LotAtc 4 DCS - 0.9.1

[DArt]

Thanks you, always pleased to have a great feedback :)

I am happy to know that LotAtc is well appreciated.

 

For bulls hook, you can make BRAA lines with ctrl+right click from contact to bulls, it will give you the bulls info.

 

Next version will bring a great update on client and some new functions. I am in holiday currently so not before next week :)

[VTJS17_Fire]

Hi DArt,

 

some suggestions to make it more real, as it already is.

 

For the datalink chat function:

+ The output in DCS (for the pilot) should be in real BRAA format, which looks like

>> Bearing (without "deg")/Range,

>> Altitude (without "ft."),

>> Aspect (with tracking [=heading of the hooked contact] or kardinal direction).

 

Example for a more real output:

"Group, BRAA 250/35, 20.000, flanking south-east."

 

Since LotATC can't handle real labeling (single group, pop-up group, two groups and other presentations), IMO a "Group" before the BRAA data would suffice.

 

 

For bulls hook, you can make BRAA lines with ctrl+right click from contact to bulls, it will give you the bulls info.

I checked this and it works. Thanks for the hint.

 

Maybe, you could here also provide the datalink function, to send the position of an object relative to the bullseye to own pilots.

 

What I mean?

+ I only can hook an object from the bullseye. No datalink function.

+ I can hook the bullseye to a own aircraft. Datalink function is available, but that gives me only my (own) posit.

 

But we also need the possibility,

+ to hook a contact from a friendly aircraft, but the bullseye position data

+ or the datalink function when objects are hooked with the bullseye.

 

The datalink output should also be more real:

"Group, Bullseye 180/20, 10.000, drag."

 

 

Next version will bring a great update on client and some new functions. I am in holiday currently so not before next week :)

Nice! Looking forward to this.

 

 

Best regards,

Fire

[Azrayen]

Hi Fire,

 

For the datalink chat function:

+ The output in DCS (for the pilot) should be in real BRAA format, which looks like

>> Bearing (without "deg")/Range,

>> Altitude (without "ft."),

>> Aspect (with tracking [=heading of the hooked contact] or kardinal direction).

 

Example for a more real output:

"Group, BRAA 250/35, 20.000, flanking south-east."

This assumes only one units system, when we have 2 in DCS. Hence I'm not sure getting rid of the units (ft) is a good idea. Perhaps as an option/customizable thing (like the labels).

[VTJS17_Fire]

I don't know how the Russian prcedures work and how they integrate their Mainstay in combat.

 

But the examples above are the procedures and calls used by U.S., NATO and other western airforces.

 

But if you have a human GCI controller working with LotATC, you can communicate and explain, which format you have set in LotATC (metric/ imperial). So the pilots in DCS know, which unit system they get in the chat. ;)

 

 

Kind regards,

Fire

[Pikey]

With regards to the written information it's not easy in the application to get the nuances without a human and you have to deviate from realism. The text display is more akin to a GCI the way its provided as a bogey dope without asking.

 

Example for a more real output:

"Group, BRAA 250/35, 20.000, flanking south-east."

The word "Group" (or package) is part of a label which is only related to pictures, picture changes, pop ups and informationals. BRAA's are given for bogey dopes, snaps and spikes so the group is implied in the call and thus not required.

 

Altitude type is provided to distinguish for metric users and is vital for metric users despite AWACS being a NATO concept. GCI is still catered for and there's no reason to get rid of the functionality in the application. In fact this is more like GCI in concept IMHO.

 

Anything after the label and bull or BRAA is a "fill-in" and there's a vast array of flexible data the operator can insert, such as azimuth, range, leader/trail, 'formation types', track direction or marshalling and even IFF activity.

It isn't practical to just provide track. I'd stick to the bogey dope analogy and remove fillers or be a human and read them and choose fillers or not.

 

You have mixed up the aspect and the track information, the correct way of saying that;

"[GROUP], TWO-FIFTY, THIRTY-FIVE MILES, TWENTY THOUSAND, FLANKING, TRACK SOUTH EAST."

 

The main rule from operator to operator is to keep cadence and format consistent. Fillers drop depending on pace of the engagement, but you need to remain steady as it gets hot. With text again, you need to be really brief, its hard to read.

 

For more accurate information (or realism as you call it) please see AFTTP 3-1.1 (Air Force technical training publication)

 

The main issue is not with LotATC but with the lack of bullseye info and hooking in an HSI for the NATO planes in DCS apart from the A-10C. I've done quite a few hours as pure ATC now and you cannot really very nicely get all of the useful funcitonality into it for DCS users as BULLSEYE are mostly irrelevant for most airframes (unless you do some very napkin map drawings in your head.

 

As ATC I offer bogey dopes, snaps and spikes and only provide new pictures as a pseudo popup and assume its not understood due to bullseye content. Thereafter i will sometimes force bogey dopes onto flights when I think the information is useful (like this text bra service) rather than go through the painting the picture story because its mainly not useful in game without HSD and Bullseye in plane.

 

TLDR; its fine as is, it's not a replacement of a human

Edited April 13, 2015 by Pikey
changed the purpose to differentiate between the text bogey dope contents

[VTJS17_Fire]

You have mixed up the aspect and the track information, the correct way of saying that;

"[GROUP], TWO-FIFTY, THIRTY-FIVE MILES, TWENTY THOUSAND, FLANKING, TRACK SOUTH EAST."

Yep, you're right. Mixed it up a little bit. :music_whistling:

 

 

For more accurate information (or realism as you call it) please see AFTTP 3-1.1 (Air Force technical training publication)

Printed about 4 years ago and read it two or three times. The last time is 2 years ago, IIRC. It seems, I have to read it once again, as we now have a tool to use this knowledge proper.

 

 

As ATC I offer bogey dopes, snaps and spikes and only provide new pictures as a pseudo popup and assume its not understood due to bullseye content.

But with tactical leading, you're not an Air Traffic Controller. An ATC controlls only routes of (civil) aircraft, without the tactical part. They are only responsible to avoid mid-air collision and other non-tactical tasks.

AFAIK, tactical controller on the ground and in an AWACS are called GCI Controller. GCI is used also for the people are airborne in an AWACS. That information is from a E-3 pilot at ILA 2014.

 

 

its fine as is, it's not a replacement of a human

As I wrote above, I'm with you on that point. These whole topic can't be handled by a software or a text chat.

 

 

Kind regards,

Fire

[AceRevo]

Would love to see some propper gameplay with comments in english on youtube, if its not too early to ask... There are a few but they dont really give you anything if youre looking for what this might have to offer.

 

Gameplay vs AI or multiplayer vs real people with comments would be very much appreciated. If possible :)

[VTJS17_Fire]

Hi DArt,

 

a want to report a bug (?) and have a question.

 

Q: Is it possible, to limit the number of LotATC clients on a server. I mean: If I want only two controller on blue side, can I limit it on these via a lua file or something?

 

I't shouldn't be limited by the password. The password should be known for all clients. But I want to limit the number of controllers for the mission design (as a cheat protection, as well).

 

 

Bug: We used the latest public version of LotATC last week in our training. After a few rounds with jumping in to the aircraft slots > back to spectator > once a again in the a/c slot > in the spectator (and so on), LotATC showed wrong player names.

 

Attached a screenshot from the game and LotATC at the same time. All aircraft were on 19.000 ft. feet, within range of both AWACS. The A-50 didn't detect their own group (DCS: red side) anymore.

 

Rufus: DCS blue side (in LoATC detected)

Bowie: DCS blue side (in LoATC not detected, close side-side formation with rufus, also within range of the A-50)

Jemi: DCS red side (in LoATC not detected, within range of the A-50)

 

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

 

Best regards,

Fire

[DArt]

Hi DArt,

 

some suggestions to make it more real, as it already is.

 

For the datalink chat function:

+ The output in DCS (for the pilot) should be in real BRAA format, which looks like

>> Bearing (without "deg")/Range,

>> Altitude (without "ft."),

>> Aspect (with tracking [=heading of the hooked contact] or kardinal direction).

 

Example for a more real output:

"Group, BRAA 250/35, 20.000, flanking south-east."

 

Since LotATC can't handle real labeling (single group, pop-up group, two groups and other presentations), IMO a "Group" before the BRAA data would suffice.

 

It can be enhanced of course, I can add option to remove unit. For some users, units are mandatory, for others no, so need to satisfy all :)

 

I checked this and it works. Thanks for the hint.

 

Maybe, you could here also provide the datalink function, to send the position of an object relative to the bullseye to own pilots.

 

What I mean?

+ I only can hook an object from the bullseye. No datalink function.

+ I can hook the bullseye to a own aircraft. Datalink function is available, but that gives me only my (own) posit.

 

But we also need the possibility,

+ to hook a contact from a friendly aircraft, but the bullseye position data

+ or the datalink function when objects are hooked with the bullseye.

 

Currently, you can send only datalink BRAA when the source is a human, target can be anything in human/IA/ground/Bulls (next version will have airports too). It always send the BRAA.

As this feature is new and works well now :) I can use the same principle for others ideas like yours. I will think about bulls interaction in this case.

 

Hi DArt,

 

a want to report a bug (?) and have a question.

 

Q: Is it possible, to limit the number of LotATC clients on a server. I mean: If I want only two controller on blue side, can I limit it on these via a lua file or something?

 

I't shouldn't be limited by the password. The password should be known for all clients. But I want to limit the number of controllers for the mission design (as a cheat protection, as well).

 

Not at this moment, but I will add it, it is easy on my side to add an option for that.

 

Bug: We used the latest public version of LotATC last week in our training. After a few rounds with jumping in to the aircraft slots > back to spectator > once a again in the a/c slot > in the spectator (and so on), LotATC showed wrong player names.

 

Attached a screenshot from the game and LotATC at the same time. All aircraft were on 19.000 ft. feet, within range of both AWACS. The A-50 didn't detect their own group (DCS: red side) anymore.

 

Rufus: DCS blue side (in LoATC detected)

Bowie: DCS blue side (in LoATC not detected, close side-side formation with rufus, also within range of the A-50)

Jemi: DCS red side (in LoATC not detected, within range of the A-50)

 

Thanks for this complete report, I know this bug, but as always, complex to reproduce alone, I will test your workflow to try to reproduce and fix it.

 

----

 

My next target is the 1.0.0-RC1 with lot of client updates. ETA is 1 or 2 weeks, depending of my availability. It is well advanced, working on themes currently. Thanks for all your comments/suggestions, the 1.0.0 development was a very long run, but I think that the final version will be a very good one. For future of course, lot of things will come of course!

[VTJS17_Fire]

Thanks for your fast anweser, much appreciated. :thumbup:

 

Fire

[DArt]

Ok, limitation of clients per coalition has been implemented and you will find a settings in config.lua file of LotAtc in next version ;)

 

-- Limitations

-- -1 means no limit

red_max_clients = -1,

blue_max_clients = -1,

[VTJS17_Fire]

Know you what?

I already have a key for LotATC, but will buy another one tomorrow. Due to you great support and fantastic work activity. :thumbup:

 

 

Best regards,

Fire

[DArt]

Thx Fire !

 

Here the first Release candidate for the 1.0.0, except a little colour error in very dark mode for some menus (will be fixed in next version) no more things will be integrated in this version. Let's me know if you have crash (especially for zoom in client). Of course, if necessary, a RC2 could be released if big bugs appears.

 

Be sure to read the changelog, there is some changes and some shortcut inside

 

For all translators: you can grab last version of files, UI will not change anymore, certainly the last pass for this version! If you like to have LotAtc in your language for final 1.0.0, it is now :) (you have at least 1 week before final releasing)

 

Here some screenshot of the new features:

 

 

 

Link on download link + more screenshots: http://lotatc.dartsite.org/news/53

 

Thanks for all reporting/suggestions I received during this beta phase, it was really helpful!

[DArt]

Any feedback on this RC1 ? ;)

[VTJS17_Fire]

Hi DArt,

 

are there still compatibility issues with slmod?

 

For your group servers, do you use SLMod or Servman? If yes, there is a patch to apply (by default some modified files are in conflict) see there: http://lotatc.dartsite.org/projects/...erver-together

The link is dead but I saw a "servman patch" on the 1.0.0rc1 website. Do I have to use this patch, if I use slmod?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[DArt]

Exact, I have made some reorganisation on LotAtc website and this link is broken, sorry for that.

 

Here the status for SlMod: http://www.lotatc.com/projects/lotatc/knowledgebase/articles/7

 

It should work with 1.0.0 but I have not tested since a while.let's me know if you have problem! :)

[VTJS17_Fire]

Hi DArt,

 

Thanks for the link, it (slmod) works fine with 1.0.0 rc1.

 

feedback:

+ maximum number of controller works fine

+ connect to server seems to be faster as in beta11

+ tabs are less visible as in version 1.0.0 beta11 (see picture); the border between the tabs should be more visible like in beta11

+ in the settings: the color panels could be more left-aligned (see 2nd picture), looks strange with center aligned

 

 

Best regards and keep up the good work,

Fire

[HiJack]

maximum number of controller

What does this do? :noexpression:

[DArt]

Hi DArt,

 

Thanks for the link, it (slmod) works fine with 1.0.0 rc1.

 

feedback:

+ maximum number of controller works fine

+ connect to server seems to be faster as in beta11

+ tabs are less visible as in version 1.0.0 beta11 (see picture); the border between the tabs should be more visible like in beta11

+ in the settings: the color panels could be more left-aligned (see 2nd picture), looks strange with center aligned

 

 

Best regards and keep up the good work,

Fire

 

Thanks for this feedback! I will correct the UI!

 

What does this do? :noexpression:

 

It allow server administrator to limit the number of LotAtc client slot per coalition ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2378460&postcount=286 )

[VTJS17_Fire]

And is a nice method the prevent pilots from cheating, if you already have one controller logged in. So no one can use the AWACS picture, while he's flying.

[HiJack]

Good, I was waiting for this, thanks! :thumbup:

[Azrayen]

And is a nice method the prevent pilots from cheating, if you already have one controller logged in. So no one can use the AWACS picture, while he's flying.

Yup. Noteworthy is that another complementary feature about that is envisaged for a later version. This other feature (option) would allow the server/host to forbid users whith an IP already connected to DCS server to connect via LotAtc client.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Yes, this would be nice, as well.

 

Now, we hope to see an implementation of Aries Radio and LotATC, so that our controllers and pilots can train comms more real. I read about this cooperation somewhere.

[DArt]

Yes, this would be nice, as well.

 

Now, we hope to see an implementation of Aries Radio and LotATC, so that our controllers and pilots can train comms more real. I read about this cooperation somewhere.

 

I would like, but Aries team ask too much money for my project to be able to implement it. That is why we develop UniversRadio in my team. It works well now and it is fully integrating in LotAtc. I will certainly make a tutorial in next days...

[Pikey]

Any feedback on this RC1 ? ;)

Seems OK, I still managed to get the zoom bug once, but it's stopped bothering me. I like the ability to name tracks now and the object tree is also useful.

 

Haven't done any stress testing.

 

Thanks