IVC?

[vCUJOv]

I'm just hoping and praying we'll get Internal Voice Comms. I'm very exited about the A10. This is my second favorite US aircraft right after the f16. We are witnessing the beginning of new flight sim era. Can't wait for the release date.

[Protos]

Don't even need IVC ..... not that I wouldn't love to see it . PROPERLY implemented.

 

However why reinvent the wheel. TeamSpeak 3 is amazing.

 

All that is needed is an ingame connector. They have SDKs and game connectors of all sorts. Should be almost painless.

[kingneptune117]

IVC would make it more realistic. Especially for live ATC. By IVC I mean you tune into a frequency using the jet, not just some in game talking app.

[Kaiza]

Yep, IVC would be great- and much better than TS IMO. That is because, as kingneptune says, you would have to change freqs/select a stud in game, rather than using keybinds. Also, line of sight etc could be implemented.

[Protos]

All of that could be simulated with a connector.

Someone would have to be in the channel/frequency for you to have 'live' atc.

 

Perhaps you could be more clear about what you envision.

[kingneptune117]

thats exactly what I envision. Even FSX has live ATC programs, I forget what its called but you can google it. Its a major program that many people use. You get in your jet, tune into the frequency of lets say, nellis departure, and request whatever it is you want to do. The ATC controller is given a special program by the company that made the live ATC program that allows him to see all the jets on a radar. Even the transponder works.

 

here i decided to find it. its called vatsim. I used to use it in my FSX days it provided many fun times. I remember I was in an FA18 and there were like 5 guys behind me waiting to takeoff because some moron kept on making go arounds. one of the guys on my frequency was like why doesnt that hornet go shoot it down lol. anyways here a video.

 

[Protos]

So if I understand you, what you desire is basically a vatsim system for the DCS A-10. That would be a MAJOR undertaking.

 

You could get about 85% of the functionality with a connector, for less than a 1/10 of a single percent required for what I believe your asking for.

 

But hey who knows, I have zero experience with FSX online. More power to you if you know how to make it happen. I certainly would not be opposed - but I don't think current DCS is capable of doing what you want.

[deadsmell]

my two cents:

 

The in game voice features talked about here would be a very welcome feature if PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED (as stated in a previous post).

 

One thing I dont like about the third party voice options, is that someone has to have a server, clients often use whatever server they can find to use....

 

so you end up with 20 people in a game on 7 different voice servers......

 

When you take into account coordinating different flights, and all this, it just doesnt work well for any sort of real team play. Nobody ever really knows what anybody, or everybody is doing..........

 

If we had the radio features implemented it would only serve to further optimize the fidelity and provide a much more immersive mp experience.

 

Personally I dont really think we need a full on VATSIM or ATC type of implementation, just have a frequency for use for airports and what not, and other frequencies would be used for flights/task/team etc.

 

Just like how you could tune into different radio towers on dcs ka-50, same thing as that, except it has voice.........

[Protos]

I think I spot some of the confusion.

 

Here is what I propose.

 

Most large servers usually have a TeamSpeak or similiar 3rd party comms.

 

I will use TS3 for demonstration purposes. Btw what I am suggesting is hardly rocket science. Any competent coder who knows DCS could pump it out in under a half day.

 

- TS has the capability to create channels on the fly and assign them different security clearances. So if 'RED' has a certain set of Freqs then pilots flying in 'BLUE' could not enter (this would of course not apply to admins ect )

 

Example/ Blue pilot adjusts frequency ingame to xxx hz -- ts automatically creates that channel and puts pilot there. Another pilot opens that freq he is automatically put there. Got a flight of Hogs, they can all be on channel xyz ..... Fast movers their channel ...... Switch to ATC you are there ..... ect .....

 

Thats what a connector would do, but from WITHIN the game.

 

** The above description was really brief but hopefully clear enough for basic discussion. The connector is just a layer. This way only ONE voice server is needed and since all LOFC/DCS servers are on dedicated boxes it is extremely easy to have it running along side. Bandwidth is a minor concern on pretty much any dedicated box on a datacenter.

 

I too am for Ingame Voice Communications. I just want to make it easy for the Devs to implement. From a programming point of view I can't think of anything simpler and easier to implement than a game connector.

 

If someone has a better idea .... by all means share..... but please have a 'plan' instead of an "I want"

 

Cheers.

[vCUJOv]

Don't even need IVC ..... not that I wouldn't love to see it . PROPERLY implemented.

 

However why reinvent the wheel. TeamSpeak 3 is amazing.

 

All that is needed is an ingame connector. They have SDKs and game connectors of all sorts. Should be almost painless.

 

Just think about how much realism would it add to the sim. Doing the radio checks and all. I was flying open falcon with the 20th for a while and setting up the radio was a part of the experience .

[Eddie]

IVC would be a great addition to the sim. Yes, you can do something similar to IVC using LUA, but the best thing about IVC is the ability to have more than one channel in use at once to simulate having two of more radios as aircraft do. So you have each one tuned to a separate frequency with it's own PTT switch on the HOTAS, allowing you to have one radio tuned to a flight channel and another to the package/AWACS/ATC channel.

 

Also IVC would give proper support to guard, with NATO aircraft at least usually having a dedicated guard receiver built into the UHF radio, and just flicking a switch automatically tunes the UHF radio to 232.000Mhz (Guard) allowing you to shout for help and have everyone in the air hear you.

 

Not to mention the added realism of not being able to talk to wingmen until your radios are turned on during the start up check list, or in the case of failure of one or more radios due to battle damage etc, that would be superb.

 

Of course, I don't think we're going to see any form of IVC for at least another couple of modules.

[bengo]

Yes, Teamspeak, like how it is implemented in IVAO, is great.

[Kaiza]

Easy way to remember it is UHF guard is a harmonic of VHF = 243.0 (121.5 x 2)

Edited June 27, 2010 by Kaiza

[Eddie]

Easy way to remember it is UHF guard is a harmonic of VHF = 243.0 (121.5 x 2)

 

You are of course correct. I have no idea where I plucked 232.00 from. I guess that's what happens when you post before you wake up properly. :doh:

[Frederf]

Developing an entirely unique standalone IVC system from scratch sounds rather wasteful of dev time.

 

However there are several existing packages out there that might be interfaced with properly. TS3 or similar as it's commonly used is really not "fine." We're talking to each other through mountains, beyond range, without radio power, and most of us are all crammed onto one channel because moving around during a mission is fussy work. One of the bigger complaints with DCS/FC2 TS use is hearing people talking about taking off and landing interrupting combat comms.

[Protos]

By all means, inform us of the 'existing packages' that might be interfaced 'properly'

 

Always willing to learn something new.

[nemises]

The Dev's have previously mentioned that they are looking at Mumble / Murmer intergration.

 

http://mumble.sourceforge.net/

 

This is good news, mumble is a great tool from the other opertunities I've had to use it (Project Reality intergration for eg) ... fingers crossed with ED's updated radio stack this could make an appearance and REALLY throw the cat amongst the pigeons

[Protos]

interesting ..... not used mumble but will investigate.

 

Wouldn't be my first choice, but hey I will take what I can get.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Protos

[Frederf]

By all means, inform us of the 'existing packages' that might be interfaced 'properly'

 

Always willing to learn something new.

 

TS3 or Mumble. Both have had limited fan-made partial alpha-grade support for extracting info from the game to drive the software with DCS:BS.

[nemises]

...allthough I believe Mumble is open source?..whereas TS3 is licensed ... Mumble integration would allow a much greater level of customisation by ED I believe (if I understand Open Source corectly, which I may not...Moa?) as compared to a Liscensed product, though it also implies a "lesser" level of support by the developer ...

Still, I've experienced some amazing things using Mumble, say for example, true world intergrated 3d positional and attenuational sound sources ... not usefull in a Sim where all voice comms would come from headphones anyway, but indicative of the flexibility of the product.

I also thing Mumble sound is the best quality I've ever used, however that could come down to the individual settings used by the server (ie a higher bitrate vs a lower footprint).

 

However, even were it not inherently intergrated with the product by ED, it should be possible (with exports) for an external product / build of Mumble to support multiple comm sources based on Game frequencies, and exporting the VHF / UHF frequencies selected in game.

 

TS3 could also do this.

 

Agreed though, that were it integrated into the game, uptake of usage should be much higher.

[SUBS17]

Mumble sounds cool IVC is the better way to go than TS3 as it would allow for line of sight and proper freq changes. IVC rocked in Open Falcon it would be even better if each airport had its own freq based on real world freqs etc. VATSIM is cool and I think a VATSIM mod is possible it would fit right in with DCS but also the ATC commands need some additions like in Falcon requests for emergency landings and the scripting of fire trucks etc. Additional to IVC is voice recognition which could be used instead of a normal menu selection.:thumbup: BTW with IVC you would want a ground talk chanel for after you have ejected and are walking around and also a TACBE radio and battery usage modeled.

[CyBerkut]

All of that sounds pretty spiffy, but I think I'd rather just get it in 2010 in whatever form they already had planned. ;)

[Protos]

This subject seems to be difficult for many pilots to understand. That or they are not reading the thread before posting or just don't know what they are talking about. :music_whistling:

 

- Mumble / TS3 integration is relatively painless, requiring low dev resources = not really delaying the next DCS module.

 

- Mumble / TS3 is able to provide over 95% of the features the community requires. Line of sight would be the major stumbling block and that is not exactly crucial at this point, regardless of the whining for it. Line of sight would be a cpu killer at this juncture.

 

- Vatsim is a different animal altogether and integration would require tremendous resources, significantly delaying development.

 

- Mumble is open source = Good.

 

-TS3 requires licensce but has a tremendous user base and is the #1 comms in the world. Much more feature rich than mumble. Also much tighter security which is very important imho.

 

Key factor in the decision should be cpu usage vs feature set. Each will use about the same bandwidth with the same codec so that becomes a non issue.

 

*** Quite Happy to see that its not about IF ingame comms should be implemented, but how :thumbup:

 

P.S

thanks for the info about possible mumble integration nemesis. Rep.

[GGTharos]

This subject seems to be difficult for many pilots to understand. That or they are not reading the thread before posting or just don't know what they are talking about. :music_whistling:

 

- Mumble / TS3 integration is relatively painless, requiring low dev resources = not really delaying the next DCS module.

 

Not really true. It would either require a lot of time to set up a good, working solution out of the box, or, it would require a lot of setup on behalf of the players/server owners.

 

- Mumble / TS3 is able to provide over 95% of the features the community requires. Line of sight would be the major stumbling block and that is not exactly crucial at this point, regardless of the whining for it. Line of sight would be a cpu killer at this juncture.

Also not true. LOS is computed for all sorts of sensors and things already, as well as in-game radio.

 

Key factor in the decision should be cpu usage vs feature set. Each will use about the same bandwidth with the same codec so that becomes a non issue.

Key factor is what ED will choose to do, which might be neither of those. TS3 is relatively restricted, while Mumble is difficult to control but is open and extendable so it can do 'whatever you want it to'.

[Protos]

Incorrect. We will have to agree to disagree..... but a connector wouldn't take much time at all to develop. TeamSpeak 3 has almost everything built in because its token system is exceptionally secure. There should be almost nothing for a Server admin to do but input his token or key and set up the webadmin (which could be incorporated as part of a Dedicated Server)

 

I agree that key factor is deciding which option to implement, because you are then 'tied' as you develop functionality. Its why I strongly support TS3.

 

Regardless lets get comms and they can be improved over development cycles. Athens was not built in a day.