Do you want simulation of (voice) radio communication integrated in DCS?

[muffler]

Do you want simulation of (voice) radio communication integrated in DCS?

[razo+r]

You should have made a poll

 

But my answer is no

 

you can get confused, especially online and beginners have a hard time

[muffler]

You should have made a poll

 

But my answer is no

 

you can get confused, especially online and beginners have a hard time

 

I respect your opinion, but nobody take away from you teamspeak. Just as additional opportunity of real radio communication. :thumbup:

[Northstar98]

I say yes, the FC3 and starter aircraft that beginners use don't have a proper radio (apart from TF-51D), from there on if you want to talk to someone with a more complex aircraft - A-10C etc, why can't I talk to someone on the same frequency using a microphone command (like we already have for talking with AI).

 

As for complete beginners - an option at the mission editing level should sort that - kinda like easy communication.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Yesssss please!!! Personally I would love it...

[cichlidfan]

Search and you should find many other threads just like this. ED's plate is quite full and there are third party add ons which serve the purpose adequately.

 

It would be nice if a Tacview type replay would be available within is DCS, too. However, what would be nice and what is needed are two different things and this one falls into the nice category.

[zaelu]

First step would be to have alternative static radio menu as an option.

 

Then all possible radio commands listed in a special layer so every one could make keyboard commands for them if they want (none default or Complicated ones by default, example: RightAlt+LeftAlt+q... w... e... r... etc)

 

Then we can build and use very simple Voice Attack commands without any need for third party complicated things that don't work.

[McBlemmen]

Would be nice but definitely not necessary.

[gospadin]

Do you want simulation of (voice) radio communication integrated in DCS?

 

Are you saying that radio communication between players should be integrated?

 

In that case, I vote yes. Huge boost to realism.

 

The one downside is that since not all aircraft have the same radio capabilities, there will be mixes of aircraft that cannot talk to each other. Communications between such aircraft would need to be communicated through an AWACS or GCI that can work with all radio frequencies.

 

 

I have no interest in commanding AI / voice recognition. I'm okay with selecting from a menu for stuff like that.

[OneBlueSky]

Absolutely would love this. More realism is always better.

[Vitormouraa]

You should have made a poll

 

But my answer is no

 

you can get confused, especially online and beginners have a hard time

 

are you justifying the lack of a very useful tool because the beginners would have problem? if they want to play, they must learn.. Very simple.

[Tirak]

You mean like IVC? Um, hell yeah. At some point, DCS is going to need its own integrated VoIP system, even if it's just a side by side launcher like IVC is for That Which Cannot Be Named.

[Jeepyb]

Yes. It would be nice to finally get rid of the Teamspeak +ARIES or Univers Radio combo. Using those adds a lot to the sim but they are just not reliable enough and demand to be updated and fiddled around with all the time. The need to install 3rd party mods to bring voice comms to the sim has been the source of so many headaches for my squadron. We are in great need a simpler solution integrated in the sim and supported by ED in my opinion.

[OneBlueSky]

are you justifying the lack of a very useful tool because the beginners would have problem? if they want to play, they must learn.. Very simple.

 

Right. It's a sim, and prides itself on being as true to life as humanly possible. The very nature of sims require that you study and practice... They're not meant to be something you just pick up an XBOX controller, read a 3 page PDF and immediately become an ace. So something being hard is no excuse to not have something more real to life put in. If realistic things being implemented are hard for them, they'll learn and adapt, or not put it to use. It's no cause to not implement it.

[Lennoxonnell]

I made a post about this ages ago. It would not only increase realism but would help rectify the terrible airport manners. They could easily streamline the process for beginners, with a radio menu just like they have, but instead it would list what frequency everything is used for. Airports, areas, operations, etc. and automatically tune into the frequency they select. Plus for people who aren't using the streamlined method could pick and choose their own channels that aren't being used for group flights etc.

 

IMO this is one of the most important updates that needs to happen in this game. I can only dream of the day i can join a server and talk to an ATC and be able to communicate with other aircraft.

[DUSTY]

Integrated voice comm in open MP sessions would also help to bring the community closer together.

 

I appreciate that many open MP servers have attached TS details but if I want to communicate with my wingmen properly as well as be a part of the main friendly package comm it usually turns to junk if everyone is in the same TS channel.

 

Smart mission designers and DS hosts would only need to organise a simple communication plan just like already exists for tuning tankers and AWACS freqs. Only you can now hear actual pilots talk instead of just AI voices.

[bcradio]

I wouldn't say having to launch a separate program, set up an identity, tune it, set up hot keys and stuff, connect to a host, connect to a specific channel and try and fly/fight is exactly.... realistic or user friendly. I notice that many players don't choose to use it, even on servers like the 104th.

 

If it's something that's possible to do within game, I'd say go for it! Those who use it would love it, and those who don't can soak up my flight's coordinated wall of inbound Fox-3s.

[OneBlueSky]

I wouldn't say having to launch a separate program, set up an identity, tune it, set up hot keys and stuff, connect to a host, connect to a specific channel and try and fly/fight is exactly.... realistic or user friendly. I notice that many players don't choose to use it, even on servers like the 104th.

 

If it's something that's possible to do within game, I'd say go for it! Those who use it would love it, and those who don't can soak up my flight's coordinated wall of inbound Fox-3s.

 

Honestly I think the way it is now contributes more to the bad airport/traffic manners, lack of communication and lack of immersion more than anything ED could implement in game. So again, like already said before here by several - there's literally not a single argument against it in the sense of "it would be too hard for new players". Even as someone who prefers realism and appreciates proper communication, that's a lot of mess to deal with just to get voice going in game. It was a long, long time before I bothered just because of how much is necessary to get it to work. So I can certainly see how the current methods are off-putting to new players, or casual players.

[Ragtop]

Definitely. A lot of online Sqn's spend a lot of time and effort getting plugins to do this.

 

Not to take anything away from the plugin developers who make great tools, but simply put, they cannot compete with the ease of use when compared to something built straight into the game.

 

The argument of it being 'too complicated' is ridiculous to me. We're talking about a study level sim, for people who want to learn their chosen aircraft inside and out, but when it comes to radios we need simplicity?

 

If people want the simple system (ala FC3 level aircraft) then simply have the choice to disable it. It's never been there so far so for those who can't be bothered to learn it, your experience remains unaltered.

 

But for the enthusiast, its one area that DCS is severely lacking in, IMO. We have full fidelity systems modelled, the radios even work properly, yet you can't talk over them. Add that and we've got something very special. Most multiplayer games have VOIP already, and numerous developers have clearly indicated that it's not impossible to get VOIP hooked into the radios.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Ragtop

[Pikey]

+2.

Integrating UR or any one of the other half supported, dying, broken options is a pain in the rear end. Hours spent trying to herd cats. Keep TS as a chit-chat option, its never going away, but have the radios in game actually transmit with LoS and power and frequency simulation. You dont have to use it and you can use TS on top of it if you want to ignore the radios or have an FC3 aircraft....or even the wrong radio.

Definitely. A lot of online Sqn's spend a lot of time and effort getting plugins to do this.

 

Not to take anything away from the plugin developers who make great tools, but simply put, they cannot compete with the ease of use when compared to something built straight into the game.

 

The argument of it being 'too complicated' is ridiculous to me. We're talking about a study level sim, for people who want to learn their chosen aircraft inside and out, but when it comes to radios we need simplicity?

 

If people want the simple system (ala FC3 level aircraft) then simply have the choice to disable it. It's never been there so far so for those who can't be bothered to learn it, your experience remains unaltered.

 

But for the enthusiast, its one area that DCS is severely lacking in, IMO. We have full fidelity systems modelled, the radios even work properly, yet you can't talk over them. Add that and we've got something very special. Most multiplayer games have VOIP already, and numerous developers have clearly indicated that it's not impossible to get VOIP hooked into the radios.

[Wolf Rider]

I think, the real question to be asked is: do we want a Combat Simulator or a Civilian Flight Simulator... because an accurate combining of the both would be years off... way past when you and I (collective) are old feeble and long gone

[Eddie]

I think, the real question to be asked is: do we want a Combat Simulator or a Civilian Flight Simulator... because an accurate combining of the both would be years off... way past when you and I (collective) are old feeble and long gone

 

Not sure what you're getting at here, how is this discussion related to combat vs civil aviation?

[Rackham]

Vocal recognition should be a must. A first step could be to redefine the comm menus (the authors of VAICOM 2, based on Voice Attack, should have good ideas on this matter). Comm could be limited to the radio functions; vocal command could be an option.

[Lennoxonnell]

Vocal recognition should be a must. A first step could be to redefine the comm menus (the authors of VAICOM 2, based on Voice Attack, should have good ideas on this matter). Comm could be limited to the radio functions; vocal command could be an option.

 

I don't know where this comes from?

 

This thread is about VOIP via aircraft radios, not voice recognition and voice commands.

[ChoSeungWan]

Yes. And make the voices all crackly. That's what they did with Squad and its really cool.