Jump to content

Built in voice communications.


Chipensaw

Recommended Posts

Eliminate the need for TS, discord or SRS. To many flavors in use, players scattered between all three depending on server setup. Have all players communicate on built in VOIP system.

 

Thanks!

 

+1 if it is realistic with distance attenuation etc. SRS is the best I've used.

 
 

Alienware New Aurora R15 | Windows® 11 Home Premium | 64bit, 13thGen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9 13900KF(24-Core, 68MB|  NVIDIA(R) GeForce RTX(TM) 4090, 24GB GDDR6X | 1 X 2TB SSD, 1X 1TB SSD | 64GB, 2x32GB, DDR5, 4800MHz | 1350W PSU, Alienware Cryo-tech (TM) Edition CPU Liquid Cooling  power supply | G2 Rverb VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to see SRS , in particular , incorporated into DCS .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SRS sounds like the right idea. Does it work well globally regarding servers?

Win 10 pro 64 bit. Intel i7 4790 4 Ghz running at 4.6. Asus z97 pro wifi main board, 32 gig 2400 ddr3 gold ram, 50 inch 4K UHD and HDR TV for monitor. H80 cpu cooler. 8 other cooling fans in full tower server case. Soundblaster ZX sound card. EVGA 1080 TI FTW3. TM Hotas Wartog. TM T.16000M MFG Crosswinds Pedals. Trackir 5.

"Everyone should fly a Spitfire at least once" John S. Blyth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was working on a post with this, you beat me to it !!!

 

I was specifically meaning the internal aircraft comms, and with distance attenuation you mean radio signal simulator, or at least some kind of basic form of it right?

 

Not just distance, terrain, objects should also affect it

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was working on a post with this, you beat me to it !!!

 

I was specifically meaning the internal aircraft comms, and with distance attenuation you mean radio signal simulator, or at least some kind of basic form of it right?

 

Not just distance, terrain, objects should also affect it

 

In SRS feature list is shown "optional line of sight"

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Работы ведутся. В 19 году покажем.

G.Translate: Work is underway. In 19 we will show.

 

Wow! Great news but, I can't imagine the data transmits, lags and freezes in a crowd server with lots of pilots trying to speak in same frequency! :D

 

ED should definitely solve the issues on multiplayer code first.

i7-2600 @3.4GHz | Corsair 16GB @1600MHz. | MSI GTX1660Ti Gaming X | Samsung 256GB SSD (Win10HPx64)
Samsung G5 32" + Samsung 18" + 2x8"TFT Displays | Saitek X-55 Rhino & Rudder | TM MFD Cougars | Logitech G13, G230, G510, PZ55 & Farming Sim Panel | TIR5
>>MY MODS<< | Discord: Devrim#1068

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been wanting to start a thread on this for a while now. Thanks for doing so. Ever since we got the first aircraft with an actual radio, a built-in radio system should have been started. We are long past due now.

 

I can't imagine the data transmits, lags and freezes in a crowd server with lots of pilots trying to speak in same frequency!

 

Would be no issue if it runs on a parallel server (different port) similar to Falcon BMS.

Intel i9-13900K : ASUS TUF RTX 4080 : 32GB G.Skill RipjawsV 4000 : TM HOTAS Warthog : HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been wanting to start a thread on this for a while now. Thanks for doing so. Ever since we got the first aircraft with an actual radio, a built-in radio system should have been started. We are long past due now.

 

 

 

Would be no issue if it runs on a parallel server (different port) similar to Falcon BMS.

That is how SRS currently functions.

 

Seperate server but integrates will all aircraft radio and has option distance and line of sight effects (including Fresnel) :)

 

Also has autoconnect (if the mp host enables it) - all you have to do is launch it.

 

Built in would be fantastic - however for now with SRS I've tried to get it as integrated as possible

 

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


Edited by Ciribob

Scripts: Complete Transport And Logistics Deployment - CTLD / CTLD Examples - Lots of example of how to use CTLD

CSAR Script - Downed Pilot Rescue / Dedicated Server Script - Automatically launch DCS Multiplayer server at startup

Range Scoring Script - Get scores and counts hits on targets for gunnery or bombs / SimpleSlotBlock - Multiplayer dynamic Slot Blocking Script

 

Projects: DCS-SimpleRadio Standalone - DCS Radio Integration for All Aircraft - NO TeamSpeak Required! :)

DCS-SimpleRadio Troubleshooting Post / DCS-SimpleRadio Free Support Channel on Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want any SRS ----- I simply want a UHF RADIO with its frequencies like in real airplanes

That's exactly what SRS provides.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... I would like to see ED to make a own system (all the libraries etc are out there free to use) that is always server binded. Meaning all the aircrafts radios are connected in same server to UHV/VHF frequencies etc.

 

This means you need to learn to correct brevity codes and communications rules.

 

We are anyways finally getting closer and closer the dynamic campaign and whole world map, where we finally might get to situation that every ground unit that should have an radio (not all ground vehicles have radios or means to communicate outside of platoon etc) should have a means to get contact to some other as long knowing the frequencies/channels what to use.

 

As we can now already assign in mission editor the data for units, it is still requiring something that we likely see later in the dynamic campaign. And we should anyways if we want good AI.

 

And that is that every AI controlled unit should simulate radio communications or other means. Meaning all delays when spotting something, times to deliver the message, process it and then react. This would change a lot about attack pilots task as one group unit can't alarm whole group at that moment, but it would take time that someone who spots you, gets information delivered forward and then again forward etc. And this could well change the whole ground combat when a single observer can raise warning/alarm to specific channel/frequency and all units listening that could hear it.

 

Soon we would be in situation where we really can have a GCI instead just AWACS, informing the CAP about intruders and give the intercepting information. We would as well get over radio about ground units giving general information like "Fast mover, 5 km east from X, moving to west, south-west". And this could give CAP a better idea about targets that are flying under radar.

 

Having a solid radio communication system in DCS should be one of the key features, as it should be as well used to simulate the commands and troops movements etc. So all AI should be using is radio to create the communication link between units and then transmit the commands/reports etc. And if group A and B has connection known, but A and C doesn't know each other but B and C knows each other, then the A would need to first contact B to get to know how to contact C. If the contact can't be made directly (ie a mountains between) then A and C can communicate through B repeating all. And that can take lots of time at longer distances.

 

It would be nice to be able communicate with a own flight via integrated radio system and then listen a ground units communications, like when they advance, stop, spot something, identify targets, prepare to engage, request support etc.

Finally we could get a dynamic AI logic that works that you don't need an mission designer to set all parameters for 9-line etc, but you could ask from the ground troops directly do they need assistance and if they do, they give you the information as accurately they can.

 

But all this kind things as well requires lots of changes to units handling (moving away from groups, to actual military structure of squads, platoons, companies etc) as well the performance to have lots of them. like we need at least squad size infantry units that move from building to building, get engagements that can last even a hour etc. So we can platoons advance stopped by enemies and then reason to have CAS flying to get the stalemate ended.

 

Being able just jump in the aircraft with a friend and setting separate frequencies/channels in aircraft and lots of things can be made easier that way.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

Built in VOIP is maybe a waste of programmers hours.

The strongest negativum: DCS is "sometimes" crash during a multiplayer session. And that case comm is broken.

Sometimes with host crash. With TS we have the opportunity to figure out of the cause of the crash.

We report for teammates disconnections during connetcions, so that client can be shut down with force and can retry.

The team most time must be connected before host start and slot allocation: At rendezvous, briefing...

Remember the option of passwording a server, we need a way to sharing the password.

Voice activated clients may will eat bandwith, not just disturbing everyone.

 

The using of voice comm during MP is solved for me. If I want and I can talk in that language.

DCS community is dispersed by native languages also.

 

Intercom is working on Cribob's tool? AFAIK SRS (DCS Complex Radio) not eliminate a need of another VOIP tool.

Two push to talk button is enough.

 

DCS is a sandbox simulator, with so many possibilities. Every new feature bring new bugs to it. And I see no hope with this ED coding team size to fixing just reproduceable bugs.

GTX 1070 8GB, 16GB DDR3, W8.1 on SSD, DCS on another SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal thing would be SRS functionnality to be implemented in the core DCS game, without needing to install and open any extra software.

 

 

As others pointed out, a custom inhouse VOIP it self would take resources, it's not that trivial, while yes packaging and creating some kind of hybrid that goes into DCS as a thirdy party plugin (like Bink Video, etc) would be a pretty good idea.

 

But that's not what my idea was about actually. So I'll go ahead and explain it right now then.

 

My idea was more about some kind of RADIO SIGNAL SIMULATION, you can't rely just on radius/distance, the normal "range" thing, there's no such thing, there are huge gray areas where the audio quality could be degraded but still enough to be able to hear most of it, on the other side the ranges would be realistic and interference,eavesdropping, singal popping in or out and other factors might make it more hader to use than it is now, more realistic, there has to be some physics logic involved in making this, and the map terrain it self, the mountans, they have to count as obstacles as well, ofcourse attenuation simulation is the big part of this then, not that much of the signal it self, because some part of the signal would get through these obstacles, probably not through a whole mountant but thought a smaller hill it would.

 

So this, if it goes into that deep, it has to account for each aircraft antenna type, 3D positional data, the antenna moves with the aircraft as it's fixed so that means your signal/audio quality should vary how your aircraft is oriented in those cases where it would matter, which means if you need to contact your other squadron of allies high up in the mountains you'd have to really make sure you go fly high up and position your aircraft so that the antenna has the best chance to send that signal in that direction to penetrate, and their antenna may not be as big so if those are other aircraft or ground units it has to be taken into account that their response uses their own signal performance and they may have smaller antenna and less TX power on them, so if you need to warn someone they can still hear you and react, you just wouldn't hear the confirmation immediately.

 

There's yet another factor, as most of you already know but to remind, signal pattern changes according to frequency it self - So not only does the position matter of all the 3D obstacle stuff, antenna orientation but also the frequency setting on the radio control panel, the lower the frequency the higher the maximum range.

 

A-10C UFH frequency range: 225 to 399.759 MHz

A-10C VHF frequency range: 30 to 76 MHz

 

Yet another gameplay affecting thing, and again having something to do with the radio control panel as well, so these things aren't just "turn on and forget about it".

 

Oh I forgot, there's another thing, the antenna also determines the quality of reception, which means some unit with smaller/weaker radio system and antenna might still not able to pick up that singal even if the signal is good enoguh for a different unit like AWACS.

 

AWACS obviously would have very high capability of receiving even the weakest signals, which would make it a lot more important unit, again affecting gameplay in many ways we were never imagining for DCS before.

 

This opens up a lot of gameplay posibilities with all of the modules if they get their part of the implementation. This has potential to improve DCS all around, it's a no brainer IMO.

 

 

On the audio quality side - IMO the way this would be implemented ... Speech recordings for DCS would have to be done in conjunction with this, all the audio files should have to be in the super-high studio quality without any burned-in singnal-diff sound effects which would represent 100% audio quality, then you would dynamically apply audio effects and filters with the DCS audio engine in real-time which would apply the intensity of these effects according to the signal quality. Different effects for different phenomena such as interference caused by weather or jamming (might sound different) and other stuff I can't think of right now.

 

Ofcourse I'm not talking about a real simulation of the signal it self going through the electronics and up in the wires and the voice decoding stuff, "simulation" as in ... simulated in a way to give realistic results/expectations and behavior, that's how other stuff is already like, so we just skip to dealing with audio ofcourse, not the signal it self.

 

The real-time dynamic effects would still work fine because audio engine is already made to run on a separate CPU core, and even if it takes +50% as much for those filters, it wouldn't peak audio core IMO. Otherwise you'd need thousands of pre-recorded variations of the same radio speech sounds, very impractical an not efficient for ED devs, how would it be determined when exactly the singal was lost or degraded over the length of the pre-recrded ATC speech for example, plus, it wouldn't even work on real-life speech in multiplayer obviously, so this is another no brainer, I'm not sure why I'm treating it as a component, it's the core of this so it shouldn't even be talked as a "part" of this, maybe only technically on paper which is only relevant to how things get split up for development purpose only.

Except only those field-specific sound effects like talking through a microphone, those could be baked-in at recording studio, to save on CPU power and audio engine expense, so in-game even if it's 100% signal/audio quality you shouldn never hear the actual recording studio source as if someone's standing in front of a super-clear 10K professional microphone, you'd still hear the maximum quality of that ATC microphone and ATC bitrate and the environmental effects (background noise layer even?) that would shape the sound, which also means there could be double versions if pilots wear mask or not, by default they all wear mask so not sure if that would change that you could take mask off, but only in low speed low altitude flight?

 

Well then again, if you have the studio source, then you'd just apply the "choked" filter to make it sound with the mask on, saving HDD/SSD installation space.

 

 

Background noise layer, holy smokes people, gives me another obvious idea. For example for ATC there could be the external environmental background effects channel applied to the ATC radio speech, like explosions or crash near the airfield and ATC tower, or a real close afterburner flyby, so you'd also hear the muffled soudns of all that on the radio while ATC is talking to you !!!! If there's like GBU-12 going off close to the ATC tower, an A-10C trying to land coming it for approach would hear that over the radio, it could means it would blend with the volume of the ATC controller and you might have missed that and have to repeat, yet another thing directly affecting gameplay and doing it through so it agian has something to do with the comms, just WOW. Even if you have 100% signal, there's still room for something that may interrupt that message, exactly!!! Just imagine the possibilities and the way it would affect the radio comms, someone could crash or divert to another airfield just because he couldn't make out the comms!!!

 

 

This is like exactly something that be great with dynamic campaign as they would encompass larger areas probably I presume, when you'd have participation of various types of units, it's just goes hand-in-hand, along with the better ATC it self and AI-ATC interaction, you shouldn't be able to contact any random ATC in the whole 500 km map or so, or get to hear messages way out of realistic radio range. This radio stuff is actually a big deal around ATC improvements that you have all been wishing for.

 

And I also would like to see the airfield infrastructure to actually be part of the airfield components like resources, which means it could get damaged, destroyed, etc, like ground radar, instruments, etc, that would also affect ATC capabilities, but not sure on that, that's more of a bigger change.

 

 

It's a whole bigger deal than just VOIP slapped on, but it's not that hard IMO. This can be achieved easier tha it seems, as the signal pattern simulation does't need to be that sophisticated to get the first implementation out in order to pave the way. It doesn't nearly have to be as sophisticated as the various aircraft radars.

 

Some info on antennas/radio systems:

 

https://srv0files.eagle.ru/dcs/manuals/DCS-A-10C_Flight_Manual_EN.pdf

https://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/latest-antennas-and-sensors-of-modern.html

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product%20Brochures/Communcation%20and%20Networks/Communication%20Radios/ARC-210%20Integrated%20Comm%20Systems%20white%20paper.aspx

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206851

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=142164

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=116365&d=1429021989

 


Edited by Worrazen

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently SRS uses Friis, line of sight and terrain relief with fresnel effect.

 

So frequency and distance all affect transmission power. I don't take into account antenna placement or different radios transmission powers - I assume all are 10W as far as I remember.

 

If ED could add more to the radio simulation that would be great - my worry is diminishing returns. How much is good enough?

 

Through the access to the 3D model they could do some really cool things!

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Scripts: Complete Transport And Logistics Deployment - CTLD / CTLD Examples - Lots of example of how to use CTLD

CSAR Script - Downed Pilot Rescue / Dedicated Server Script - Automatically launch DCS Multiplayer server at startup

Range Scoring Script - Get scores and counts hits on targets for gunnery or bombs / SimpleSlotBlock - Multiplayer dynamic Slot Blocking Script

 

Projects: DCS-SimpleRadio Standalone - DCS Radio Integration for All Aircraft - NO TeamSpeak Required! :)

DCS-SimpleRadio Troubleshooting Post / DCS-SimpleRadio Free Support Channel on Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Worrazen: While all great ideas and I know it's whishlist it all seems way over the line for the radio v1.0. It's like DRS - digital radio simulator - a sim in a sim. Don't get me wrong, I want it all, as real as possible but it's the far future we're talking about. Let's not freak out the devs with too much at a time for a start.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a solution in search of a problem. TS is used by 99% of servers, unless they're cheap in which case they use Discord. Virtually all servers for DCS specifically seem to use SRS, which provides virtually all the features people are wanting here. All of these take literally minutes to set up, and are time tested.

 

If somebody is too lazy or anal retentive to use the TRIED AND PROVEN methods in use for decades, then it's a personal problem. Integrated VOIP will NOT magically make all these other utilities go away, source EVERY GAME that has VOIP, the overwhelming majority of population still use 3rd party software.

 

Integrated VOIP would be an example of almost completely wasted resources that would be disused by the bulk of the already tiny multiplayer community. I would certainly not endorse anything more than 'offical support' for SRS.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Integrated VOIP would be an example of almost completely wasted resources that would be disused by the bulk of the already tiny multiplayer community. I would certainly not endorse anything more than 'offical support' for SRS.

 

While everyone here I am sure appreciates the work already dedicated to a third-party communication system like SRS, from a product standpoint, it is in the best interest of ED to also produce their own system of realistic radio transmission. Digital Combat Simulator, AKA The Battle Simulator is also a platform used by the US military. If ED integrates their own radio communication system it will more accessibly open militaries to using DCS for coordinated training scenario's via local multiplayer.


Edited by Tailhook

Intel i9-13900K : ASUS TUF RTX 4080 : 32GB G.Skill RipjawsV 4000 : TM HOTAS Warthog : HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government aspect has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. They're doing their own thing that has zip to do with what we do or don't have in DCS, and we know next to nothing about that side of things. Speculation about it is pointless.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the radio simulation (attenuation) can still be done with the hybrid approach, packaged 3rd party VOIP solution (probably some kind of custom version provided, no need for ED to do it, just work with them to provide it)

 

I didn't mean it as a replacement, I don't see why you couldn't use a 3rd party VOIP alongside this, it would only need a bit more work than the SP side of things, the interference/lowsignal/noise/background effect filters would get applied on the machine that received the audio, and that audio would be raw audio from your microphone plus additional radio-signal information, and you only need to send your own radio-signal info, no need to send what the receiver already knows.

 

 

The extra radio signal quality info would simply be added to the usual Multiplayer networking transmissions between clients/server which is primarily the positional info of all the units/objects.

 

So you get many of the stuff for free already, antenna(unit) position (altitude, attitude) and antenna power is not an adjustable thing usually it's part of the unit, so that's free, game already knows what unit everyone has, radio frequency and channels are probably already needed for the basic radio stuff right? So that's probably free too.

 

Your client would send it to the server/other clients in the same raw style that your game loads the pre-recorded radio speech sounds from disk, only the receiving machine would apply the audio filters when that message get's played.

 

It's probably possible to have the 3rd party apply various audio filters to simuate low signal, but this would take research to figure out which method is better, on one side the special audio expertise of VOIP could help they have audio people there, on the other hand for the long-term maybe

 

But if you do it in VOIP, ... what about singleplayer then, are you going to load from disk, send to server, and get it back from web again? And also, VOIP is more about networking than audio engineering on the other hand.

 

With the dedicated server, the NPC/AI unit side of the signal would be handled by the server. Ofcourse there be no audio playback or any application of filters on the AI side, saving resources, but internally there should still be some kind of basic system, and then the AI would respond if didn't got the message (and usually getting the message is confirmed as per standard anyway), you wouldn't need to send audio to the sever unless if the AI had real audio recognition, just the code of the command sent to the AI, but that would be already sent for the sole purpose of commanding AIs, so this one is free too (no extra bandwidth), and the server would know how long the message is, since it's a pre-recorded one, time when it was sent, received, the only thing you'd have to send to the dedicated server is your end of the radio-signal specific info for the length of that message you send as if it was actually spoken by you into the microphone, and then the dedicated server (just like your PC would in SP) combine your signal info with the receiver antenna characteristics of for example Command Post unit on the ground and it wouldn't need to be some kind of complicated system of recognizing garbled audio ofcourse, it can be very simple and easily doable.

 

 

It would go like this for example, easy way:

 

Example Command: Attack targets of opportunity ---- if spoken aloud this message would be transmitted for let's say 2 seconds, that's the amount of time the client has to send the additonal radio-signal info to the server (as mentioned before, it may not be much at all as lots of things already covered)

 

 

---- == clean signal (exaggerated for this example)

&&& / 123456789 == signal loss (contains the % of the signal loss)

 

in reality there's always going to be some % of attenuation even in perfect conditions ofcourse

 

MESSAGE TIME: word1-word2-w3-wwoorrdd4

SIGNAL TIME...: ----&&&&&&&&-------&&&&& (

AFFECTED.......: nnny-yyyyy--yn-nnnnyyyyy

 

SIGNAL TIME PROPER: 00001122244459A452000044445550000666600011122232100000 something like that

0 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 would result in pass and 7 8 9 A would result in nopass, for example. ( i just added A for 10 as in "100% no signal" or "100% jammed" to make it clear in this example)

 

And that's what would be feeded into the audio engine filter (player client only) would apply the effects to make audio sound crappier, the less signal, the higher strength/louder the garbled audio effect would be, that's pretty much it

 

 

THE LOGIC:

 

Therefore: Word1 was affected 1/4 or 25% of the time, and in that 25% the signal qualit was let's say for example 50% (100% is no signal or completely jammed)

Therefore2: Word1 passes the check .... word 2 doesn't, word 3 does, word4 doesn't because the signal quality was different at this time, yes, it's important that this changes as time goes, but these variances just fall into true or false, they don't actually have to be calculated in that high finesse.

 

Word1 passes == true

Word2 passes == false

Word3 passes == true

Word4 passes == false

 

Then when you have these 4 answers, you can do additonal logic on the WORD IMPORTANCE (WEIGHT), Word4 is probably more important than Word3

 

So consider this example: Word1=true, Word2=true, Word3=false, Word4=true -----> Attack targets opportunity ----> This example as a whole should PASS even if one of the words was fully jammed/unhearable.

 

So in the end, all of those simply turn into a few bools, true or false, and that will work fine for the purpose and barely taking any CPU power.

 

It's just the time it would take to break all of the messages down and figuring out the most common sense criteria for what would pass and what woudn't, it's up to the developers to determine how low the signal quality can get (SNR) for it to be still considered readable.

 

So it's the WORD WEIGHT FACTOR is what would add to the complexity but it's not that big of a deal, in the basic implementation I still think word weight should be part of it. You don't want the message to be failed just because the AI didn't hear "of" or "and".

 

Yes you can just retransmit if it fails, the AI would respond with failure (we're assuming the AI's know the expected command messages), but what in case of being shot down or something, or radio failing, or the AI's radio failing or the AI's antenna power TX not powerful enoguh to reach so you woudln't heard that he didn't got the message, or if the AI's transmission got jammed, so you'd hope it got proper chances it got accepted on the first try.


Edited by Worrazen
clarified some statements, dedicated server case

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...