IVC for radios in DCS

[Azazel]

BMS has this IVC radio app that works marvelous (doesn't require a plugin for teamspeak or teamspeak at all for that matter). I'd like to see that for DCS. Example would be in the P-51 when a pilot is on A channel he talks to others on A etc regardless if he is on Teamspeak or not. I'm not a coder so I have no idea if this is possible.

[Nate--IRL--]

TARS plugin for TS is the only one I know that allows this.

 

http://addons.teamspeak.com/directory/plugins/miscellaneous/TARS-Tactical-Aviation-Radio-System.html

 

The purpose of TARS is to allow players to use the in-game radios to communicate with fellow players in the multiplayer environment. By removing the need for channel switching and channel management policies, you can spend more time concentrating on your gaming and less time worrying about the configuration of your Teamspeak channels. TARS also allows other users to “spectate” the game from the same channel as players, without interfering with play. In addition to integrating Teamspeak 3 with the radio control panels in DCS, TARS also simulates radio signal quality, radio horizon based on altitude, and other radio effects.

 

Nate

[Azazel]

TARS plugin for TS is the only one I know that allows this.

 

http://addons.teamspeak.com/directory/plugins/miscellaneous/TARS-Tactical-Aviation-Radio-System.html

 

 

 

Nate

 

My squadron has had some issues getting that to work properly but we haven't tried recently. The common problem we had was that some people were able to hear others and others could not. Yes, we all were using it correctly and had the proper boxes checked and plugin installed etc. The other problem with having a TS app is that when TS is updated an updated version of TARs is needed. Which is why I think having an app like IVC is advantageous because it doesn't use TS and we can also use TS as a backup channel in the event they have trouble getting their jet started, radios working, etc. Again, I haven't used TARs recently so some of the issues might be fixed by now.

[Snoopy]

When I was a member of the 1st VFW (was a member there for just over 1 year) we always used TARs with no issues, same thing with the 476th now. No major TARS issues, a few crashes now and then but not enough to be of any major issue.

[Azazel]

When I was a member of the 1st VFW (was a member there for just over 1 year) we always used TARs with no issues, same thing with the 476th now. No major TARS issues, a few crashes now and then but not enough to be of any major issue.

 

Right on. We were trying to get it to work about a year ago and had problems with large flights (6 or more). Speed was there and can attest to this. But if its working now that's good to hear. I still would think having an app that doesn't depend on TS is advantageous (I've been in plenty of flights where TS starts going in and out for no apparent reason and my squadron has a paid for TS server). I'm not trying to bash TARs or anything.

[blackbaron]

would be a great idea, but probably also tons of work

[Silver_Dragon]

for last TARS version, check here: http://www.excessiveheadspace.com/tars/

[Azazel]

would be a great idea, but probably also tons of work

 

I agree :music_whistling:

[Snoopy]

Right on. We were trying to get it to work about a year ago and had problems with large flights (6 or more). Speed was there and can attest to this. But if its working now that's good to hear. I still would think having an app that doesn't depend on TS is advantageous (I've been in plenty of flights where TS starts going in and out for no apparent reason and my squadron has a paid for TS server). I'm not trying to bash TARs or anything.

 

What would be GREAT was if something like TARS was included in the sim!!!

 

Also, TARS doesn't work with the latest version of TS, so if you are on the latest you'd have to revert to a previous TS version.

[Azazel]

What would be GREAT was if something like TARS was included in the sim!!!

 

Also, TARS doesn't work with the latest version of TS, so if you are on the latest you'd have to revert to a previous TS version.

 

Yeah, IVC comes with BMS. I'm not trying to say BMS is better or anything like that. I'm just saying if the guys who mess with old falcon code can get something like that together, then surely the fellas at ED can do the same.

[cichlidfan]

Yeah, IVC comes with BMS. I'm not trying to say BMS is better or anything like that. I'm just saying if the guys who mess with old falcon code can get something like that together, then surely the fellas at ED can do the same.

 

I am sure they can as well. Time/resources is always the issue. The BMS folks did IVC instead of something else, a decent GUI for example. Resource allocation is always more of a factor than whether or not the dev team is capable of producing a given chunk of code.

[Azazel]

I am sure they can as well. Time/resources is always the issue. The BMS folks did IVC instead of something else, a decent GUI for example. Resource allocation is always more of a factor than whether or not the dev team is capable of producing a given chunk of code.

 

Very true.

[Cali]

I am sure they can as well. Time/resources is always the issue. The BMS folks did IVC instead of something else, a decent GUI for example. Resource allocation is always more of a factor than whether or not the dev team is capable of producing a given chunk of code.

 

I don't mind the old style GUI, kinda keeps that old feeling. Also remember that they did it for free. IVC would be nice if it were in DCS.

[EtherealN]

I don't mind the old style GUI, kinda keeps that old feeling. Also remember that they did it for free. IVC would be nice if it were in DCS.

 

He remembers that they did it for free. That's not what he was discussing.

 

He basically pointed out the fact that they chose to implement IVC. They did not choose to implement a "better" GUI. That's just choices they made in the development process, and choices like that are an inevitable fact of making software. If you don't have a production lead that knows to make the hard choices about what to do and what not to do (which is HARD since you might very well face a situation of having 100 good awesome ideas, but only time/money to implement 50...), you'll just never release a product and the project will stall. This applies for both payware and freeware. How is GNU/Hurd going, for example. :D

 

(I'll let everyone find their own payware examples. :P )

 

I do agree though, this would be a sweet thing to have. Unfortunately it joins a rather huge list of other things that would also be sweet, but thank gods I'm not asked to decide what gets implemented and what isn't. I'd cry myself to sleep every night then, I think. :D

[Azazel]

Anyone that has ever been in the military knows that Como is key. Try calling in an airstrike without it :helpsmilie: Hopefully someday DCS will figure a way to include a radio application of some kind to their simulation because it'll become more and more important as they implement the digital battle field (DCS World). I'm okay with waiting, which is why I put this in the wishlist :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Well, comms are key. But since people can use comms with or without an integrated comms system it's not quite as big a deal. It would be nice, but it's not like people are without voice comms if ED doesn't implement this. They're not even without voice comms that tie in to the radio frequencies the aircraft is on!

 

So this becomes a question of "functionality is already out there, but it would be nice to move it to the inside of the application".

[Azazel]

Well, comms are key. But since people can use comms with or without an integrated comms system it's not quite as big a deal. It would be nice, but it's not like people are without voice comms if ED doesn't implement this. They're not even without voice comms that tie in to the radio frequencies the aircraft is on!

 

So this becomes a question of "functionality is already out there, but it would be nice to move it to the inside of the application".

 

Fair enough, it would be nice :)

[cichlidfan]

Unfortunately it joins a rather huge list of other things that would also be sweet, but thank gods I'm not asked to decide what gets implemented and what isn't.

 

Agreed, I wouldn't want to make that call either. I suspect the devs and the rest of the ED team come up with just as many good ideas as we do, so just imagine that list.

[Speed]

Well, comms are key. But since people can use comms with or without an integrated comms system it's not quite as big a deal. It would be nice, but it's not like people are without voice comms if ED doesn't implement this. They're not even without voice comms that tie in to the radio frequencies the aircraft is on!

 

So this becomes a question of "functionality is already out there, but it would be nice to move it to the inside of the application".

Well, how big of a deal it is depends on how many problems you've had with TARS and Teamspeak server reliability :D So with moving it all inside one application, there would probably be less that could go wrong (both user error and code error, and TS3 server problems), and it would probably be easier for the users to understand/use. At least in theory. It would a heck of a lot simpler and easier to keep track of, that's for sure. You also wouldn't be subject to the random whims of the TS3 creators.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Speed

[EtherealN]

True, but my point is that the basic functionality is already possible.

 

When vying for the time of ED developers, it might be that it's better to spend their time on things that are simply impossible to achieve otherwise.

 

That said, who knows what's cooking in moscow? Wouldn't be the first time I go "hmm, would be nice BUT" only to see it revealed in finished (or near-finished) form within days. :D

[sorcer3r]

We have a IVC-serverapp running on a server. It seems that IVC is also based on TS3 .

So ED/Headspace just has to make TARS standalone and put it into DCS-world installation.

Sounds easy (for someone who has no idea of software development ;))

[mhe]

I for one could see such things as a payable addon. With DCS world, modularity is the name of the game. Also, the decision to offer paid modules has been made. So if the developers from ED are too busy to do something like this, why not make a TS-independent module as a paid third-party thing?

 

The ED guys already provide us with an unbelievable amount of complexity and content given the prices of their products, I for myself would have a hard time demanding even more of them for free.

 

Perhaps some of the BMS guys would be interested to port their working IVC to the DCS engine. Might even get paid good money for doing it. :)

 

I really admire what Headspace has done with TARS, but relying on external programs is always a bit of a hassle. Version conflicts, configuration etc. Simple drop-in package in DCS would be much more comfortable.

 

Combine that with a modular audio architecture (which could only from ED themselves I suppose) where I can configure which sound gets played by which output device and we're right up there with the capabilities of multi-million simulators.

 

I have great hopes for the future of DCS with the modules - it just needs to be a bit more usable than tweaking a lot of LUA files.