TS Integration GUI

[Kameni]

It would be nice if you could write a piece of code and make GUI that would integrate the TeamSpeak functionality into the DCSW platform without the need to Alt-Tab when you want to do something on your TS Client.

Something like X-Fire has. You have GUI that is brought up INGAME by a specific keystroke.

 

Aditionaly - instead of making something similar to Hyperloby (as I've read that you plan on long-term) it would be a much cheaper and faster solution to buy TS Server with large number of slots and make public ED TS Server. There, free players could meet pre-match, join together to make private DCS Servers etc...

 

With implementing GUI for TS into DCSW, combined with public ED TS Server you would bring great functionality to users for low price and without large amount of work and time-loss

[OttoPus]

In that way, in-game radio and ts integration (like the excellent TARS ) would be easier I think

[buedi]

What is with the TS Overlays which exist already? They work quite fine for me?

[Lord_Pyro]

This will be interesting with the upcoming dcs jets but with fc3 you wont be able to use tars because of the lack of different mics with variable freq's...

[Kameni]

What is with the TS Overlays which exist already? They work quite fine for me?

 

There are pros and cons for both deals.

 

On one side, if ED develops TS Overlay integrated in DCS - you would have it fully compatible with the sim, probably with tools that are made by specific needs of sim comunity. Other than that - you would have it all "in-game", so no process from "outside" would not be meddling with the stability of DCS.

On the other side, I am not aware of what would possibly happen with every new update from TS. Probably - ED would have to be well aware of the coding of TS Client and make the integration so that updates would not, or minimally affect the integrated funtionality.

But there are far more capable and knowledgeable (what a word that is lol) people than us who can deal that sort of problems with one hand. :)

 

I don't, personally, like the idea of a 3rd party program NOT developed specifically for use with DCS messing around my DCS.exe process when it's running.

I also like what has been said about TARS used with the eventual integrated TS into the DCS (I don't use TARS for now, and never did, so the possibilities and ideas of advanced functionality in that field are there for the rest to state them here).

 

This will be interesting with the upcoming dcs jets but with fc3 you wont be able to use tars because of the lack of different mics with variable freq's...

Now, imagine yourself playing an event.

3 fighter pairs.

Your flight leader dies, you want to rejoin with squad no2.

You can simply switch channels and rejoin both physically and on comunications channel with squad2 without Alt-Tabing the whole simulator. (I am aware of whispers, but this is more functional)

That way, you get the "Frequency-Switching-Like" capabilities even in FC3. That is awesome, eh? ;)

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kameni

[BIGNEWY]

I voted NO

 

As much as I do like TARS we decided on the Shrek server not to use it as it puts new comers to the server off as it's just another thing to get working.

 

Also with all the changes TS makes it would be a nightmare for ED to keep on top of.

[Kameni]

I voted NO

 

As much as I do like TARS we decided on the Shrek server not to use it as it puts new comers to the server off as it's just another thing to get working.

 

Also with all the changes TS makes it would be a nightmare for ED to keep on top of.

 

No it would not be a nightmare. That's way simple task for someone who made DCS with all it's coding.

TARS is not a MUST for anyone. But having TS integrated into DCS, you would be capable of easier use of DCS+TARS+TS. Maybe if you could quickly enable/disable TARS from the integrated GUI - you could use communication with people on TARS and people without TARS without having to Alt-Tab. That would pretty much solve the problem of having to choose TARS or noTARS. ;)

Now, what do you think?

Don't be hasty mate... It could get many improvements to coms...

 

It is a free vote and I am always glad to see people explaining their motives, thank you :)

 

EDIT: having the GUI integration would not make problems to anyone who decide not to use TARS, no damage made. But it would help other people maybe.

This is NOT a TARS thread or idea, have that in mind please. It is rather hasty to say NO to something that wouldn't make you problems, but would maybe help many other people :)

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kameni

[buedi]

After reading more from the OP, I begin to understand his intentions and it makes sense to me. But I´m not voting, because on one had I am tempted to vote yes and on the other hand I´m not sure if integrating a 3rd party product is the way to go.

 

I remember that some games in the past had their own Audio integration and with all the Avionics and Radios you have in the planes, it could make sense to have a Peer to Peer Audio functionality integrated right "in the planes".

 

But then I am thinking about how much stuff there is in the pipeline and I don´t see that it could have high priority since we have (albeit it´s 3rd party) voice capabilities right now and I´d rather see improvements on the DCS World code and existing + future planes than a voice integration. But just in case they run out of Ideas, I would support it if it´s well done of course.

 

So I step out of the voting because it could be a neat Idea (and I´m sure I would like it) when it´s done properly, but I don´t really see the need for it.

[Kameni]

After reading more from the OP, I begin to understand his intentions and it makes sense to me(...)

 

YES SIR! Regarding all you've said: That is why I am not talking about "DCS Voice Engine" but an integration of TeamSpeak trough GUI. Having that we already have a TARS and TS, there is no need for immense codding required to make own "Voice Engine" and the best solution would be TS Client GUI integrated into DCS. That way, user's won't have to leave app. that they're familiar with (TS and TARS).

 

I don´t really see the need for it.

I am dreaming that DCS will, in time, become immensly rich simulator, regarding the functionality.

And I believe we, users, should share ideas with developers. Good ideas don't have to be implemented right away. Yes, I agree that this is second to making the sim itself more stable, to do some coding on more important stuff...

But hey - if it is something people like and need, let it be on queue. Or even give some 3rd party developer an idea to make this by himself - and earn some money ;)

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kameni

[Kameni]

However, I am eagerly waiting for an input by someone from ED team and their views on this subject. :)

[buedi]

And I believe we, users, should share ideas with developers. Good ideas don't have to be implemented right away.

 

Well said, I second that. Exactly what I thought after writing my last post. If people would always think (like I´m always tempted to do): "Naaah, I should not post this improvement suggestion, because there are other things which are more important", then we would miss the "little" things which make this a great simulator in the future.

 

The bigger the pool of Ideas which make sense is, I think the more likely we will see some of them in future releases :)

[Kameni]

The bigger the pool of Ideas which make sense is, I think the more likely we will see some of them in future releases :)

 

Especially regarding the fact that 3rd party modules can and may be produced.

[Lord_Pyro]

Those who dont see the need modt likeley don't fly in a squadron. Without the Channelcommand from Ts2 now you have to bind keys for direct whispering into several channels, so what the channelcommanddettings in ts2 did, has to be done by the user now resulting in needing more keys.

 

but if you have 6+ people sitting in the same channel, fighting on 2 completely oppodite directions and a third group going to some details of training or briefing, you start to miss important information and want a tarslike feature. For lonley wolves of course this is not really interesting. Next thing was, that in my undetstanding tars just gets your set frequencies of your mics, linking every person on the same freq allthough the rest may even be in the same channel. But if you are already able to switch channels without alt tabbing i certainly show give it a second look.

 

Some discussions here about multiplayer seem to forget about a big part of the online community flying in virtual squadrons cooperative missions. After all these discussions about lacking aircover for a10 or 1vs1 engagements or unbalanced stuff one should not forget that there are also people flying as a whole combatforce together. And this is absolutely possible right now, thats why most of us remain relatively silent about problems and balancing issues.

And every time i read about things like "after 5 mins of powering up my aircraft i got immediatly shot down" i adk myself, "why dont you look for real mates then?"

 

it is not so much the task of ED raising the startup time nor have the missions to be changed or redesigned. It is the pilot him/herself who chose to fly alone. I cant immagine any v squad which would reject joining them just because of a bad mood.

[Kameni]

Yes I like how this is developing.

I am glad that people who fly in squads understand the possibilities.

I just had an idea. It's not even so much of an original idea, but if I can help pushing toward raising quality - here I am.

Ofcourse developers are capable people, but they can't think of everything :D

[cichlidfan]

No, I do not want ED dedicating resources to this. To much work for too little return.

[Kameni]

No, I do not want ED dedicating resources to this. To much work for too little return.

Forgeting about the 3rd party developers again? :)

[cichlidfan]

Forgeting about the 3rd party developers again? :)

 

True. As long as they don't bother ED with questions they can do whatever they want.

[Kameni]

True. As long as they don't bother ED with questions they can do whatever they want.

 

That's ok.

But it is ok to give ideas to people like I maybe did now.

Listen... it is very arguable that "it is a small gain".

 

If they don't bother ED, would you still say no?

Or it would be "whatever" to you?

:)

 

There are more people than you and me. If it is functional, why get harsh on ideas? We all want as compact sim as possible...right? :)

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kameni

[cichlidfan]

I am fine with the ideas and 3rd party work. It is ED that doesn't need more pots on the stove.

[Kameni]

By the way - if you make something that allows people to make addons for it - you are supposed to be there to answer questions.

From the point of ED it may look like this: No foolish questions, but questions that will help those people make addons for YOUR platform, from which YOU will earn money, from which YOU will expand the network of users...

 

Anything else is just a comunism.

I've lived there. Don't need that again.

 

I am fine with the ideas and 3rd party work. It is ED that doesn't need more pots on the stove.

Completely agreed.

[sorcer3r]

An Integreated Voice Chat ("I-TARS" ;) ) would be a huge improvement for dcs multiplayer (especially on public servers -> no need to connect separately on a ts-server etc... ).

[Kameni]

Well, that is mainly what I was thinking about.

A complete service for users within the simulator itself.

[ApoNOOB]

I play Project Reality, which is a BF2 MOD. They have a custom Mumble client, that automatically joins and moves you to the right Server, Team and Squad channel. (Think BF2 9 squads+commander) There you just push a numblock key (0-9) to talk with other squadleaders, even a local chat (3d like ACRE) works.

 

This works like a charm! I have never seen any other game where people just accept team wide communication without whining of "but I don't like using program x", "Alt tabbing out to connect is just too much of a hassle" or just "I dont like talking to people over the internet!". Everyone is on comms, it is enforced by admins (No PR:Mumble? Kick.) and most of all accepted by the community.

 

Now PR is a mod that is only exciting because of it's teamplay, but now i ask you guys, isn't DCS only "really" exciting when you fly with others? Or most of all, against other organized, communicating teams?

 

On public servers there is just no way to get people on communication. I don't know why, but DCS pubbers just don't seem to like it. There are some servers where you have a crowd of regulars that will join the respective TS servers, but at most a handfull of people.

 

A program, (that doesn't even have to come from some official party I guess) that automatically joins, switches and mutes players or gives a TARS like support would go ways to enable realistic and rewarding team play in MP.

 

Right now, FC3 is not really fit to be working with the likes of TARS. But do you guys really want to have big pvp battles with DCS level aircrafts, not only BS2& A10C but later on fast movers - and not have a widely accepted platform where everyone can meet? A TS3 plugin that automatically joins you on the right Server&channel would go long ways towards this and with TARS like features would just be awesome.

[HiJack]

The only sensible thing for ED to do at this point is to integrate in-game voice and activate the functionality with operating radios for DCS level aircraft's and a couple of manual selected channels for FC3 level of aircraft's. This will be better than integrated with TS3 which will break functionality with every update of TS.

 

EDIT. So my vote is "No" but rather do a in-game voice function.

[Home Fries]

I think this would be doable. Something like TARS, but with global implementation and server-side activation. If activated, people in the same room could hear each other only if dialed to the same frequency as the talker. FC3 types would hear everybody.

 

If deactivated, everybody could hear everybody, just like a standard TS3 room.

 

It wouldn't need to be module specific, but rather just tied to the frequency of the talker. This would allow it to be used with any DCS module regardless of radios.