why nothing like tars in dcs ?

[shagrat]

And when e.g. squadons flying DCS online they are also on a teamspeack server. So I do not see a bandwith issue here.

Yes, but the TS server usually isn't hosted on the DCS Mission server. For 3-4 voice connections I don't see an issue there, honestly. Thinking of 16-32 voices on 4-6 plus channels running in parallel on the dcs server while trying to sync 16-32 clients with mission details in realtime, that's what's make me doubt it's a good idea... QoS will usually priorize Voice over IP etc. , now with DCS it would be difficult to decide if comms or client sync has priority.

To really know we need to try this setup anyway.

[Snoopy]

I personaly dont like TARS , whilst being more realistic , it also removes the human side of enjoyment in my view .

 

Having to be on the correct channel , to speak to someone . Then you get shot up and eject or CTD and all coms are gone .

 

That's called realistic and I honestly wouldn't fly if TARS stopped working. I want realistic radios and wish it was included in DCS.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Snoopy

[FlyNate]

All comms are not lost. 243.00 UHF and 121.50 VHF are emergency FREQs ;)

[sorcer3r]

Yes, but the TS server usually isn't hosted on the DCS Mission server.

 

Also in bms the IVC can be hosted on a different server. IVC is standalone but integrated in bms.

Could also work for DCS. :smartass:

 

 

ps: IVC = teamspeak(based) which knows what's happening in bms :D

Edited May 2, 2014 by sorcer3r

[Snoopy]

All comms are not lost. 243.00 UHF and 121.50 VHF are emergency FREQs ;)

 

Correct but latest version of TARS the guard channels don't work IIRC

[SkateZilla]

Just because Something works in BMS doesn't mean it will be easily integrated into DCS.

 

 

TARS 3rd Party Plugin/Mod works with DCS on TARS compatible servers,

 

Why have ED Waste time and money on something that already exists for free via 3rd party?

[ApoNOOB]

I understand using TS3 would be an issue because ED would have to get a license, because they make money of their product unlike Falcon BMS for example. Can somebody clear this up before we throw this around more?

 

With eyes on the above problem, how about different options like mumble? Do they have licenses for something like this? On that note I want to throw PR:Mumble (Project Reality) in. They use something like TARS, ACRE & IVC on a global server with different channels for the different PR servers.

 

Once you join a server you get automatically switched to the right channel for your server/team/squad etc. - you don't have to do anything. The server running the "Game" is not affected. Please keep this in mind when you throw around the "omg DCS fps suck now, don't add voip!111" reasoning. If there would be issues with bandwith/server capacity it would be because of shitty implementation. :)

 

Edit: @SkateZilla, that is the point, it is third party, slowly developed by single person, with RL commitments that naturally come first. It is not working as easy as it is made out here, for example that it is not working with the latest TS3 version which most people use. That is a bird in the engine right there! We had this discussion for years over on the PR forums! (lots of the community mix so I know many people know what I am talking about).

 

People will always chose the way of the least resistance, which is no comms, no mods etc. simply outside of a squadron TARS is not really done. Not because people generally dislike it but because it is a chore to set it up, get the people to set it up, and have people actually join in. Heck most of the time you can't get more than 20% on a public server into Teamspeak. (Funnily I think this is mostly because lot's of flights mix in one channel and people get confused by the action eg. no TARS to deconflict things)

 

TARS is not enough, we want the full integrated thing so people will actually use it. If poor Headspace would be paid for his hard work by ED and maybe gets some coding support/ a paid henchman everyone would be much happier. Kickstarter? =)

Edited May 2, 2014 by ApoNOOB

[Snoopy]

IMO Headpsace getting the SDK done and released for third party's and I'll be fat dumb and happy! For the 476th vFighter Group we won't adopt any official ED, partner or 3rd party ACFT if it doesn't work with tars...but we're reality snobs lol ;) :D

[cichlidfan]

TARS leverages an existing, developed, and optimized VOIP technology (Teamspeak 3). An integrated version would require inhouse development of the same, or licensing TS3 for commercial use--both of which are expensive.

 

Indeed. For ED to create or outsource this kind of feature, would be quite an investment. Most of the people playing DCS never even touch multiplayer.

 

Pretty much this.

[sorcer3r]

ED could do a kickstarter for DCS IVC and maybe we will get enough $ for the TS3 licence. (Would be also interesting for DCS WW2 community)

Or just use open source stuff like mumble.

 

Just because Something works in BMS doesn't mean it will be easily integrated into DCS.

 

TARS 3rd Party Plugin/Mod works with DCS on TARS compatible servers,

 

TARS works already so it is possible in DCS. Easily? I don't know but it is possible.

 

Why have ED Waste time and money on something that already exists for free via 3rd party?

 

The fact that there is a 3rd party F18 flyable mod with F15 pit doesn't prevent ED from developing their DCS F18 (hopefully ;) ).

 

Just imagine that as a server host you could preset an IP for an IVC server in DCS. So every client who is joining your DCS server will connect to that specific IVC server.

We have hifi DCS modules with 2-3 radios in the pit. So we should be able to use in MP.

IMO just a "logical" consequence of my understanding of DCS standards. ;)

[cichlidfan]

The fact that there is a 3rd party F18 flyable mod with F15 pit doesn't prevent ED from developing their DCS F18 (hopefully ;) ).

 

DCS F-18 isn't remotely the same as a mod with the wrong cockpit and poor FM.

[SkateZilla]

The fact that there is a 3rd party F18 flyable mod with F15 pit doesn't prevent ED from developing their DCS F18 (hopefully ;) ).

 

 

You're joking right?,

How Does a External Model with SFM, using a Cockpit and Simplified Avionics from another Aircraft

Compare to a PFM/ASM F-18C with The Correct Cockpit and Deeply Modeled Avionics Systems?

 

it doesnt...

 

TARs isn't a Hack N Slash 3rd Party MOD that takes bits and pieces of other assets and splices them together to make something that's grossly fictional.

 

Everything about TARs is pretty much accurate, realistic and authentic.

 

Dont compare the two, like at all.

 

ED could do a kickstarter for DCS IVC and maybe we will get enough $ for the TS3 licence. (Would be also interesting for DCS WW2 community)

Or just use open source stuff like mumble.

 

TARS works already so it is possible in DCS. Easily? I don't know but it is possible.*

 

Exactly, TARS already works with DCS, so why spend time and money working on something that doesnt need to be worked on.

 

The way it's being done now is at Zero Cost to the User, to Integrate TS3 into DCS, it would require a Commercial License.

 

Just imagine that as a server host you could preset an IP for an IVC server in DCS.

So every client who is joining your DCS server will connect to that specific IVC server.

We have hifi DCS modules with 2-3 radios in the pit. So we should be able to use in MP.*

IMO just a "logical" consequence of my understanding of DCS standards. ;)

 

As for Kickstarter... it's not the answer to everything.

 

the 3rd Party MOD is pretty much everything you need, no need to jump all over ED and ask them to Integrate something into the Sim that would cost money for a license and/or development time when it's already available for free.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SkateZilla

[sorcer3r]

You're joking right?,

How Does a External Model with SFM using a Cockpit from another Aircraft with LockOnScript/FC level Avionics

 

Compare to a PFM/ASM F-18C with a Correct Cockpit, and Deeply Modeled Systems and Flight Model?

 

it doesnt...

 

That was my point. (sorry, maybe my english is too bad)

 

But I do not say that TARS is a simple/bad software etc.

It is just limited (ts3 dependency ...)

[ApoNOOB]

But I do not say that TARS is a simple/bad software etc.

It is just limited (ts3 dependency ...)

 

I want to stress this, Headspace is reading this of course, and I am sure nobody here want's to think that we don't respect his work. We are very grateful for his time&efford and I am sure everyone appreciates TARS very much.

 

We are just expressing a wish for even more and better integeration, of something that lot's of people around here hold in high regard.

 

@Skate, The problem is getting people to use it. If it is something that works from the get go, and people have to put minimal effort into it, they are generally more open to it. Now every step that you throw in, downgrading TS3, installing mod/software, configuring, joining the server, switching the channels etc. For every action you lose some people in the process.

 

I know you can argue somebody who learns to use the HOTAS system on the A10C won't be impressed by a TARS installation but that is not the feeling I get when there is a event for example and somebody ask's "should we use TARS?".

Edited May 2, 2014 by ApoNOOB

[Cali]

IMO Headpsace getting the SDK done and released for third party's and I'll be fat dumb and happy! For the 476th vFighter Group we won't adopt any official ED, partner or 3rd party ACFT if it doesn't work with tars...but we're reality snobs lol ;) :D

 

Nothing wrong with that, some of the squads in BMS are crazy with reality. Some of those guys even wear flight suits and helmets when flying.

[CallsignFrosty]

Does anyone have a link to a version of TS that actually works with the latest build of TARS?

I tried 10.1 but cannot join any servers as its outdated. I have spent countless hours on trying to get this working, but to no avail :cry:

 

Maybe the latest build is outdated? Did I see somewhere that headspace is going to update it soon-ish?

[txmtb]

I use 3.0.12 Teamspeak with 1.0.2.4 TARS and and haven't had any server issues, yet.

[CallsignFrosty]

Cheers txmtb,

 

does your TS server run the TARS plugin too? or require any extra setting other than just having clients with tars in the same channel?

[txmtb]

I believe the only setting required on the server is that script exporting is allowed. Never set up a server so not really sure about that.

[Darkwolf]

Simple fact : Nearly ALL video games server has also a related TS server, or at least a Mumble. Even those games with integrated comm' solution.

 

So the question is more - Why would DCS need to develop something that will obviously NOT be used ?

 

:)

[Saruman]

No, it's not that simply.

 

TS doesn't substitute radio communications. One thing per all: doing radio comms you have to interact with frequencies and so on, so... If you ever play Falcon BMS, you'll learn that IVC is much better than TS. For example, I can talk by using UHF channel with all the flights, while talking with my flight on VHF. How many whisper rules should I create to accomplish that by using TS?

 

If you want to play arcade, fine. But since ED should create a simulation environment, it's simply an epic fail for them not to implement TARS-like system in their products. (but guess what, they aren't able until now to do an fps-friendly graphic engine or anything that requires efficient coding skills too, to be honest)

[FlyNate]

I have 3.0.11.1 and it works fine, but only with A-10C. I will send you a link to my drive later today. If you wanna jump on TS this evening around 530 (Central Time Zone) I will hep you get it going... If you're interested, PM me for TS server info. I'll send it to you in a reply right before we get on.

[FlyNate]

No, it's not that simply.

 

TS doesn't substitute radio communications. One thing per all: doing radio comms you have to interact with frequencies and so on, so... If you ever play Falcon BMS, you'll learn that IVC is much better than TS. For example, I can talk by using UHF channel with all the flights, while talking with my flight on VHF. How many whisper rules should I create to accomplish that by using TS?

 

If you want to play arcade, fine. But since ED should create a simulation environment, it's simply an epic fail for them not to implement TARS-like system in their products. (but guess what, they aren't able until now to do an fps-friendly graphic engine or anything that requires efficient coding skills too, to be honest)

 

One main channel for everyone and one whisper for your flight. We do it all the time. Everyone is in one big channel is TS, and each flight has its own whisper list made by the members of the flight. Whisper lists are saved so you would only have to do it once. But TARS is better and more realistic. We should have had an IVC -like system in DCS a long time ago.

[FlyNate]

Simple fact : Nearly ALL video games server has also a related TS server, or at least a Mumble. Even those games with integrated comm' solution.

 

So the question is more - Why would DCS need to develop something that will obviously NOT be used ?

 

:)

 

Really? Lol. It's not used because we don't have it. There are certain people that would still use TS. But, the vast majority of DCS players are all about realism and accurate modeling. These are the majority, and this sort of system should be implemented to not take away from immersion into the sim. No brainer... It's very hard for ANY group of people to fly a REALISTIC mission in multiplayer with 4 or more players. Transmissions are missed, people get stepped on, and this could be fixed by having everyone on different FREQs and having one main FREQ for the commander to communicate with everyone at once. That's why there are 3 different radios in most MIL Aircraft. The bottom line is, we need an IVC-like system for DCS. The majority that does want this could use it and be happy, while the ones that just want to play around and use TS could still do that. Win/Win for DCS.

[towsim]

The problem is not that easy as some people believe. TS has some big advantages and some big disadvantages. The latter is held partly transparent to DCS users. The first thing is, every multiplayer group needs a communication server. It is necessary, because the voice and data package exchange over the internet cannot be handled by only one server for all groups. A com server has to be up all the time to be available for the users. This implies, that it cannot be bound to a local DCS application.I would not believe, that DSC offers com servers for each multiplayer group in the internet.

An advantage for DCS users would be an integrated TS client in DCS. It should offer the same service we got used to, like meeting rooms security management and more.The frequency management could be done internally and would be more reliable because it would be developed directly by the wizards of DCS.The existing mods on the market, like Aries Radio and TARS, do exactly the same with the only one difference. The TS client has to be started manually beside DCS. I admit, it is always an unsafe feeling if a mod is installed which does not belong to DCS basically. You always cross your fingers and hope, that no software change was done anywhere in the background. And even the installation process is too difficult for some users. But what are the disadvantages of TS? TS is used for almost all telephony services but does not support radio communication technology. What we need and do not have in TS is:

Frequency management

Needs a huge internal administrative effort to control non marked voice packages belonging to different frequencies.

 

Frequency block out and interference

Can be done by a TS mod, but difficult. (Easy for DCS)

 

PTT function

Fortunately build in

 

Type specific voice degradation

Can be done by a TS mod, but difficult. (Easy for DCS)

Type and situation specific background noise

Can be done by a TS mod, but difficult. (Easy for DCS)

Quality loss by range and output power

Needs additional data exchange (which is not supported) to calculate the distance between transmitter and receiver.(Easy for DCS)

Quality loss by terrain

Terrain masking (Line Of Sight) can only be calculated with terrain information from the simulator.(Easy for DCS)

All that can be done by external TS mods like it is done by Aries Radio. But it is hardly black magic because there are functions used which are not meant to be used for data exchange.Therefore it is not optimized for that purpose. The other impact is, that you have to keep track of unreported software changes in DCS and TS which can you drive nuts.

From my point of view, the most effective way would be, to bring Eagle Dynamics and TeamSpeak together and let them discuss how the API can be extended for DCS purposes. Then DCS should develop a build in TS client which supports radio communication in a optimized way. Developing a complete new com server and the required client software is absolutely waste of time because TS is already there as base and works rock solid. Furthermore, TS has already a possibility to create custom servers and client software from the scratch.The small disadvantage even here is the limited support of radio functionality and that own developed clients cannot communicate with normal TS Servers and vice versa. But I am afraid, that DCS does not hear our yammer. It is quite comfortable and cheap for them to let third party developers do that work.

I hope, I could describe what is behind the users simple push of a button.