Jump to content

Bring on the death threats... Comms setup?


Recommended Posts

At the risk of bodily harm befalling me, I really feel the need to revisit our squadron comms setup.

Last night was a prime example of why TS is not where we need it to be.

Red flight was dropping bombs ON THE SAME TARGET as blue AND gold, there was absolutely no scene of action coordination going on.  Red stayed on Red channel, Blue stayed on Blue, and Gold on Gold.  Great if the flights are on separate missions in separate geographic locations, however, last night clearly this was not the case.   Sandy did a good job of Red flight coord (as a good lead SHOULD do), but I heard very limited inter-flight coordination.  Watching from a CAP position (GreyWolfe and I were well above the ground war, ensuring bad-guy air support did not appear), it seemed pretty random and uncoordinated which aircraft did his run.  I ended chasing a PE-2, only to discover it was a 110 with nav lights off (no wonder he didn't fire at me, luckily I held my fire as well, even though I would likely have missed!).  With a common, on-scene channel, this would not have occurred.

Having everyone on the same TS channel does not work with any more than 4 pilots, as it is FAR to congested.  TS is not designed to channel-switch easily, and Whisper, although great for static wingman/flight comms, just doesn't make the grade for dynamic, rapidly-changing situational communications requiring multiple flights to be temporarily on the same channel.  The flexibility and functionality just isn't there.

Several months ago, as tasked by Geezer, I posted a typical military-tactical comm plan based on using SRS, with standard channels assigned.  IF we had been using this last night, Scene-of-Action 1 (SOA1) would have seen MUCH better tactical coordination and weaponeering, with flight/wingman comms remaining unaffected.  This would have completely eliminated guys diving in on the ground targets only to find another WW aircraft had JUST dropped his bomb, eliminated the target, and forcing an emergency maneuver to avoid the blast.

I REALLY think we need to revisit this issue, I would be quite happy to coach guys using SRS, which is DESIGNED for what we need it to do... quick channel changes, with multiple, concurrent voice channels, and a separate intercom.  In terms of setting it up on our server(s), once again about a 30-second job.  Similar to TS, it runs in the background, but connects automatically once you connect to the server.

In reality, if set up correctly, it is transparent to the user.  Hit your PTT switch, you talk.  The only difference is you can QUICKLY and easily switch channels to what the situation dictates.

Looking at the upcoming missions, I think we need to have another look at this, it's really not rocket surgery.

*Diz ducks and runs for cover

 

SRS for Wing Walkers.doc

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure it was me running around naked last night I am sorry for my ignorance on so many squad proceedures I will try to get a handle on things as quick as possible. I did really injoy the WW2 plane last night quite alot to learn but thats the fun part to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz is 100% right about all of this. TS has its place here, and there’s no reason to abandon it. But for the scene that Diz painted, and keep in mind I was not there, there is no better solution than SRS. I was not ready to hop aboard the SRS train when it first came into the station, but I’ll tell you that on complex ops, there is NO BETTER OPTION. It is used in DCS exclusively, and with good reason. Also can’t think of a better person to spearhead this than Diz. Please let me know if I can help at all. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not opposed to giving SRS a solid try, comms discipline has been a never ending pain in my butt for quite some time.  It's not just about what program we use to communicate either, it's the seemingly never ending chatter that while may seem like it relates to the mission in reality it isn't.  I could go on in this vein for quite some time but I think (hope) everyone gets the point that there's a time and place for chatter that's not mission related.

If SRS can be setup quickly, easily for everyone and their different types of flight gear used then I say we should at least try it.  If the setup becomes overly complicated then we will not get sufficient buy in to make it worthwhile even trying and if that turns out be the case then I'll stay with tried and tested TS.

I would be interested to see how you might plan to pull this together Diz, keeping it as simple as possible so that even I could understand how to do it on my own.  Discipline related discussions can follow post setup and testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents but I like the big room with lots of chatter.  It may not be mil-spec and efficient but I get to know my fellow WW's better and share the camaraderie in a big channel.  The last few events have been a bit sterile for me, I like to know what is going down in the other flights as it is happening.  I know with so many players showing up to play it is getting unwieldy but as long as I have been with the WW's we have always walked the fine line between being an all out simulation group and a bunch of blokes hanging out blowing stuff up and laughing about it.

Not that I will put up a fight if the consensus is to get more serious on comms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WWCraven said:

I am not opposed to giving SRS a solid try, comms discipline has been a never ending pain in my butt for quite some time.  It's not just about what program we use to communicate either, it's the seemingly never ending chatter that while may seem like it relates to the mission in reality it isn't.  I could go on in this vein for quite some time but I think (hope) everyone gets the point that there's a time and place for chatter that's not mission related.

If SRS can be setup quickly, easily for everyone and their different types of flight gear used then I say we should at least try it.  If the setup becomes overly complicated then we will not get sufficient buy in to make it worthwhile even trying and if that turns out be the case then I'll stay with tried and tested TS.

I would be interested to see how you might plan to pull this together Diz, keeping it as simple as possible so that even I could understand how to do it on my own.  Discipline related discussions can follow post setup and testing.

I'll consider that a tasking from staff.

Give me a few days, I'll have the definitive SRS lesson plan written, so its easy to set up for not only players, but the guys that come up with the missions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, WWCephas said:

Just my 2 cents but I like the big room with lots of chatter.  It may not be mil-spec and efficient but I get to know my fellow WW's better and share the camaraderie in a big channel.  The last few events have been a bit sterile for me, I like to know what is going down in the other flights as it is happening.  I know with so many players showing up to play it is getting unwieldy but as long as I have been with the WW's we have always walked the fine line between being an all out simulation group and a bunch of blokes hanging out blowing stuff up and laughing about it.

Not that I will put up a fight if the consensus is to get more serious on comms.

SRS does not take that away, as everyone is monitoring CH 1.  TS does not have the capability to monitor multiple channels, SRS does, and has 2 channels (3 if you include multi-crew aircraft).  With this is the ability to QUICKLY switch channels by pressing a button, you don't need to alt-tab, find your mouse, and drag yourself to the channel you want, talk, then drag yourself back (if necessary).

With TS whisper, yes I can set that up, but...

1 - Who is on what channel changes week per week, mission to mission, you have to reset whisper to reflect that.  If I talk on whisper to say blue flight, unless they have me set up on whisper, or have whisper reply setup, I don't hear their reply.

SRS does not have that limitation.  I simply switch to the necessary channel, say my piece, hear the reply, then if necessary switch back.  We are only gaining functionality using SRS, which is now the de facto comms standard in IL2.

Don't get me wrong, folks still use TS and Discord (or whatever) to do their pre-brief, or meet, or whatever.  But in-game, SRS is what is used, with TS or Discord used in parallel if necessary.  It is transparent, the PTT is identical if you want it to be and set it up that way, you press the button, talk, hear the reply.  The advantage is that channel switching is built in, and there is no setup for who is on what channel apart from the COMPLAN.  It provides FAR more flexibility than TS or Discord

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ducking and running, what you said is 100% correct. And I am absolutely in agreement with the "more than 4 in a channel" creates MAJOR disturbances within TS. That's one reason why we break into flight channels. But... that leaves us as mini groups that hardly interact, an issue that Icy's demise brought home quite rudely.

I firmly believe that TS has all the tools to be what we need it to be, it's just that the mod (similar to ACRE for Amra3) hasn't been made for flight sims. Such a thing would increase the comms learning curve by a large factor, while at the same time increasing the reality factor. But ... It doesn't exist.

For my own part, I'm a complete neophyte with SRS, so I have to defer to the experience Diz and others familiar with it can offer. I'm more than willing to learn though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A final note... I made a mistake in separating Red into cover and attack sections. Under other circumstances, where Red was more or less autonomous. that would be a wise decision. But as soon as I saw Blue flight toting bombs, along with Gold operating ion the same area, I knew Red was not doing it's job. But I let it slide. My mistake. I should have insisted that Red be the bomb carriers and Blue maintain cover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WWSandMan said:

A final note... I made a mistake in separating Red into cover and attack sections. Under other circumstances, where Red was more or less autonomous. that would be a wise decision. But as soon as I saw Blue flight toting bombs, along with Gold operating ion the same area, I knew Red was not doing it's job. But I let it slide. My mistake. I should have insisted that Red be the bomb carriers and Blue maintain cover. 

@WWSandMan Tactically, the decision to get as much iron as possible onto the tanks (the immediate threat) IMHO was the correct one.  We only needed a single rotte in CAP (Wolfe and I, Red 3 and 4), as the air threat did not materialize as we thought it might.  Having the extra 3 bomb loads (Red 1, 2 and 5) with you as SAC (scene of action commander) maintained both the Concentration of Force and Economy of Effort principles of War, and in the end, won the day.  The risk level was acceptable for the situation, and countered the main threat (the tanks).  That, plus if the air threat had developed into something more than it did, it would have been easy to have either the rest of Red or Blue flight assist quickly (Wolfe and I would have at least slowed them down), while maintaining the aim of stopping the tanks from advancing (Master Principle of War: Selection and Maintenance of the Aim).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz, while this discussion continues, you can opt to create a profile to change channels in Teamspeak. Works fine. In fact I'm going to use my new profile which will be switching to any channel and having one whisper setup to whisper to all channels at the same time.(takes 6 buttons)

I also made a profile that only uses (3 buttons), to switch channels via next/prev and one button for global whisper to all channels. 

Depending on how creative you get and how many buttons you have available, you might setup a next/prev channel switcher, then a whisper for each channel so no matter which channel you switch to, you can also whisper to any channel. (7 buttons) and whispers will only be heard by the channel your whispering too. To set it up to whisper to your channel and the channel your in, you need seperate profiles. 

Take a closer look at the options available in TS, you can do a lot. (too many options to count)

I'll use TS or SRS, whatever the squad decides. 

But for now; I'm going to opt to use channel switching and a single global whisper. 

New profile I'm going to try... 

~S~

Edited by WWDriftwood
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use ts whispers on a per-channel basis, not to individual pilots (I could, but for the most part that's been irrelevant for my uses.) I have all the active flight channels set up on one of my MFD doo-dads, with buttons representing each flight, and whisper to all at once (which rarely works for me.) 

I also ensure that the channel I'm in is included in the whisper, so the folks I'm with always know when I'm talking to another channel (I try to use the proper "to-from"  identifying prefix before sending my traffic.) 

It works well enough, but having some experience with srs will be good if/when we get involved in a campaign using it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at the profile option on TS that you presented.

First off, thankyou to Woody for taking the time to make both YT vids, they were MOST unexpected, and very much appreciated.  They are incredibly informative, and helped me to better understand TS and its capabilities.

All I really want to do here is make our sqn comms setup a model of how to do it right, and this REALLY helps.

At the end of the day, TS as presented here meets the aim of quick, on the fly, channel mobility, which we lack at the moment, and IMHO, really need.  It really needs to be optimized though, and I'm not convinced (yet) that a sqn-wide TS optimization can be achieved.  Would be many moving parts...

That being said, SRS  has this capability, without the issue of creating profiles.  SRS is simply 2 radios allowing simultaneous monitoring of 2 channels (3 if you include multi-crew intercom), much like real aircraft.  You choose which radio you talk on, and which channel that radio is monitoring.  From what I can tell, a profile (still not 100% sure how to create one, I'll figure it out though) is another name for key binds, which you would have to set up, either on TS (profile) or SRS (key binds).  However, with SRS, there is no need for each individual to have the same (or similar) TS profile set up.  You simply switch to the channel as promulgated in the mission COMPLAN.  As well, any other person who may or may not have TS will likely have SRS, as it is integrated into the game.

One solution COULD be to have both up and running (I plan to do that anyway, as I have a specific keymap that does whisper to a wingman... If I fly with a different wingy I have to set that up prior).   I have seen similar setups, this is quite common on the public servers (Discord/TS running concurrently as SRS).

Should we stick with TS and setup profiles, we would need to have our COMPLAN reflected on the channels available in TS, and each member would have to create similar profiles (key binds would no doubt be different, but functionality would need to be identical).  Currently, until I create a TS profile that can do this, my PTT All (RCtl ') is on my Joy thumb press, and Wingman Whisper (LShf 4) is on my Throttle thumb press (2 buttons, but no channel switch available unless I alt-tab to TS and drag myself to the channel I want to go to).  My plan is once I have the profile setup, bind the same commands I have for SRS to the same buttons (see below).  It SHOULD work.  If there is any feedback, one or the other can be muted (once again common practice on public servers).  Don't ask why so weird keyboard binds, there are reasons...

If we go to SRS, each individual would need to setup key binds (PTT all, Radio Switch Next/Prev (LCtl up/dn), Channel Switch +/- (LShf up/dn)... I have mine bound to my Warthog Throttle Flaps control shifted and unshifted, PTT all on the Joy thumb press as above, 5 buttons).  The COMPLAN would simply be what channel you want to use (ie Red flight will always be on Ch4 if we go with the COMPLAN I propose). All members will always be monitoring CH1, which in the COMPLAN is Command and Control Coordination, and Guard.  Scene of Action (CH5) channel switch is called by the flight lead after coord with other flight lead on CH1.

The other nice thing about this, is that anyone joining us for a flight would not have to setup any special whisper profiles, there is no need as SRS simply has channels you switch to.  All we do is tell the guest which channel is which (give him the COMPLAN).

SRS server overhead is minimal, and is easy to setup with DServer, there is 1 box to fill out on the DServer interface for the mission, apart from actually running SRS_Server and setting that up (one-time setup)

SRS is the de facto standard now, as it is integrated into the game.  Not everyone is up on our chosen comms platform (TS), but everyone who wants to have comms is up on SRS in-game.  It seems we kind of like doing inter-squad events, this just makes it a whole lot easier (EIF is a good example, JG1 uses both TS AND has a discord channel

So, where does this leave us?  My task as I see it is to spend a few days comparing the 2 systems (as I used to do in real life as a T&E Officer), and present an unbiased report back with options and Courses of Action (COAs) for staff to decide upon and implement.  Not sure I can come up with YT vids as above (honestly Woody, they hit the nail on the head), but maybe a cool pdf presentation... 😉

I honestly think we can get our comms issues squared away into a nice, tight system, that everyone is comfortable with.

Any further input on this is really appreciated, I just want to come up with the right answer for the squadron, as our current comms state is not optimal.

Cheers

Diz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found the evaluation to be bias towards SRS without properly vetting the different options available in TS. In real life I've run operations, evaluating many software/program solutions to best fit the needs of the company and employees. Created independent DB solutions to bridge the gaps where software solutions were not available. Trained everyone on the new systems. All of it based on the factual pros/cons evaluations of the different solutions, longevity and support for any solutions, etc. But there was no voting system in the company just like the military. This is how we're doing it. 

What I found is people don't like change, lean towards what's comfortable and familiar. No matter what the final decisions are, there will be resistance to change. With flexibility comes complexity. SRS is simpler, not much flexibility, TS is much more flexible, but more complex in it's setup. 

Of course, this is not a company, and I didn't submit my resume, and most will disregard my comments for any number of preconceived unfounded notions having never worked with me in the real world. Lots of professional experience across the board in this squad which means a lot of very strong opinions. 

Just need to keep in mind, this situation is based on mutual agreement and cooperation. Nothing will work without both, which is evident. 

SRS - will be more consistent between the users / really don't have much of choice - works great for open mission online that anyone in the public can join and communicate via SRS. 

TS - Can be setup to fit your needs, of course, everyone has to agree to setup a profile to accommodate the minimum agreed on COMPLAN. 

I'm setup to use both... willing to try whatever COMPLAN the squad agrees on. 

This conversation pointed out valid points which is great, prompted me to change my TS profile. 

Thank you for that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I'm learning (from your vids), TS gives ALMOST all of what we need.  Decision needs to be made whether we go past almost.

Honest question... Can TS monitor 2 external channels simultaneously?  Whisper is not the answer there, as it needs significant setup, all must have it setup the same and is difficult to change on the fly.

I feel that the right answer at the end of the day is going to be a combination of both.  I discovered that you can bind the exact same hotkeys in both apps, so whether its SRS or TS, comms would be transparent to the user (which is where we want to go I think). You press your PTT, you talk.  Whether the stream goes through SRS or TS is irrelevant, the recipient hears your message.

Yes, its well known that I like SRS, but I'm also quite fond of TS (waaaaaaaaay better than Discord, which I don't particularly care for, but it carries out a slightly different function as a glorified forum).  I believe each has their place, TS is fabulous for a meet-up point, sqn meetings, and limited combat comms.  SRS is terrible at the first few things, but excels in combat comms.

Once again, I think the preferred option here is going to be a combination of both, which will give us far more flexibility and familiarity moving forward.

BTW, I figured out profiles, bound the TS channel switch keys to the same keys for channel switching as I have for SRS, works great :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WWDarkdiz said:

Honest question... Can TS monitor 2 external channels simultaneously?

Yes, and those channels can even be on different servers. In practice it ends up extremely messy from what I've seen/heard, because of random chatter from both servers overwhelming each other. Speaking on one or the other (or several others) requires constant switching to the desired primary server. 

There's a mod for TS used in the ArmA3 community called "Acre", that interacts withe game on a base level to allow for things such as limited range depending on issued radio type, and line of sight restrictions. One day I'd like to see that level of mod created for flights sims... Could even be specialized for specific eras of aviation technology. (rose colored glasses are wonderful!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would we set that up on our TS?  Wouldn't need a separate server, just the ability to monitor multiple channels on our single TS server simultaneously.  That is the one main drawback of the existing situation.  Channel switching can be done (I am now aware of) quickly, so that problem goes away.

27 minutes ago, WWSandMan said:

Yes, and those channels can even be on different servers. In practice it ends up extremely messy from what I've seen/heard, because of random chatter from both servers overwhelming each other. Speaking on one or the other (or several others) requires constant switching to the desired primary server. 

There's a mod for TS used in the ArmA3 community called "Acre", that interacts withe game on a base level to allow for things such as limited range depending on issued radio type, and line of sight restrictions. One day I'd like to see that level of mod created for flights sims... Could even be specialized for specific eras of aviation technology. (rose colored glasses are wonderful!) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please confirm you have read and understand the rules above

Please Sign In or Sign Up