if 'RED' has a certain set of Freqs then pilots flying in 'BLUE' could not enter (this would of course not apply to admins ect ) Example/ Blue pilot adjusts frequency ingame to xxx hz -- ts automatically creates that channel and puts pilot there. Another pilot opens that freq he is automatically put there. Got a flight of Hogs, they can all be on channel xyz ..... Fast movers their channel ...... Switch to ATC you are there ..... ect ..... Thats what a connector would do, but from WITHIN the game. ** The above description was really brief but hopefully clear enough for basic discussion. The connector is just a layer. This way only ONE voice server is needed and since all LOFC/DCS servers are on dedicated boxes it is extremely easy to have it running along side. Bandwidth is a minor concern on pretty much any dedicated box on a datacenter. I too am for Ingame Voice Communications. I just want to make it easy for the Devs to implement. From a programming point of view I can't think of anything simpler and easier to implement than a game connector. If someone has a better idea .... by all means share..... but please have a 'plan' instead of an "I want" Cheers.

Is there a question somewhere? Not sure what this thread has to do with DCS A-10 -- seems like political Off Topic to me.

So if I understand you, what you desire is basically a vatsim system for the DCS A-10. That would be a MAJOR undertaking. You could get about 85% of the functionality with a connector, for less than a 1/10 of a single percent required for what I believe your asking for. But hey who knows, I have zero experience with FSX online. More power to you if you know how to make it happen. I certainly would not be opposed - but I don't think current DCS is capable of doing what you want.