Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 2

[Jacks]

Blueskunk, I disagree. A channel can work with 20 players and yes that is based on operational experience. People will learn to only say what is necessary and actually a good proportion will only sit in that channel for SA. Blocking people from channels only excludes people and or one has put me off joining 104th or TAW.

[Frostie]

Good co-ordination in a2a combat with comms within a squad requires excellent clean comms. Squads practice this to achieve maximum SA within the flight. Having bad comms causes confusion and loss of SA, this happens even within squads and is sorted out in debrief and through retraining, so imagine how off track it gets when randoms fill the channel. The majority of chatter in that channel is just going to focus purely on that flight, there is litlle room for anything else bar brief external updates.

 

There is nothing elitist about it, it's just a key part to flying a2a succesfully as a flight.

[ViFF]

I can tell you that from my experience flying online sims for a good 17 years now we are so lucky that we have Teamspeak.

 

Back in the days of Warbirds we used the chat system and that was all we had. There was a failed attempt by HighTech and Pyro (the developers) to give some bandwidth to an in game voice comms they developed but with the 33.6 kbps modems of the day it simply did not work. It worked eventually in Aces High quite well, but until then there was the chat box, and you would frequently see a running chat that you could scroll (in DCS we can't scroll back in game) with so much information from various channels that it was almost impossible to really make out what was important and every now an then a some guy sending a screaming 66666666666!!!!!!! in the chat box that drove everybody insane...

 

Then came Roger Wilco that was based on VOIP with one client as the hub which was a step in the right direction, but hardly any functionality if compared to teampseak like being connected to more then one server, whispers and channel commander, etc.

 

There are two ways to approach this: Reality and Functionality. Here is how we do it in the IAF Community:

 

In reality you can only listen to one frequency for each receiver you have. You can only transmit to one frequency for every transceiver you have.

 

An modern aircraft will typically have one UHF and one VHF radio, with perhaps one additional receiver. So when we want our comms to imitate the realistic limitations we add sub-channels as necessary and use teamspeak functions as follows:

 

1. We use the sub-channel we are in and the default PTT as the VHF radio, and limit to 4 to 6 pilots, representing "the flight" i.e. the basic organic structure of two pairs. Sometimes we will stretch it to 8 pilots in the same channel, but that is the maximum amount of pilots you want in one channel to maintain crisp clear comms and good SA, and I'm talking about experienced virtual pilots! not noobs that will flood the channel with irrelevant information and annoying questions like where's the master arm switch when you're flight is in the middle of a dogfight.

 

2. We use Whispers between other sub-channels in the parent channel (including our own) as the UHF frequency used by "the package" that are essentially working together to achieve a certain objective (i.e. the Escort Flight, the SEAD Flight, and the Strike Flight). So anybody in these three flights "whispering" to this function will be heard by all sub-channels including their own.

 

3. We use Channel Commander (toggling ON/OFF as needed) to imitate the guard frequency for theatre-wide communication with other squads, GCI, AWACS, etc.

 

That's just one way to do this. I'm sure there are many more ways with teh awesome functionality of teamspeak.

 

Now if we forget about imitating reality we have many ways to this with teamspeak Functionality.

 

We can all be in one channel and just whisper to our flight members, and use the regular transmit to the whole channel as the UHF or Guard channel. You can create sub channels and set that only certain members can have talk power on these flight dedicated channels. really anything you like.

 

Edit: I think its important that we continue to communicate between our squads with the Channel Commander (Orange light) and those CA individuals playing the role of GCI/AWACS also please continue to use Channel Commander for the benefit of all squads. I am also totally OK for squad leaders to have a Channel Admin for their own channel on the Buddy Spike Teamspeak, so they can setup a reasonable amount of sub-channels with their own rules and privileges as they see fit that meets their professional standard.

 

Salute!

Edited September 16, 2015 by ViFF

[gregzagk]

The great thing is when we turn into discussions about strategy and tactics instead of technιcal issues. Really like it. :)

 

About comms, the difference in these type of events (24/7) is that except all the coordination that is needed between the packages during the fights we have also to make quick decisions on the air of our next target or the area that we should defend due to rapid changes in the front. And that makes it even difficult as it could easily lead to wrong information exchange.

 

Also it's nice that both sides don't give up and change their tactics even if the game seems lost some times.

 

Keep it up! :thumbup:

 

Greg

[Shadow_1stVFW]

1. We use the sub-channel we are in and the default PTT as the VHF radio, and limit to 4 to 6 pilots, representing "the flight" i.e. the basic organic structure of two pairs. Sometimes we will stretch it to 8 pilots in the same channel, but that is the maximum amount of pilots you want in one channel to maintain crisp clear comms and good SA, and I'm talking about experienced virtual pilots! not noobs that will flood the channel with irrelevant information and annoying questions like where's the master arm switch when you're flight is in the middle of a dogfight.

 

2. We use Whispers between other sub-channels in the parent channel (including our own) as the UHF frequency used by "the package" that are essentially working together to achieve a certain objective (i.e. the Escort Flight, the SEAD Flight, and the Strike Flight). So anybody in these three flights "whispering" to this function will be heard by all sub-channels including their own.

 

3. We use Channel Commander (toggling ON/OFF as needed) to imitate the guard frequency for theatre-wide communication with other squads, GCI, AWACS, etc.

 

I agree with this 100% man! I think that's how it should be set up.

 

If you guys are familiar, Falcon BMS did a great job integrating an actual comms server within the multilayer that works through the in game cockpit radios. It's awsome. I really think DCS should get that feature. Adds huge amounts of realsim, all the realsim.

[Falcon_S]

Many people will learn from this campaign if they have not learned things as is communication, flight discipline and team work. Guys you can have your opinions but once you will realize that people are right if they want to avoid congestion in communication.

Only clear/precise communication and flight discipline helps the team/team work.

To many people in channel who talk at the same time are not good and you will say once: "This is intolerable."

So don`t mind squadrons if they want to work with discipline and they don`t want problems on com`s.

[ViFF]

I agree with this 100% man! I think that's how it should be set up.

 

If you guys are familiar, Falcon BMS did a great job integrating an actual comms server within the multilayer that works through the in game cockpit radios. It's awsome. I really think DCS should get that feature. Adds huge amounts of realsim, all the realsim.

 

Yes, the BMS team did a brilliant piece of work there with the IVC program that integrates with the Falcon exe. I know that there are several initiatives in the DCS community (Aries?) that may have good petential.

 

In the IAF for several years before BMS we are using the same methodology for the comms setup in teamspeak, so when BMS came along in 2011/12 it was very satisfying for us to discover that we were using very similar conventions to how virtual radios should be simulated with built in functionality of TeamSpeak.

 

Learning proper brevity and "pilot talk" in English at least as well as we do in Hebrew however... this is something that we still practice and needs constant discipline... :smilewink:

 

Falcon Online events and the events on the 104th server are very good for this.

 

S!

Edited September 16, 2015 by ViFF

[104th_Maverick]

Take those chatty lonewolves under your wing and teach/develop them as virtual pilots. Teach them procedures and brevity but NEVER exclude, it only hinders and limits our great community.

 

No, this is not our job or what we signed up for!!!! We signed up to have fun like everyone else... not to give out free lessons to every man and his dog who is starting out in DCS.

 

We train all our pilots so we can work effectively together, training that takes a lot of time and energy. We train hard to so we can go to events like this and perform at the best level we can. Not to go in and train other people!

 

You are saying we should just throw all that training in the bin and make it work with who ever joins our channel?

 

If you think 20 people can work together in a channel then you have never been in a channel with 20 people flying in DCS. This is not the military sir as you said but a game... sadly not everyone takes it as seriously as we do... and regardless if you will admit it or not this affects our performance.

 

As Frostie pointed out, we actually spend time 'training' on how we talk to each other.

 

Respectfully you do not have the experience to question this judgement. I don't care about what your background is... I just know what my background is. I've been right up with the top of the pile in Air to Air on DCS for 5 years now, and I'm telling you, you are wrong.

I have flown in many passworded MP events in channels with too many people of whom too many of them didn't know what they were doing or couldnt communicate properly, so I know first hand from bitter experience what a nightmare this is!

 

What you are talking about sir is an idealised scenario where everyone has the same attitude, professionalism and goals...... that is not so common on the Internet. Amongst a group of friends yes.... amongst a group of strangers from around the world... you start to get problems.

 

 

There is no place for elitism in DCS.

 

How would you know? We've been doing this for more than 5 years... you signed up to the forum in July and it would seem like you are trying to lecture us on what the best way to conduct operations is! ... Sort of forgetting or not knowing that we have been doing this since before 2010.

 

There is nothing elitest about what we do sir, I have already explained why we lock our channel in great detail.

 

Respectfully, you do not have the experience in DCS or from being in channels with 20+ other people (all flying in the same DCS server) to question this.

 

And even if you did, I would still disagree with you because my experience from actually flying in events like this for years is, we work better with closed comms with people we know can be trusted to do a good job. As soon as we start babysitting new people our workload becomes to much.

 

Regardless if you have had exposure to real world situations of people all working together, this is not real world... Basically what you're saying is that I should trust everyone and anyone who joins my channel to be professional and be an asset not a liability... this is a remarkably naive outlook on multiplayer gaming sir.

 

There is is a difference between someone wanting to be an asset and help to someone who actually is an asset and helps. That difference is normally hundreds of hours of training, all the people in my squadron have that.

 

The bottom line is we take the time out of all our lives to train with each other on a regular basis, we are not going to forget all that training and disregard it just. We are going to use it in the best way we can.

 

 

Blocking people from channels only excludes people and or one has put me off joining 104th

 

We do not accept random applications sir, we approach people and invite them to apply to join our squadron.

 

Don't worry, we are not recruiting right now anyway ;)

 

 

People will learn to only say what is necessary and actually a good proportion will only sit in that channel for SA.

 

Again this is very naive of you sir. I'd accept 100% that someone like you would be quiet and wouldn't cause us any problems, but not everyone is as mature as you are, I hope at least we can agree on this.

 

Being part of this community for 5+ years has shown me that not everyone is fun to be around, but I have never locked myself or Squadron away exclusively, we deal with a lot of people outside our Squadron in every event we fly in.

 

We even invite lone wolfs we know to fly with us, we are not elitest sir, we just have the experience to know that we can't play well with everyone.

 

I don't enjoy being in the position of having to tell someone I don't know to shut up or leave the channel, which I've had to do lots of times in the past and I'm not a bad guy if you can believe it! I fly in these events for fun, not to train other people or be a channel policemen.

 

I'd much prefer to be around people I know who all share the same respect, when the missiles start flying you STFU and communicate properly!

 

Not chat, play music, ask about DCS 1.5 /2.0, complain about bugs, ask me training questions, ask about other games or leave their mic open and all that happiness.

 

This locked channel issue is growing arms and legs.

 

Respectfully, I only see people arguing against it who are not part of large Squadrons who train regularly.

I think if you ask any Squadron who does train what they think about us being in a locked channel they would answer ... "yeah thats fair enough, those guys train together to fight together" We still Communicate with everyone else and we stick to the job we are given.

 

-------

 

I'm not removing the channel password but what we will start doing is inviting more lone wolf strangers to fly with us that show an interest in listening in to our comms. But we are not turning our participation in Blue Flag into a training school for lonewolfs... that's not why we are here.

 

If this exchange has not put you off I will drag you into our channel the next time you are on and we can talk a little more on this. Despite the enormity of my post I don't feel like I have fully explained in detail all my reasons against your argument, and I'm not out here trying to upset anyone, so if you'll chat with me in person I'd appreciate your time.

[xcom]

I agree with Falcon.

 

This is first and foremost, a community event.

Any participant is free to join and work as he wants/knows, Squadrons that use brevity and disciplined communication are of course welcome to do so.

 

We encourage each coalition to work together using the Channel Commander method we introduced in our SOP but it is in no way a requirement, it is simply a recommendation.

 

I know that many guys here have different opinions on how things should run with these kind of online events which are crossing between individuals and squadrons a like.

Be sure that we are thinking forward on how to accommodate different styles and insights about how it should run and we will release new information about the future of these events as soon as we have it all thought through and ready.

 

So for the time being, enjoy the campaign we have running NOW, it is still awesome! I know I enjoy flying it a lot.

Remember that this is ONLY the start, we have introduced this campaign to the community less then a month ago, our ideas are growing we will branch out and get these future events to answer many request, stay tuned!

 

Let's all go kill each other in the awesome virtual skies of DCS :)

[Frostie]

Aye to that, and hopefully more of it.

Thanks for your efforts, it's been great revisiting the Toad after so long away.

[blueskunk]

Blueskunk, I disagree. A channel can work with 20 players and yes that is based on operational experience. People will learn to only say what is necessary and actually a good proportion will only sit in that channel for SA. Blocking people from channels only excludes people and or one has put me off joining 104th or TAW.

take this video for example and just play it off twice at the same time, simulating 2 elements in an engagement.

 

(please, don't think i'm exaggerating here. some squadrons fly like that)

 

 

so, how does that enhance anyone elses situational awareness? and how much space is left for cas, helos, awacs, to get a message in? how would that benefit the fighters in their engagement?

 

if you want to simulate air combat and want to fly like that you want separate channels. that will prevent anyone interfering with non essential info.

 

a chain of command is there to coordinate all actions but also relay important info. the mission commander will tell the helos where to go or where to hold without anyone else being disturbed by that. awacs intel to the mission commander will be used to task the fighter patrol to barcap at a certain grid or give a heads up of threats to inbound cas. etc.

 

whenever any element engages their battle coms won't disturb anyone else while they coordinate their actions.

 

the one main drawback of it all is really only a matter of organisational effort. that's why so much time and effort goes into training and practise.

 

jacks, i do respect your opinion and i'm not telling anyone what to do. i do encourage you, though, to maybe just give this concept a fair shake. just for the experience.

 

onwards.

 

skunk

Edited September 16, 2015 by blueskunk

[zaelu]

Just don't forget the fun out of this.

[RightStuff]

anyone who thinks 20 dudes in one channel can work efficiently has never experienced a working chain of command and proper voice procedures.

 

As your referencing my comment: You read my whole posting?

Remark: Best way would be definitely to split up the comms (flight-internal

and broadcast), but we're not at that level and so we have to deal with it that way... np.

 

So we're not far away concerning the fact, that comms could be done in a more professional style. Sure...

Usually I'm flying Falcon4 BMS and though I know how it could be done better and how it should work. Here are some dudes at BF I'm knowing since years and I'm pretty sure they know wattimean. :D

 

As already said: We have a bunch of red pilots willing to fly and fight. Comms-Level from bottom to sky. How would you deal with them? Learning how comms work from scratch including brevities is something for outside Blue Flag. Yes. But I'm not willing to drop any motivated red pilot just because he does not know how to make it better. If someone asks what 'Magnum' means, then he'll get a short explanation and that's it. No prob.

 

Trust me: I'd like to see here clean comms, flight channels, AWACS and guard as you. But as long as we do not have ARIES, we work our way as good as it gets. Maybe we evolve our channel organization during this campaign? Who knows... :music_whistling:

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Here is my suggestion. In case last time I brought it up I wasn't clear enough. Below is what part of my squadron's teamspeak server looks like. As others have said, each flight is usually 2-4 dudes per channel, who can communicate at will. With another channel for AWACS/commanders who can get to everyone at the same time.

 

 

 

I think ONE OF THE WAYS to make everyone happy is to add this kind of structure to the Blue Flag Teamspeak. It can keep the same basic structure it has now. Just add flight channels to all the different types of aircraft, just like the picture above. Then you can add one lobby channel in each aircraft type (Attacker, helo, etc...)

 

This way.

If you have guys (Like me) who come on and fly with other people and use a lot of comms. We can log onto the Blue Flag TS, hop into a flight channel and fly the way we want, with a whisper set up so we can still hear important stuff. (Otherwise we just go on our squadrons private server and try our best to in game chat)

 

Or, if you have guys that are just on Teamspeak just to be there or to hear those AWACS calls, but don't need to communicate, they can hang out in the Attacker lobby or whatever.

 

The squadrons can keep their channels the way they want. They have their SOP and do things a certain way. I understand that.

 

So long as there are enough flight channels for those people that want/need them so they can play the way they like, I think everyone can be happy with that.

[blueskunk]

How would you deal with them?

- split fighters, sead, cas, helos into separate channels. keep numbers low (2-4)

- assign a mission commander in an awacs slot, i.e. east front cdr, or west front cdr, or whatever with whispers to all squadrons he is responsible for

- mission commander assigns tasks to squadrons, cap, sead, cas, trsp, whatever depending on situation

- manage airspace, update squadrons with relevant info

- monitor developments

 

a second commander might be neat to back the main one up and share the workload, like managing late-joiners/lone-wolfs, etc.

 

brevity or full on voice procedures won't be much of an issue then, as any discussion, banter or just different style of communication and tactics will not negatively affect the other squadrons.

 

established squadrons can still stick to their procedures, randomly created squadrons just wing it (what they are doing now already).

 

you still get everyone who's motivated on board no matter what their experience level.

 

seems very little effort to me for a whole lot of benefits.

 

again, i'm not telling anyone what to do. but i do ask for some understanding for those squadrons that prefer to have a closed channel.

 

:-)

 

skunk

 

edit:

+1 on channel structure overhaul

[myHelljumper]

A little video of our Beslan strike from the other night

[Esac_mirmidon]

Fantastic work this afternoon by the red side ¡¡¡¡

 

2 AB, one City and a FARP in two hours captured. I want to thank you all, Falconetti, Gruja, Tek, TaliG, great spirit and awesome team work. It´s so cool to fly with you...

 

Thanks for one of my greatest moments in this campaign.

[gregzagk]

Hey guys!

 

373vFS_Crash created forum signatures for the Operation "Blue Flag".

 

Enjoy!

[Bidartarra]

Very nice session with the folks on Red Side today, awesome team work!!

[VikingTsunami]

Hey guys!

 

373vFS_Crash created forum signatures for the Operation "Blue Flag".

 

Enjoy!

 

Awesome! :)

[Falcon_S]

Good job

 

Waiting some info pic from Crash Horror :music_whistling:

[Crash_Horror]

I will just leave this here then...

[VikingTsunami]

They're currently in progress of taking it back :laugh:

 

[Sporg]

And more..

[Sierra99]

I think ONE OF THE WAYS to make everyone happy is to add this kind of structure to the Blue Flag Teamspeak. It can keep the same basic structure it has now. Just add flight channels to all the different types of aircraft, just like the picture above. Then you can add one lobby channel in each aircraft type (Attacker, helo, etc...)

 

This is a great idea. The question is will people use it?