Jump to content

IVC?


vCUJOv

Recommended Posts

I probably should have used a quote, to make it clearer that I was referring to what Subs17 had written... The part about ground talk channel, and modeling the battery usage in particular, caused me to recall the 'parable of Janes A-10' (specifically the 'feature creep').

 

As for the other parts of the thread, it isn't particularly difficult to understand. I will point out though that I often do not automatically accept declarations from people who are not either part of the dev team, or the testing team, when it comes to the ease of adding something to the simulation code. That is not intended as a slam, or a slight upon whatever expertise they may have... it is simply based upon: 1. The knowledge that simulator code of this order tends to be a large squirming beast, and that additions/changes often have unintended consequences. 2. Those of us on the outside are less than fully informed about what is in the simulator code.

 

Personally, I *think* TS3 integration/support (or possibly Mumble) *probably* would be fairly easy to add, or at least provide hooks for... [and could be a very nice feature!]. However, I'm not in a position to declare that as a fact.

 

If they can do something like that without significantly delaying the rollout, then heck yeah, go for it! If that doesn't appear (To E.D.) to be the case, then I'm content to trust their business decision(s).

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post.

 

http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=teamspeak3sdk

 

She is ready to go.

 

I don't trust devs ever. Its not my job.

 

My job as a consumer is to provide constructive negative feedback so that the sim/game gets made better. In this I have been tremendously successful, if not always popular.

 

At this point I am quite happy that it seems it is not IF we get comms but what solution gets implemented. I can live with whichever program, assuming the implementation is half way decent.

 

I am quite pleased to see that Wags is going hard for a really quality INTEGRATED multiplayer experience. For me thats smart and encouraging. I hope the trend continues. I can't be assed for single DCS modules.... nor do I believe that they can ever be true revenue streams in and of themselves. Recent experience seems to have born that out.

Ο ΤΟΛΜΩΝ ΝΙΚΑ

http://www.hellenicsqn.com

(under construction)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Spinter in this (other) topic has something that will ease the burden of using TS, yet add a bit of realism while using comms in the sim itself. It works for TS2 but he's having some trouble with TS3. Here's a quick run-down of what it does (scroll down to the BS cockpit images)

 

It's not perfect (100% realism) but the freq are manipulated inside the cockpit.

 

A shame folks aren't helping him out with this. We ALL (since the majority uses TS) could benefit from this.


Edited by Booger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, thanks Booger. Not quite what I am hoping to see, but certainly a valiant effort for outside of game comms.

 

The frequencies he has registered don't really need to be created till a pilot is actually in them, at which point they would auto spawn.

Also TS3 would allow multiple 'radios' because it has tabs - not sure if mumble can do that ?

Ο ΤΟΛΜΩΝ ΝΙΚΑ

http://www.hellenicsqn.com

(under construction)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mumble was the application that made TS2 look foolish. The audio latency, 3D positional audio from game-source, exe game hooks, secure credentials, script ability, etc... it all blew TS2 away. Then came TS3 which took the Mumble features pretty much point by point as its own. They're roughly equivalent nowadays in terms of raw potential with Mumble being a little slimmer but harder to use in a very Linux kind of way while TS3 is a little chunkier but more mainstream.

 

Licensing or whatnot shouldn't be too much of a problem. ED would be responsible for the DCS-Voice bridge software which would merely enable TS3 or Mumble to be used with their software. It's not like they are rolling the programs themselves into the DCS product.

 

The community efforts so far have only managed to get frequency = channel which is about 1/10th of the whole picture. There's no quality loss based on in game factors, out of range, out of LOS, or any of the secure transmission features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a little lost. Would this mumble application allow me to manually tune the radios in the A-10, and talk to whoever is on that specific frequency? That is what we all really want here, isnt it? And I agree, If this means pushing the release date further back, id rather ED just not do it all together OR release it in a patch. Whatever they decide im sure will make everyone happy.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Intel i7-4790k | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo heat sink | Thermaltake Core V71 case | 750W EVGA PSU | 8gb G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 LGA 1150 motherboard | Samsung SSD | ASUS STRIX GTX 970 | Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog | TIR 5 | Razer Deathadder | Corsair K70

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pplication allow me to manually tune the radios in the A-10, and talk to whoever is on that specific frequency? That is what we all really want here, isnt it?

 

No, the one I linked is a mod done by a regular user for TS2 (working on TS3...for a while now). I actually love the idea of changing a freq and talk to whomever is on that particular channel as well.

 

he community efforts so far have only managed to get frequency = channel which is about 1/10th of the whole picture. There's no quality loss based on in game factors, out of range, out of LOS, or any of the secure transmission features.

 

You're totally right. That would of course be ideal. At the same time, I would rather have 10% than 0, which we currently have now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would flip at the idea of ED adjusting some code so a TS3/mumble "add on" could hook into the game. It's just that as of current, they're really leaving that up to us to do...making something, albeit just a small part, still better than nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little slimmer but harder to use in a very Linux kind of way

 

That's a very awesome way to put it. Mind if I start stealing that expression? :D

 

(I am a Linux afficionado, but that's just so funny and so correct at the same time. :) )

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frederf do you know if Mumble supports extensions such as the wonderful TS Noise that could add in mic clicks and limited static ???

 

No idea. I wouldn't be surprised though. Signal processing sounds like something that would be in some sort of "module" and not the base Mumble or rather Murmur as it should be done server-side.

 

That's a very awesome way to put it. Mind if I start stealing that expression? :D

 

(I am a Linux afficionado, but that's just so funny and so correct at the same time. :) )

 

Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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