Jump to content

3rd party access to DCS VOIP?


rurounijones

Recommended Posts

We rely on LotATC for our weekly missions, therefore we've been using SRS since the start due to compatibility.

Our public servers do use the new VOIP system and we've removed DCS-SRS from them due to this, but we won't be able to fully transition to this new system until DCS-VOIP gets integrated in LotATC or an app or similar is provided to be used jointly with LotATC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 8:19 AM, Worrazen said:

I've got mixed feelings about the modding arguments in this case. I'm not too sure how valid this case is.

If I understand this subject correctly (i've been busy with non-DCS for a while so I'm not the best guy for this right now) Not allowing access might actually be a safety feature to protect simulation realism and prevent fragmentation in the community rather than shunning of modders.

Way back when I was talking about this feature on wishlist, "DCS Voice Chat" was always going to be an in-game in-house official component in my mind, it's what the actual radio simulation needs, it just never existed before, infact it wouldn't even need to have such a specific name nor be regarded as a separate feature. It's just one of the components that should have always existed but in our simulation reality it takes time and resources to build it, it should operate wholesome with every unit in the game, not something extra. Remember all the discussions of what is "Core DCS thing", this is suppose to be one of them.

I think some people are approaching radio communication from the wrong angle because of it's nature and similarity to computer internet chat, while this is many times necessary in practice for DCS users, particularly multiplayer, as we indeed do have some limitations (physical life, logistics, resources) that we cannot bypass when trying to experience the simulation, but that's not really a thing as far as simulation of the airplanes and it's radios is concerned, and extra features modding might do on top of to this system might go outside of the radio simulation and might over-convenience some aspects of chat and promote less realistic experience overall. The kind of applications that may be developed by the use of DCS Voice might be cool but if those tools are then used as a standard ... did someone weight if they might be unrealistic and giving an advantage over reality. I am however speaking generally here, I do not currently know nor I have spent speculating what would be the features and capabilities the modders would want to add on top of DCS Voice, so that's actually a good question for the OP here, what actually are you trying to do that you can't do without API access?

The primary thing from the realism point of view is the simulation of the radios, not our computer internet chat, just like radars, it involves electro-magnetic radiaion that has a lot of depth to it, many factors affect the radio signal and this is reflected in the way we hear the audio signal, noise, volume, static, clicks, interference (environmental), jamming, knife-edge effect, antenna orientation, antenna radiation pattern, need to be simulated the same wholesome way as other components the focus was on all these years, it can't be just a bolt-on, because it's not about internet chat, that's just our convenience.

To me, modding solutions to these well-known to-be-developer core components were always seen as temporary, stopgaps.

The DCS Liberation mod is suppose to be the same thing. I hope it's just meant to be a fun project that while is not technically necessary, attracts the community, gives the upcoming DCS feature more interest and might even assist passively in the development because of the participant's exchange of thoughts and visions about the system, so it is healthy to have such projects, but not that these projects would then refuse to retire, but I do know how it's like to be emotionally attached to a creation, that's why it's important to realize sooner rather than later of the limited nature of such stopgap projects, so that it would be easier to digest the retirement later on. The effort done in the modding project and the results at retirement should be redirected to the main course and then those caretakers would be available to start another project in an area where a stopgap solution is lacking.

Eventually, for a greater (*proper*) realistic "hardcore" dynamic-campaign experience, the DCS in-game communication simulation system should absolutely keep going pretty much everywhere for the duration of the battle session, even if the session is paused and resumed (not a thing, wishlist) or you come back to the session on a MP server later. Some aspects are debatable, but generally whatever state you are in, considering if is simulated, let's for example say that in case everything is, aircraft or not, every unit you're using, you shouldn't be able to switch to computer voice chat and talk with everyone unimpeded, using an unrealistic service to gain information and giving them information that would affect overall gameplay.

Currently because a lot isn't yet simulated, you have no choice but to swtich to Room Mode as soon as you eject, though unless DCS would purposely prevent that even before CSAR and pilot radios are implemented? Probably not, still, everyone using a lot of traditional internet chat which I'm not sure but think is being used unimpeded (I'm sorry I actually don't do MP a lot, yet) should start thinking about these limitations and prepare for these proper limitations, because, not necessairly intentionally, but unintentionally gave away a lot of information that affected gameplay while bypassing realistic limits, similarly to how TGP displays we were experiencing all this time were reportedly way too good quality and we shouldn't have seen all the detail we did, some people may have harder time getting used to such a substantial change and it's good to start the psychological transition early, to assure the mind the change is proper and get rid of the old habit.

Back to the eventual proper scenario, there should be a MP server admin setting to disable Room Mode, so after you eject, all you should be able to do is communicate via the radio you get from the ejection suit or seat, and/or hope that the emergency rescue radio beacon got activated and wait for CSAR. Whether direct or relay, respecting the physical limitations. Additionally, the good simulation of what a crashed pilot is usually suppose to do, like safe landing, finding a hiding spot, contacting and interacting with CSAR, survival on ground, recon of the area for extraction zones, should give focus on resourcefulness, so if you do get into a direct contact with your buddy, flying nearby, the sim forces you to talk only the most relevant stuff, in your opinion ofcourse. As a pilot on ground you are busy with other things, so DCS Voice and whenever CSAR comes and actual virtual debreifs at a base location in-game (only for in-session), it will reshape the way comms are done in DCS in many ways. Coincidentially for those FPS fans, this is where DCS would get pretty close to first-person shooter style gameplay, without taking infantry warfare into the equation, because it can be quite a part of the CSAR component.

----------

Not having Room Mode (or any other external unimpeded comms) should not mean you wouldn't be able to communicate with your buddies/allies without direct radio contact, DCS should eventually, as per the radio simulation across all units, support AI relaying functions. In this case I'm talking about an actual signal relay where each ends of the comm link can hear each other as if it were a directly comm link, if the radios in the relaying units have such a "repeater" function (tho I only know the old A-10C Radio has it, but if that has it, any AWACS surely has it too), it's the similar kind of function as your Wifi Repeater for your home internet (tho rather go Ethernet wired only, it's healthier and more reliable :p)

Example1: Ejected Pilot(Human) -> closest CSAR unit (AI/Human) -> Squad Member in Aircraft (Human)

Example2: Ejected Pilot(Human) -> CSAR Unit (AI/Human)-> ... -> AWACS or ATC (AI) -> Squad Member in Aircraft (Human)

The other mode of relaying is just forwarding the kind of predefined radio commands and request we're already doing right now, it's just that you can't relay them AFAIK, this would be used when the target is an AI ... at least until DCS implements AI unit voice recognition which is a whole other discussion of feasibility and depth of recognition I won't go into right here. In this case

These two modes are in on top of the standard dynamic AI-to-AI communication that the DCS dynamic-campagin engine AI system should use to manage all the units across the battlefield, issue orders, give headings, update locations, so you don't really have to, as an Ejected Pilot, contact any CSAR for help, the AI that saw you crashing, the locator beacong going off, the AI that can't get your reply and signal rom datalink would already contact the higher command and CSAR will beging searching for you and they'll talk and exchange info amonghs themselfs automatically. Just for full realism, this intra-AI communication should also use the same comm link and respect physical limitations as humans have to, not sure if this will be so when dynamic campaign launches initially, depends whether the big radio comm overhaul happens before or not.

It gets hard when you try to have direct relay beween two humans but one of the AI's in the middle does not have that capability, this would require AI to analyze speech, again probably not happening anytime soon, or no? You'd just get reply back that direct relay isn't possible and should use the pre-defined message forwarding instead, the target unit wuld then hear audio of an AI tellhim

Now I say pre-defined because I'm on the reserved side of what's possible, it might be possible to create a dynamic system where you could input different parameters not just the pre-defined options we have today, "Tell my target to go to heading: (insert or speak custom numbers )", perhaps a simple set of AI voice recognition could be implemented to recognize numbers. Additionally you could have the signal be affected by interference factors and have that voice recognition hear that. I'm not really sure of the feasibility of full blown voice recognition for AI aircraft.

However, DCS eventually needs a system to prevent relaying absue particularly if Room Mode is disabled. Room Mode or not, in real life the military point of view "waste of resources" or "unnecessary" would be the valid reasons, because providing relays takes resources, attention, effort, unavailability to do other tasks, etc so it can affect gamplay a lot more than it seems.

Relaying Priorities:

This would be a system that many AI components would be aware of, the high-command AI engine (dynamic-campaign) and the units themselfs.

The standard factors are ofcourse the individual unit's own availabilities. If the unit is in combat it probably won't be able to provide steady relay at all. If the unit is just cruising then it can easily provide relay and even change course to provide better relay for a longer period of time.

As a player in a dynamic-campaign scenario you shouldn't be able to get relays as you please, the whole AI comm and relay system should use a priority system. The bigger (coalition) scale should be taken into account as well, to prevent relaying "abuse", because the Master AI, which would behave to how a real military would, won't just let you use up unit availability and resources for your potentially unnecessary, prolonged or completely off-topic relay links, even if the individual unit might be able to keep relay link ongoing, the Master AI might step in and determine that the relaying unit needs to do something else, giving it a different task elsewhere in the battlefiled where urgent support may be necessary.

Naturally, if you're an ejected pilot, CSAR-related comms and relay requests would be high up on the priority list, treated with high or maximum priority, but there's a catch, only up to a point that is necessary for the situation.

And this can get quite complicated, it would take some effort implement the priority system.

Factors such as whether or not you are in the same squadron, reigment, wing, etc would matter, and affect the priority of your relay request.

Location or zone that you're trying to contact should matter, is the target of your relay request even within the vicinity of your crash, is it even inside your mission zone, etc.

An ejected pilot that should be thinking about CSAR-related duties should not easily get direct-relay with some random ally unit in a totally different location, outside of the ejected pilot's mission zone, performing a completely different task, that was totally unrelated. For that ejected pilot to know their location in the miitary structure, name, rank, ID numbers, it's highly likely it would be an attempt to chat with a off-militay buddy about off-topic things. Some familiarity of military operations that I have, I do not believe a real military would be eager to fly, spend fuel, open relay channel, if they were all hearing the relayed messages (I think they do?), to provide long-distance phone network for 2 to talk about the sunday's airshow or whatever which is not really necessary for the current situation, so DCS needs to do something to simulate this without spending a big deal on processing requirements. This is the scenario human players in DCS might try to poke into, when an ejected pilot would wait for CSAR and feel bored, would want to contact some other truck driver 400 kilometers away. While off-topic chat doesn't hurt (cheat) gameplay, it would still take resources away if the relaying units need to be in position and unavailable for some duties in order to provide the good relay signal, so this anti-abuse priority feature should be an integral part of the radio overhaul in DCS when support for full relaying comes to AIs. Ofcourse this is all from the DCS Voice point of view, we can't control whether those two use an external chat to communicate, this is for the torunament organizers to figure out a way to enforce and prevent potentially cheaty comms.

For a low priority relay to work, all units which are relaying would need to be in state that allows them to even accept low priorities, cruising and not doing anytihng in particular, additionally, they would only provide that low priority relay

It's not the player/source who sets the priority, might as well set it, but the relaying units would change it  when forwarding it to the next relaying unit, or the Master AI should be able to override it.

So you could for example select max priority:

Ejected Pilot (P:10/10) -> CSAR-1 (P10:10) -> CSAR-2 (P10/10) -> AWACS-1 (P: 4/10) -> Airbase (P:2/10) -> AWACS-2 (P:2/10) -> Ground Command Post (P:2/10) -> FuelTruck-Driver-007 (Destination)

The CSAR units will try to do everything in their power to do so ASAP, unless any other emergency factor prevents them to respond to priority 10 relay requests (max), such as being under fire or low-fuel. The reason why CSAR units in this case wouldn't downgrade the priority themselfs is because they (as also in real-life probably wouldn't) don't know where exactly your destination is, they might, but in this example they don't, unless they would ask the higher command to tell them, but I think this isn't usual military operation, I believe in real-life they would just let the higher-command deal with that themselfs, so they relay the same priority they got from source. The AWACS is the first that downgrades the priority in this example, because it knows or it figured out (attempt to contact, no reply timeout, a thing for DCS simulation depth in comm delays) that target unit is not in it's area of reach, then the Airbase gets the request with priority 4 and if it can it does handle it as a priority 4 request, again the factors if the AirBase is in a state that is able to process priority 4 requests (so not preoccupied with base defenses, airport activity, etc), but the AirBase, which has more info on units on the whole battlefiled (as a component of the master dynamic-campaign AI) sees that the target/destinatinon is even further out, requiring another AWACS relay, so it further downgrades the priority before sending it to the next relying unit. The second AWACS receives priority 2, not 4, AirBase downgraded it, so the second AWACS would respond only if it's available to respond to priority 2 requests, so that AWACS has to be relatively free of occupation, not refueling, certainly not under fire, probably circling without much other relaying radio traffic, the AWACS-2 might do it's own priority recalculation whether to downgrade or forward the request with priority as it is, same for the Ground Command Post, each unit would have it's own AI component recalculating whether to change the priority it sends to the next. Only after this journey would it be down to the FuelTruckDriver-007 to see if it can respond.

That is, if real militaries would even allow for such a relays in the first place, direct ones, but then again we're at that question of whether we simulate full technical realism and allow all posibilities even if the military structures in real life have artifical limits in some ways. It might just involve 1 to 2 hops of direct relaying, then the higher command would take it and repeat it with their own mouths to the destination through more relays which would use their own mouth to repeat their relative source (not the original source audio), off-topic would most likely not have good chances of going through and would be denied in real-life, the source wouldn't even attempt it IMO, otherwise each stage would probably filter more out on their own, but we do not have the ability in DCS to have a super AI that scans all talk and thinks what's not necessary to spend relay resources on. But this is the kind of system I came up with right now to simulate the artificial relaying limitations a real military might have while keeping it technically possible.

Alternatively if DCS ever supports human players in all* roles of the chain, which I already have thoughts written down on notes and probably spoke about it in wishlist threads, simulation of the command structure by AI in that case would already have to be a major part of dynamic-campaign, how diverse the AI structure is planned I do not know. Eventually it could be human controlled, having an advanced situational view, and that's why flyable wide-body jets aren't a joke, someone needs to fill AWACS/tanker/ground command and outposts too for this to function,  higher commands, AWACS roles, and the whole thing with human players.

Cases where the relaying units would upgrade your priority would be squad leaders trying to get direct contact to higher command, so the rank is also a factor, might get upgraded, or not downgraded as much.

Priority may not need to be user selectable when making an inital request, because such a thing does not exist in real life is one reason, secondly if the units can't handle high priority they'll not be able to handle lower either and if the source does select a lower priority knowing it likely won't get a contact with higher priority through, their request would just be forward with the same priority they selected, without any difference in the end result versus if they selected a higher priority, because they would get automatically downgraded anyway.

It might be simpler and well functional for the initial priority be an internal hardcoded one based on unit types and their tasks (and perhaps states) that would be predefined in and not adjustable by any player or AI in a session (unless modding), for example an ejected pilot contacting a CSAR unit or a unit in CSAR mode at the time of relay request, would have a priority of 10, automatically, without any pre-thinking by the receiving unit, the CSAR unit AI and the whole DCS AI's down the line would know the source is a pilot without it having been figured out by any of the AIs or the master AI or whatever. This is the first stage, the CSAR unit then sees priority 10 and starts behaving accordingly, and then comes the rest I talked about.

That would look like:

EjectedPilot1 request to EjectedPilot2 (different aircraft type, different mission zone, different rank, different task, different squadron, 800 km) == priority 1 -> CSAR-1 (P:1/10) -> CSAR-2 ...etc

I felt enthusiastic today so I dug deep into this one, now I feel this could be way simpler, while still a similar safety net for simulating difficulty and necessity of long-distance relays. You can ofcourse hardcode the priority by source and destination, distances, check the lookup table and if it's too low get an instant denial for relay even without sending any request to any AI, and the AI's dealing back and forth.
 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Wow that is a lot of text.

 

 

Sure, everyone has an "ideal vision" of how DCS should look at the finish line, but there is also reality. Reality is, even the best programmers in the world can't just will software into existence and DCS will never be 'at the finish line'. It takes a LOT of work. Like weeks and months sometimes to do things that on their own are not at all impressive.

You seem mostly concerned about people using 3rd party voice chat for "cheating" or being concerned that it doesn't simulate real life conditions (that is way too much text to read so I kind of had to infer the bulk of the content):

In multiplayer the server admins choose how they want their servers to run... They can mod it out the wazoo or run DCS vanilla. The player base will flock to whichever server they like the best. That is just the way it is, unless DCS drastically changes their multiplayer system (and I pray they don't, or at least leave our server based implementation alone as separate mode of multiplayer).

So if you as a player think SRS doesn't accurately simulate line of sight or power decay effects due to radio wave propagation you are free to find a server running a VoIP package that does, or make your own. I really don't see the issue here.

If ED does somehow manage to complete 5 years of development goals in 1 and by the end of next year they have the most sophisticated "radio communication simulation on top of VOIP ever seen", along with OverlordBot, CSAR integration and all other features that players enjoy and server admins require that they get with SRS, the player base will naturally gravitate towards them, as they should. I will also eat my socks if that happens.

Instead of this, they could spend the developer hours on: 

-Fixing the many many bugs that are still outstanding

-Upgrading the game engine so it can use more than 1 core (vulkan or otherwise)

-Add more calls to the scripting API so modders can make even more brilliant things that players enjoy

-Improve the base game (dynamic campaign anyone?)

-Improve the AI

-Finish supercarrier

-Work on a popular module

-Improve some of the ungodly bad training missions

-Add training missions to modules that don't have them

-Work on the "one map" thing they seem to want to do

...and so on and so forth.

 

It seems to me to be really silly to commit yourself to work on something that there is already a solution for, just so you can say it is yours now. At least while there are still so many other valuable (and pressing! - 4 year old carrier TACAN bug anyone?!) things to do.


Edited by Poulet67
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I made a new year (2022) commitment to not post any half-assed posts anymore and if it takes me a month to do a proper post then so be 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

  • 1 year later...

@Kate PerederkoThe 2023 and Beyond Newsletter has listed a number of core improvements planned to be worked on in 2023, including the built-in VOIP

Since it has been a while and things change. Could you confirm ED's current position on providing access to a multiplayer servers VOIP system for programs apart from the DCS executable? e.g. LotATC, OverlordBot, DATIS and others.


Edited by rurounijones
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

The latest newsletter  https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1770pru/dcs_newsletter_voice_chat_data_link_development/ says

> We are also working on a separate voice chat program, which will allow you to communicate with units in multiplayer servers without having to actually run the simulator.

Given the above and the fact that we never got anything close to a positive response in this thread; I am going to guess that ED will only allow Voice Chat via their official client, probably locked behind having to log in using DCS username/password, and that any hope of things like OverlordBot, DATIS, Radio music players and the like that exist for SRS will not be available for ED's system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
29 minutes ago, rurounijones said:

The latest newsletter  https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1770pru/dcs_newsletter_voice_chat_data_link_development/ says

> We are also working on a separate voice chat program, which will allow you to communicate with units in multiplayer servers without having to actually run the simulator.

Given the above and the fact that we never got anything close to a positive response in this thread; I am going to guess that ED will only allow Voice Chat via their official client, probably locked behind having to log in using DCS username/password, and that any hope of things like OverlordBot, DATIS, Radio music players and the like that exist for SRS will not be available for ED's system.

I will try and get more info, but that is only an assumption based on a small bit of text. I have not heard of any desire to cut off mods and wouldn't make a lot of sense. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Dear all, I understand the newsletter text wasn't clear but we continue to move toward mod support with our VC, and would like to offer even better support than is offered now, so deep breath, we are still looking to support those cool add-ons people are creating. Thanks.

  • Like 9

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I read that line as good news. An external client should be way lighter to run than even the server itself. I have no clue how mods like OverlordBot are integrated serverside. But a small external program that can be feed basically any audio through a virtual audio device, and can provide an audio stream to other programs through another virtual audio device? I'm sure that must be good for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever mod/external program it will be, would rather be something on-top, expanding functionality and interfacting with the internal components of DCS VC, work with it instead of completely replacing DCS VC.

Key lines from youtube Wags video comments:

Quote

Yes. SRS is a fantastic piece of work, but we also require an integrated system that is created and maintained internally that can meet our long-term objectives.

 

Quote
@MattWagner
 
I don't think so. SRS is a fantastic piece of software that offers some features that we have yet to incorporate. At this time, both offer unique features. As we continue development of Voice Chat, we hope that Voice Chat will meet all customer needs.

 

Quote
Will you be doing something with the transponder as well, or will we still need to use SRS to set codes for aircraft that dont natively have a mode 3/4 so those on LotATC can see us?
 


As mentioned at the end of the video, we plan to support such powerful user-created mods





 


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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