Jump to content

MP Server option to disable unimpeded Room Mode, Restricted Room Mode? Actual 3D-Mouth-Voice Mode?


Worrazen

Recommended Posts

The increased realism benefit of the Radio Mode and respecting in-game physical limitations on communications in general is actually only achieved if every other form of communication is disallowed completely. MP Server admins should have the ability to disable everything else that crosses these limitations as far as DCS is concerned, or the other way around, leaving the full realism mode as default unless disabled.

Everything in this discussion is and can only be as far as DCS Voice is concerned, full-proof cheat protection isn't the expectation here and not DCS's responsibility. If someone really wanted to cheat they can do it in 1000 different ways externally, but that kind of enforcement is for the server admins and tournament organizers to find a way to enforce outside of DCS or and DCS component, and that's another topic too. If I may touch upon it, one of the solutions over the web would be to require a separate non-public video and audio feed of every player's PC setup and their body in view, basically a security cam, while dedicated security moderators would monitor every player at all times. Because most people play from home they would probably not be too eager to accept these requirements, but a well organized tournament could have legal-assurances and privacy safety nets on top of such feed being only streamed to the moderators and not the public, and the security cam footage deletion after the session is over.

 

----------------------------

Additional comments:

 

DCS Voice's in-game radio simulation also encourages or even necessitates the use of dedicated in-game meeting places such as the virtual debriefing room currently in development for the Super-Carrier module, and other future in-game physical enclosures in general for use of communication between human players when radio and intercom is not available. If a pilot wasn't able to message over radio, radio relaying wasn't possible, you would have to wait to get into the virtual debriefing, planning or situation room to discuss in detail, there's actual time that passes for the human player and they would have to reference their memory when telling the story/intel just like in RL, then if someone is MIA/KIA in-game they won't be able to share anything in the virtual debriefing room or otherwise, that's a pretty big factor on gameplay. In future there's also the question if DCS would simulate IIA/WIA/SWA for delays in when you can get back into action to talk about the story or provide more intel. That's for another topic.

Communities who would keep prefering unimpeded communication can obviously keep doing so and they would have no restrictions imposed on them by any of these ideas. These are all additions for other use cases currently unsupported. The Comm Realism might produce such videos and gameplay that unimpeded-comms fans might see as boring, so this is for the other people who do not care about the constant back-and-forth chatting and might want to prefer and recreate a more serious experience just like in real-life.

Respecting in-game physical limitations on all communication would change many things in many different ways including the way youtube videos are recorded, but not necessairly.

We should still be able record different types of videos (stream, or spectate) without having to turn off Comm Realism for the players in an active game session.

First, there could be an additional mode for MP server admins to force spectators to sync both the visual and acoustics up, which results in F1 View + Comm Realism.

And you could use this spectator mode to record the whole battle in if you so wish.

Secondly a movie-type spectator mode that the MP server admins could select, where spectators are allowed to plug into almost any audio channel including have any kind of F view available, this would include a new GUI options where spectators could choose audio channels they get to hear on top of the screen they're watching. I think you currently can't do this in DCS unless there's scripting or some API interaction possible?

You could record your youtube(or otherwise) videos using this spectator mode and produce videos where the viewer can have a full or edited overview of the events as they take place, without that having an effect on gameplay or any of the players when the session was active.

After a session with Comm Realism completes, the players can as well have their external-post-session debriefing, immediately or later, and recording video of that for youtube could actually be entertaining or interesting as well, listening to the process of them figuring out the full story, producing more content for viewers. What Comm Realism "took away"* earlier now "gives it back"*. 🙂 (in comparison to unimpeded comms, but it's not a valid comparison as far as reality goes, it's like this and nothing else)

However, for realistic communication without radio or intercom, we couldn't just use the DCS Voice Radio Mode, would we? Perhaps we would need a new mode for actual local in-game mouth voices. Even though the Radio Mode would technically need to be an extension of the in-game real mouth voices, because when you speak in radio in RL you also use the mouth and you'd be heard locally as well.

Simulation of 3D voice audio it may provide a realistic 3D audio experience for virtual debriefing rooms and offer ability for ejected pilots to scream through the forrest hoping they're heard by a passing allied vehicle or infantry on a nearby mountain road, if all else comms fails, or you have to keep radio silence. However it could be a bit overkill in enclosed spaces and serve no gameplay value (?), especially if it's a CPU resource cost. Either way a simpler implementation could be done and supported earlier if necessary.

A Restricted Room Mode could be used instead, (or a better description/label), where each physical enclosure would have an associated pre-defined audio channel (room) that you can join only when your 3D person in-game is physically present within the boundries of the associated physical enclosure. You could also set to join these audio rooms automatically when walking between different in-game physical enclosures, if that's a supported feature. This would make the audio free from 3D effects and clearer, less noisy, but still simulate the physical limitations similarly to real-life.

As a bonus, perhaps there could be some adjacent audio in the bordering physical enclosure, with lower volume, this trick can cheaply emulate the previous mode I talked about, to some degree.

 

EDIT: Yes this can be moved to DCS Voice Wishlist, the new forum I didn't notice.


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

  • Worrazen changed the title to MP Server option to disable unimpeded Room Mode, Restricted Room Mode? Actual 3D-Mouth-Voice Mode?
6 hours ago, Worrazen said:

one of the solutions over the web would be to require a separate non-public video and audio feed of every player's PC setup and their body in view, basically a security cam, while dedicated security moderators would monitor every player at all times. Because most people play from home they would probably not be too eager to accept these requirements, but a well organized tournament could have legal-assurances and privacy safety nets on top of such feed being only streamed to the moderators and not the public, and the security cam footage deletion after the session is over.

Are you serious? 😆

Now actual eSports I’m sure have some specific hardware provisions but DCS is not one of those games. 

  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Are you serious? 😆

Now actual eSports I’m sure have some specific hardware provisions but DCS is not one of those games. 

I'm not a promoter of that idea, it's just the first obvious thing because physical LAN tournaments have multiple cameras around all contestants as well, so there's really no difference in that regard. A serious player would also have a dedicated sound-isolated PC room in their house, primairly because a flight setup takes more space than usual to begin with, so the background wouldn't be an issue, they wouldn't play in their bedroom.

And I don't think it actually matters at all whether DCS is considered eSports or not, someone could wake up tomorrow and decide he'll play DCS for big bucks. There is no official standard in any country that defines what makes a game esports anyway to my knowledge.


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

1 hour ago, Worrazen said:

And I don't think it actually matters at all whether DCS is considered eSports or not

Well there’s a difference between playing a game for fun and playing it as a sport for a $600,000 prize. When gaming is done at that level I’m certain there are all sorts of hardware and playing field provisions. Like there would be in a real sport. DCS is too niche for that level of competition. And a typical multiplayer game isn’t an “eSport” really. 


Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing a few simmers and their habits I couldnt think of anything worse than having to monitor feeds of them alone their little man caves.......

The biggest risk on flight sim MP tournaments is butt hurt and Im pretty sure there is no cure for that. 

  • Like 1

MSI Tomahawk X570 Mobo, Ryzen 5600X undervolted on Artic Freezer E34 Cooler, RTX3080 FE, 32GB (2x16GB Dual Ranked) GSkil 3600 CL16 Trident Neo RAM, 2X 4th Gen M2 SSDs, Corsair RM850x PSU, Lancool 215 Case. 

Gear: MFG Crosswinds, Warthog Throttle, Virpil T50CM gen 1 stick, TIR5, Cougar MFD (OOA), D-link H7/B powered USB 2.0 Hub all strapped to a butchered Wheel stand pro, Cushion to bang head on, wall to scream at.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

The biggest risk on flight sim MP tournaments is butt hurt and Im pretty sure there is no cure for that. 

There are some salves and ointments, but they're really more relief than an actual cure. But close enough.

  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tippis said:

There are some salves and ointments, but they're really more relief than an actual cure. But close enough.

....the self application of which is another good reason for avoiding feeds from man caves......

  • Like 1

MSI Tomahawk X570 Mobo, Ryzen 5600X undervolted on Artic Freezer E34 Cooler, RTX3080 FE, 32GB (2x16GB Dual Ranked) GSkil 3600 CL16 Trident Neo RAM, 2X 4th Gen M2 SSDs, Corsair RM850x PSU, Lancool 215 Case. 

Gear: MFG Crosswinds, Warthog Throttle, Virpil T50CM gen 1 stick, TIR5, Cougar MFD (OOA), D-link H7/B powered USB 2.0 Hub all strapped to a butchered Wheel stand pro, Cushion to bang head on, wall to scream at.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well there’s a difference between playing a game for fun and playing it as a sport for a $600,000 prize. When gaming is done at that level I’m certain there are all sorts of hardware and playing field provisions. Like there would be in a real sport. DCS is too niche for that level of competition. And a typical multiplayer game isn’t an “eSport” really. 

 

My thread here is about realism and simulation in DCS and DCS only. What kind of usage the majority of exising DCS players use DCS for and what kind of gameplay behavior they prefer on DCS MP servers is also of zero relevancy in this case. So I believe currently. There might be various relevancies for the development team in general, but I'm not the developer, secondly, I'm purposelly approaching this from an absolute reality point of view which has no financial, logistical, or any kind of common human limitations and has no obligation to adhere to any subjective opinion about eSports, other than the laws of physics and quantum physics. Any sim should support what is correct first, only then cater to various conveniences and shortcuts, some of which are already there fundamentally otherwise we would all a hard time simming at all, but we usually never point them out, it's obvious they're necessary, but they are still technically wrong.

If you want to challenge my reasons and arguments around Comm Realism then you can do so. I''ve only mentioned what a potential solution could be for tournament organizers to control external chat usage, that's it about that here, it is a different topic altogether that I never intended to discuss any deeper here.

It's silly really, why would you demand that I have to argue things in favor of your gameplay sytle which is "for fun" ... you can go play for fun and create your own arguments how that is suppose to be more realistic or otherwise if you want, others have their own and would hang out in their own subset of the community, there is no need for any clashing.

That said, there is however the balancing act of what is the sim intended to simulate, the absolute reality with many possibilities allowed by laws of physics, or the reality of the users of these simulated machines who use it in a particular way due to many many factors which their validity is debatable, many of the reasons are subjective and have no techical underpinning, many of the reasons pertain to human social orders, human financial systems, and a ton of other influences that can't be listed. There is no standard to my knowledge as far as DCS developer goes, which one is defacto enforced, or preferred, it's not defined, not by any simming authority out there if there is one, and I think that's a good thing, this is a wildly complex and astronomical discusion, leave things open so developer has leeway to decide what makes more sense for individual subsystem, but they also have to take their human limitations and factors into account.

For example I was the one who "campaigned" (made a few posts) how we shouldn't exclusively simulate the particular modifications and flavors of systems that one particular US military agency uses, and I admitted I might be biased because I'm not coming from RL aviation, I was on the side to have the new A-10C 2 Tank Killer come with the clean cockpit too, there were some rumors that only a worn cockpit flavor would be featured. I didn't made the argument because I'm not a RL pilot and never experienced a worn cockpit, I made the argument about what I just said, what kind of reality are we trying to simulate, and first and foremost, the aircraft that are being recreated digitally were created to such and such specifications by the original manufacturer, is it realistically correct to only simulate the user's version and not the manufacturer's version, these are the big reality questions a simulator should have to at least consider, but there's no need for anyone of us to come to some grand conclusion, both are valid because both did exist once in reality, A-10C did roll off with a clean cockpit once, right, most likely they didn't pre-worn it, but if they did, only then it would be a harder job at justifying of a clean cockpit in the digital version and if developers would be so strict and never provide it they would not be in the wrong of any realism rules, but if so many people demanded it because of the "manufacturer was wrong" ... in the end we can argue so many things to achieve what we like and have it be "correct with the universe" so this is not an easy road to go down, I have to be very careful to not try to let my subjectivity affect the argumentation and try to make a subjective preference seem like the correct reality thing.

I'm completely open to disagreement, I have to be, because I am not a real pilot, far from anything aviation in RL, but I try to bring in objectivity so that things can be compared to it, I am still human and I can't be perfect in my attempt to emulate how the reality would see and argue these things.

In the end it's the developer decision, they have all the power to disagree and I would not take it personal if they do, because I understand the situation fully. So if I didn't make it clear, I am not personally attached to some of the opinions I write, I simply play the reality character sometimes, if there's something subjective in that case then I probably made a mistake and I'm eager to be corrected.

I have infact rewritten the OP completely after it was posted, to really make sure I don't go off course, this is the usual business with my threads, sometimes it takes a full day to realize what I written didn't make sense or was mistaken, had to cut some stuff out and change the intro because restricting Room Mode shouldn't be an afterthough as I initially written, because the whole purpose of Radio Mode is to be limited by Radio Mode, no?

TLDR: The enforcement/exclusivity of Radio-Mode (+ Comm Realism) shouldn't be a question at all. According to reality it's enforcement is the whole purpose of it's existance. If it's not enforced, what's the point of it's existance.

Infact the Radio Mode only restriction option might be a thing already internally, there might have been no foresight to mention it or whatever, no big deal at all, I am aware of that possibility as well when I write my thread, things I write could have been thrown around on meeting years ago, I write my threads from passion and personal brainstorming interest if time allows, so my effort won't go all for nothing in case they reply the next day to say that this is already taken care of.

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

3 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

....the self application of which is another good reason for avoiding feeds from man caves......

Now there's an idea for something that should be controllable server-side.

Does anyone have a hookup with Virpil or Monstertech or some other company that does chain mods? 😄 

  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Worrazen said:

TLDR

Don’t worry. I won’t. You’re just rambling nonsensically off topic about the A-10 cockpit. Plus what you’re proposing or concerned about could just be circumvented by using an outside VOIP app. So stop worrying. 
 

ED brought us a great game feature by adding built-in voice comms. You don’t need to have a meltdown over it. 


Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Don’t worry. I won’t. You’re just rambling nonsensically off topic about the A-10 cockpit. Plus what you’re proposing or concerned about could just be circumvented by using an outside VOIP app. So stop worrying. 
 

ED brought us a great game feature by adding built-in voice comms. You don’t need to have a meltdown over it. 

 

The discussion and argumentation around the eternal balancing act of what is proper simulation was the point, not the A-10C|| cockpit, obviously used as an example, so I'm not sure it bares much weight on the offtopic side in my mind, because first and foremost this thread is about entertaining the voice of realism and different approaches to that, stating what is the obvious position of reality or arguing and weighting if there's multiple competing variations that couldn't be immediately decided upon and need a broader group of professional input. Certainly the preference of the customers also has to be taken into account by the developer even tho the customer may be wrong with the philosopy and reality. Weighting which shortcuts and conveniences are fine, which are too far and affect the simulation accuracy too much, is a complicated effort, so if I knew the discussion would expand that much I would have mentioned this in the beginning. It's just that these deep philosophical discussions a realism-striving sim should have do not happen within the community often, so it's difficult to jump into it and wrap your head around it I would agree.

I was always on the side to take the sim more seriously, and try to enjoy that kind of gameplay, there's enough of fun entertainment software out there, why can't some of them be more serious, with a community where we do ask and weight such bigger questions and give things a process of pros and cons rather than just copying from another product. A more correct and professional sim leads to more repectable product in the eyes of RL aviation commuinity, any kind of drama over ATC radio is frowned upon and there's quite a low tolerance bar. Professionalism even in a home entertainment product is a noble cause in the market full of non-serious software. At least that's my educated opinion.

Secondly, yes you can all bastardise DCS right now by some 3rd-party utility, I know that, I said it in the beginning there's no control over external comms, but the bigger factor is that it's something that's outside DCS, it is immediately no longer DCS developer's responsibility, so you simply suppose to ignore it like it doesn't exist because it does not exist in the scope of DCS. Finishing the point, because the potential is there, yes the recent Fight of Honor commentaries mentioned how you can't use DCS to prepare for RL military career, DCS isn't good enough in RL pilot's mind to be a serious training software for flight school, you can go ahead and disagree with that, that's fine if they have that opinion now, but that doesn't mean the we step down and surrender, we would still want to continue the passion and vision and keep striving for realism accuracy.

I would feel ashamed to spam the DCS developer to bring me some fast convenience features that spoil my subjective, or what's the word, sort of irresponsible enjyoment, while having little regard and consideration of whether that affects simulation realism and what other deeper consequences across the gameplay it could have, what habits could it promote in the users and all sort of things; the kind of dirty careless enjoyment, similarly to that kind of enjoyment that delinquent teenagers would get when hurting a cat or squirell, I'm not accusing anyone here, just saying what I'm looking out for, striving on my side to not fall into that position my self and talking about it to warn the community, the society can be dark and it is noble to defend DCS against these influences from other software products that are clearly invading into the sim community just as we expected.

There is a lot of negativity associated with real-time voice communication in various entertainment software products, that ofcourse doesn't mean the technology it self is to blame, but it does by it's nature amplify the bad habits because knowing that your words are heard by the opposing team enhances the desire to use speech as a psychological way to demoralize and frighten them and to self-empower, it's all about that and is a biological life form trait that is present universally across the board. We could argue if that's what reality and nature designed us to have then it's okay to scream wildly over the microphone every 5 seconds just like you would in the jungle or outside during a physical fight with a wild animal. This can get deeper still but I wouldn't want to go that deep in this case right now.

You even realize that Destiny 2, a PC shooter game  (turned more to MMO) that I played for the past 2 years as an exception to my mostly serious hobbies, had no global chat feature during gameplay, you could not chat or send voice to anyone on the opposing team (didn't play for a year so I'm not sure if it's still true). So there you go, if anyone thinks I'm making this stuff up. The unrestrained and unharrasment is a big deal out there, enough that multi-million dollar companies have to debate around, research, and come up with a potential solutions.

Subjectively (could argue) I find some aspects of these voice-enabled gaming scenes as unprofessional (and probably other terms but I wish to not randomly define something because I'm not too sure), if not it can simply be acoustically annoying, stress and health and conditions can have a great effect on the ear's tolerance to various frequencies. Research that if you don't believe me, similarly if you're in a dark room for 3 days and you didn't sleep well, you get out on the sun one day and your eyes get over-sensitive.

There's other aspects that may be biasing me like I really don't like to wear headphones because it would make my ears sore, maybe I didn't try good enough headphones, but generally I was never a fan of headphones at all, and never felt the need to be a gorilla in a pack that wants all the attention in the world, sorry to say it like that, certainly that's my personal view which has nothing to do with the proffesional argument I'm using here, and I'm  strictly not trying to use my subjective arguments to persuade anyone, as far as the realism discussion goes, even tho, as we know, just like in practice the DCS developer would have to take customer subjectivity into account, on your, or the popular end, but they would also take it into account on my end, even if that is less popular, and then decide whether it's practical for them to implement and whether it goes against realism rules, which are in it self undefined and that's why this discussion exists, to debate these things because there's no authority out there that defines what a simulator should respect and what shortcuts are fine, which things should be an option and which things should not be an optiona at all. This is precisely why I'm also struggling to write these posts because it's so complicated for me as well and I unfortunately don't have the time to devote only to DCS currently. I indeed shouldn't be writing these posts right now, in the year-end stretch.

If the viewer of these posts is not in good mood, it will find it indeed very hard to read though, but in that case it's unfair to blame me. The topic it self is heavy and not something people who want to have fun would want their brains to deal with, I understand.

----------------------

----------------------

 

There's yet another big fact, DCS Voice is a package of 2* different things, that happen to share a lot of the underlying technology, such that you treat it as one overall thing with different modes. I just realized the elephant in the living room I should have in the first post, because this is a common phenomena where the most obvious things can be hiding in the blind-spot.

It is a massive difference in gameplay when switching between modes and it therefore it's safe to consider it a completely different thing in practice, and as expected some people will not like or take long to get used to comm realism, but it's no big deal, it's expected that it's a process that may take time, or never for some peopl. The unimpeded comms habit is very strong, and because no other unrelated entertainment software, that has heavy use of real-time voice communication, focuses on realism. Ofcourse that last argument wouldn't hold true for non-gamers who never played or used voice-chat in any game prior and would only start out with DCS while respecting comm realism, but that's a minority, so that's why most of the people need to check their subjective bias before debating the realism discussion, are you sure you're not biased by years of exposure to non-simulators and the unprofessional communities of various other entertainment software?

Also this thread isn't something I jumped on today, I was the one talking about comms and in-game radio simulation prior to it's announcement, in the wishlist posts, and many other aspects of communications. And it was always about in-game radio simulation first and foremost, that's what advances the simulation, it was never about to have "Skype inside DCS" or something, there's nothing there really other than the user not having to click Skype.exe, what's the worthiness and return-on-investment of integrating voice comms without having the radio's work with it, if it wouldn't be much different from existing external voice comm solutions? Only the convenience factor remains, so that you don't have to launch a 3rd-party application. I think that if DCS Voice was hanging on that one reason it wouldn't have been developed under normal cirumstances, depending on how busy ED is, unless the communities spammed them about it without any regard to comm realism (I forgot that far back), which would be a good example of what I mentioned earlier, in practice due to artificial human limitations and requirements the DCS developer has to consider the customer's wishes even if the customer is incorrect or has poor reasons and weak arguments behind an opinion, if the opinion is popular enough, etc. while resisting this as much as possible.

Game Balance was a perfect example a while back, some "professionals" thought that DCS has to balance RedFor and BlueFor, the CEO and Founder of ED had to come out and politely disagree and deny the request, that's how ridicolous that was. I really don't want to go down this route much right now, but I will what I've been thinking for a while, that it's sort of fishy how much drama in DCS was there in the months before and around the release of a major civilian flight sim from a major operating system software company, looking back, it felt like DCS might have been the victim of an immoral targeted social engineering campaign perpetrated by the unprofessional marketing agency of the competing product. Stuff like that wouldn't be anything new.


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

On 12/20/2021 at 6:38 PM, Baaz said:

Is there a TLDR version of the TLDR?  Sorry, but you lost me after:

 

 

Radio-Mode or Comm Realism loses it's effect completely if it can be bypassed mid gameplay by anyone, this was infact a known thing all along, I've just didn't caught up about it until I read through all of the news and I suddenly wondered about it.

I would have a similar response if DCS Voice wouldn't have supported Room Mode, with the difference that I would simply skip to discussing the outside-DCS ways of trying to come up with ways to respect Comm Realism in certain matches and servers. I happened to, perhaps unnecessairly, make a lenghtier take on it which would seem like a rant, but that's just how my thought process went in that heat of the moment. I was already knee deep in the huge discussion on Radio Mode in general and the future ideas of supporting Human-AI-Human Radio Mode relaying and forwarding capabilities (passive relay or how you wanna call it) along with an addition that actually does relate to this thread, it is infact part in that post that spawned this thread, the idea of simulating AI radio relay priorities which would be a component of the overall dynamic-campaign engine AI-structure and unit availability, so that you couldn't just get your relays unless you have valid reasons for, the other AI/Human units have to keep doing their tasks and shouldn't be able to just quit their stuff and provide endless radio relays, which a human player could exploit for chatting or providing key intel in almost real-time in a way that wouldn't be so realistic in RL. Your intel would go up the chain, you may not get a direct relay and would be forwarded and subject to delays and higher command processing, bits of info slightly lost during the way (that last part is way deep to expect anytime soon) I'm not talking about human sending actual voice to AI unit, just info that AI dynamic campaign engine uses for ordering other units around, which already would anyway, except without the radio comm and signal propagation particularities not being simulated, it's all-knowing all-seeing.

So perhaps this thread was a bit rough, I was trying to point it out ASAP, even tho I later caught that it's probably figured out internally it just wasn't mentioned in the preview. I wasn't angry or anything like some are speculating.

Either the server enforces it globally or it's left up for vote by the players before each match session, the restriction/enforcement would then remain locked for the duration of the match.

Fortunately these fears are just for the worst case scenarios, the whole thing isn't that bleak, if it's a team of buddies that known each other well and play together they'll trust each other to respect Radio-Mode, even if DCS allows it or not, for the most part it would be fine in that regard.

So perhaps the shocking counter argument is, respecting Radio-Mode by trust would have to address all ways of bypassing Radio-Mode, so if someone swears to respect Radio-Mode, they'll have to avoid any option to bypass it, whether or not DCS Voice provides it, so it wouldn't be necessary for DCS Voice to enforce anything, hmmm, I kinda didn't though of this before. Interesting.

For general public MP servers, where random people join and leave, that trust thing wouldn't work as good.

I'm not good with summarizations, I was able to make this one only after I went through all of the brainstorming earlier.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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