Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, I´m fairly new to this fórum. Although I have the license for several months now, only recenly I´ve started to think in online and possibly multiplayer.

I´ve not seen a "wishlist" or sugestions fórum part, so I hope it´s ok to write this here. The thing is that when I started thinking in multiplayer terms, I realized that SB lacks something really fundamental for multiplayer: radios or more specifically, signals simulation.

If I´m not mistaken, the lack of radio sets in the vehicles makes simulating radio nets, etc.. imposible. And I think that with human players in the tanks, to require switching frequencies, or range and LOS, radio traffic preventing to coordinate if there is no radio discipline, etc... it´s a great part of any combat simulator.

How do you override this in multiplayer engagements? I can imagine that using TS with different rooms and whispers is an option, although not the best possible.

Also, to implement signals is in the plans for the future? Does the professional versión have it? (I´ve seen nothing in the product description IIRC).

BR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome. Yes we use TS with whispers if required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, marques said:

I´ve not seen a "wishlist" or sugestions fórum part, so I hope it´s ok to write this here.

a) Yes, it's perfectly fine to open a new thread, not the least because I hesitate to comment in the other

b) There is one, it's called "Steel Beasts content wishlist" with currently almost 6,000 replies...

 

Quote

The thing is that when I started thinking in multiplayer terms, I realized that SB lacks something really fundamental for multiplayer: radios or more specifically, signals simulation.

...

Also, to implement signals is in the plans for the future? Does the professional versión have it?

There exist 3rd party solutions like CNR Log and CNR Sim that integrate more or less seamlessly with Steel Beasts. We recommend that customers of the classroom version select among those third party softwares. We're too small as a team to fight on all fronts. As a German, I know what I'm talking about. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marques said:

 

How do you override this in multiplayer engagements? I can imagine that using TS with different rooms and whispers is an option, although not the best possible.

 

Welcome.

 

Actually TeamSpeak works very well.  

 

In the example I have pictured you can see how it is divided into Headquarters, Companies, Platoons and vehicles.  Each platoon level and higher has its own frequency 

and whispers can be set to the frequency rather than to a specific person.  You just need to assign push-to-talk buttons for each frequency.  Players can turn on, or off, any of the frequencies that they to listen to, or ignore.

At the platoon level every one is usually on the platoon frequency but individual vehicles are provided for multi crewing situations.

 

All of this needs to be set up beforehand by the person responsible but from what I can infer it is not difficult to do.

5bbcd34de822a_TSexample.jpg.80465e869cbcfa0e9d7d2d6c40b0dbe2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but that require some setup from the TS3 admin CAV , the above example is actually setup to make it possible to multi crew a vehicle where the guys is sitting in each channel have an assigned PLT channel (which is a fancy analogy for TS3 Groups) which in this setup is called the same as one of frequencies that NATO uses.

 

Then each PLT leader and PLT SG can be on the company Command net (which is another group/Channel Freq 26000)

and finally all CO and XOs can be at HQ freq 61000.

 

In the kanium setup anybody can set him self up with any channel he wants to listen to, but he needs to make a push to talk button via whisper list pr channel/group he wants to speak in, he can even assign where each channel is coming from fx. PLT in left ear and Command in Right.

 

Quote

 

How do you override this in multiplayer engagements? I can imagine that using TS with different rooms and whispers is an option, although not the best possible.

 

 

 

The only thing you don't get with this setup is range (aka like in arma 3 where there is a limit for how long you can send etc....), you can even get it to make squelch sounds when you press and or release you push to talk button and since the civillian (Pro pe) version only allows 20x20 km maps anyway in most cases it wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.

I have played eve online with 2000 players on the same TS3 server, but that requires discipline from everyone. So number off players is no problem as SB would crash long before that.

 

Best regards

MD

Edited by Major duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, marques said:

How do you override this in multiplayer engagements? I can imagine that using TS with different rooms and whispers is an option, although not the best possible.

Also, to implement signals is in the plans for the future? Does the professional versión have it? (I´ve seen nothing in the product description IIRC).

BR

 

As Ssnake alluded to things like CNR Sim (or Mumble) can provide a richer comms experience than TS, but even TS works seamlessly with Steel Beasts and allows the small eSim development team to focus on the key product and allow the comms sim specialists to do what they are good at.

 

If you want:

 

Internal Comms to come in though say the left ear

The Platoon net to come in through say the right ear

The Squadron / Company net to come through the left ear and override the internal chat

Range attenuation

Jamming / EW / atmospherics

...

 

Then I suggest you look at one of these other products.

 

For most people a free, workable solution, comes via Teamspeak.

 

After all Steel Beasts (either Pro or Pro PE) is not a combat net radio simulator.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, marques said:

The thing is that when I started thinking in multiplayer terms, I realized that SB lacks something really fundamental for multiplayer: radios or more specifically, signals simulation.

The sim does simulate the importance of radio communication to an extent - radios can be damaged, degrading command and control of the unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thanks to everybody! Now I have a clearer picture.

In any case, answering to some of the comments and extending my arguments.... I´ve been playing simulators for a long time, and furthermore I an active Cavalry solider in my army. Because of this, I know that signals is normally one of the achilles heels in any exercise/operation. That´s why I personally like to have this simulated to some extent, because when you try to simulate an operation with more than one vehicle (either tank, helicopter or aircraft) radio discipline etc... is almost as important as any other technical skill.

So, yes, as this simulator is in fact the civilian version of a collective training military simulator (and the key is the word collective) I was kind of surprised that this aspect was not taken into account.

Said that, I don´t want to sound as the typical complainer or whyner (excuse me for my english, does this words exist?). The TS procedure that you guys kindly explained it´s been used for years and it´s ok. Not ideal, but ok. I see that it´s a bit more complicated to setup than, for example, in flight simulators, as multicrew means that you have to make a channel for every single tank, but it´s clearly doable. I did not know that ts gave so many configuration possibilities, though, I will investigate it a bit as normally I just set up the channels and created wispers.

Ssnake, I fully understand that this is not a priority at all, that´s clear. You may be a small team, but you managed to create the best tank simulator ever, so you are more than capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I was kind of surprised that this aspect was not taken into account."

 

It is taken into account - there are better niche products that link into SB. Think of it as combined arms if you will SB + say CNR Sim (or TS)  = Better solution that SB alone.

 

In addition for professional users there are often multiple products in play.

 

e.g. Vehicle crews us SB. Dismounts use VBS. Then use CNR sim to have comms between both.

 

Or we want the people using SB to be able to interact with real soldiers using real radios in the field. CNR Sim +CNR Live links the person with a headset in the classroom with an AFV commander driving around the training area.

 

There is no / little point having a flash comms package in say SB if it can't link into other products.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We in Canada use the sim, and for comms we use our Mil  radios for the simple fact, that we have them, good trg on given equipment.As for online playing TS works without any issues (generally). Again welcome , hope to see ya online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 6:43 PM, marques said:

That´s why I personally like to have this simulated to some extent, because when you try to simulate an operation with more than one vehicle (either tank, helicopter or aircraft) radio discipline etc... is almost as important as any other technical skill.

Said that, I don´t want to sound as the typical complainer or whyner (excuse me for my english, does this words exist?). The TS procedure that you guys kindly explained it´s been used for years and it´s ok. Not ideal, but ok. I see that it´s a bit more complicated to setup than, for example, in flight simulators, as multicrew means that you have to make a channel for every single tank, but it´s clearly doable. I did not know that ts gave so many configuration possibilities, though, I will investigate it a bit as normally I just set up the channels and created wispers.

Radio discipline is certainly part of communicating in Team Speak. I have personally seen many a plan bog down based on the Commander monitoring too many nets (information overload), to not painting a picture for the Commander's understanding. I fail to understand how it is "not ideal" when TS simulates the majority of what you would normally do when setting up a radio; IE programming nets into different channels, choosing what channels to monitor, switching between nets to talk, etc. It doesn't model degradation of comms, but unless your comms equipment is garbage, the average Steel Beasts Pro PE scenario is small enough in area to negate having significant degradation. 

 

I've experienced many a "MilSim" unit on Arma 3 who insist on using Task Force Radio "for the realism" (yet the "realistic" radios are simplified compared to their real world equivalents) spend 45 minutes trying to figure out how to talk to each other. That may be some peoples' idea of fun, but it certainly isn't mine. For the remainder of the time when everyone knew what they were doing, I seldom experienced a scenario where we operated far enough apart from each other for it to matter, to include emplacing a deep OP and directing airstrikes onto an enemy armored convoy. 

 

There is nothing preventing you from getting a dedicated radio simulator and using it with Steel Beasts. The issue you will run into is that TS is free, and does 99% of what the "average" (for-entertainment, non-military use types) Steel Beasts Pro PE player wants it to do. Convincing a group to drop money on a radio simulator may not be the easiest sell in this regard. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

Radio discipline is certainly part of communicating in Team Speak. I have personally seen many a plan bog down based on the Commander monitoring too many nets (information overload), to not painting a picture for the Commander's understanding. I fail to understand how it is "not ideal" when TS simulates the majority of what you would normally do when setting up a radio; IE programming nets into different channels, choosing what channels to monitor, switching between nets to talk, etc. It doesn't model degradation of comms, but unless your comms equipment is garbage, the average Steel Beasts Pro PE scenario is small enough in area to negate having significant degradation. 

 

I've experienced many a "MilSim" unit on Arma 3 who insist on using Task Force Radio "for the realism" (yet the "realistic" radios are simplified compared to their real world equivalents) spend 45 minutes trying to figure out how to talk to each other. That may be some peoples' idea of fun, but it certainly isn't mine. For the remainder of the time when everyone knew what they were doing, I seldom experienced a scenario where we operated far enough apart from each other for it to matter, to include emplacing a deep OP and directing airstrikes onto an enemy armored convoy. 

 

There is nothing preventing you from getting a dedicated radio simulator and using it with Steel Beasts. The issue you will run into is that TS is free, and does 99% of what the "average" (for-entertainment, non-military use types) Steel Beasts Pro PE player wants it to do. Convincing a group to drop money on a radio simulator may not be the easiest sell in this regard. 

 

well, I don´t know if answering or not, to be honest. It may be the difficulty of understanding feelings or intentions in a written forum, but I have the impression that you believe I am somehow attacking TS or SB for not having radios.

Just to clarify, I´ve been using TS for online simulation for many, many years. It´s a great piece of software but, certainly not ideal in my point of view:

- It is not free. The client is free, but if you want to use it someone has to pay the server.

- You can simulate radio nets and crew interphony, sure, but you have to cofigure a lot of channels and whispers everytime you want to play a mission, as vehicles and tactical organization changes.

- Signals always works. You say that this is the situation in real life, I beg to differ. Communications in reality fail for many reasons, no matter how good or modern is your radio set. Things like SIMPLEX radios, LOS, fading, range, antenna position, etc... may prevent sending or receiving. See, I was not asking to have all of this simulated, but some of the things can be simulated and add to the realism and combat feeling and inmersión.

- As far as I know, you have to use different keys for different whisper channels.

 

I´ve been playing simulation within clans or "units" for many years, and you may have that experience with Arma 3, but I can tell you that I´ve played this game for years and signals were never a problem that took 45 minutes to solve before each mission. Signals and procedures were simply part of the training to play the game within that virtual organization. I also play regularly the flight simulator DCS within a virtual unit, and signals are an important part of the missions, and almost never are a technical problem. Well.... not more problematic tan other aspects of DCS, anyway.

 

To finish, you say that 99% of SB does not feel the need of having radios in the vehicles. That I don´t know, it may be. But my surprise came mainly from the fact that this software is actually the entertainment version of a professional simulator. I was simply surprised that client armies did not request this feature.

 

Anyway, Ssnake explained me why they cannot implement it, Gibson and 12Alpha explained me that in the military use they use other pieces of software and or real radio sets to cover that aspect, so I´ve no more doubts about this regard.

Edited by marques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marques said:

1. It is not free. The client is free, but if you want to use it someone has to pay the server.

2. You can simulate radio nets and crew interphony, sure, but you have to cofigure a lot of channels and whispers everytime you want to play a mission, as vehicles and tactical organization changes.

3. Signals always works. You say that this is the situation in real life, I beg to differ. Communications in reality fail for many reasons, no matter how good or modern is your radio set. Things like SIMPLEX radios, LOS, fading, range, antenna position, etc... may prevent sending or receiving. See, I was not asking to have all of this simulated, but some of the things can be simulated and add to the realism and combat feeling and inmersión.

4. As far as I know, you have to use different keys for different whisper channels.

 

5. I´ve been playing simulation within clans or "units" for many years, and you may have that experience with Arma 3, but I can tell you that I´ve played this game for years and signals were never a problem that took 45 minutes to solve before each mission. Signals and procedures were simply part of the training to play the game within that virtual organization. I also play regularly the flight simulator DCS within a virtual unit, and signals are an important part of the missions, and almost never are a technical problem. Well.... not more problematic tan other aspects of DCS, anyway.

 

6. To finish, you say that 99% of SB does not feel the need of having radios in the vehicles. That I don´t know, it may be. But my surprise came mainly from the fact that this software is actually the entertainment version of a professional simulator. I was simply surprised that client armies did not request this feature.

I broke your comments down into numbers to better facilitate my answer.

 

1. SteelBeasts.com hosts a TeamSpeak server that anyone using Steel Beasts can connect to and use for free, provided they adhere to the community rules and guidelines. There are also other TS servers hosted by the various virtual units within Steel Beasts. Unless you feel the need to have your own TeamSpeak server, anyone using Steel Beasts can communicate with others via TS for free.

 

2. While I would not consider myself an expert, I have used CNR-Sim enough to consider myself to be familiar with it. When specifying scenarios to be built in a simulation for training, our WTA Contractors would need to adjust frequencies, channels, etc. based on the task organization of our unit. Unless you use the exact same Task Organization every single time you play with a group, I don't see the need to make adjustments to your channels, nets, frequencies, callsigns, etc. going away anytime soon, no matter the software you are using.

 

3. I never, in any part of my previous post, said that signals always work. I stated "unless your comms equipment is garbage, the average Steel Beasts Pro PE scenario is small enough in area to negate having significant degradation." There are two points of note here:

 

a. To clarify on "comms equipment is garbage," I am referring to the fact that your comms equipment needs to be in good working order, is properly maintained, and is properly set and filled.

 

b. I specified Steel Beasts Pro PE due to the fact that Steel Beasts Pro allows you to create scenarios that are larger in the size of the total AO you are in. The last mission that Kanium ran was Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rubenberge 1989 by Panzer_Leader (which is a great mission, download it immediately!) The AO we operated in was approximately 9x9 KM, consisting of a mix of forests, small urban areas, open fields, and rolling hills. Taking into account the actual maneuver space we used, this was reduced to approximately 8x6 KM. If a Company-sized element is having significant issues talking within an 8x6 KM maneuver area, the most likely culprits are improperly maintained commo equipment, or a lack of proper training to operate said equipment.

 

4. Yes. It is a common practice to have multiple radios running in a single vehicle to monitor multiple channels. To talk on different radios, you will generally flip a switch on a jbox or whatever your country's equivalent equipment is. To me, this is as inconvenient as having to press a different key per channel to talk on.

 

5. Your mileage may vary. I have played with organizations that had a commo SOP, and I have had the misfortune of playing with some that gave no though to commo and paid the price in time. The fact is, there are always people who really "nerd out" over radios and communications. In my experience, they tend to be in the minority. 

 

6. Client Armies have many options of other software that is devoted to simulating communications, or, as 12Alfa stated, use their own comms equipment during simulations so that Soldiers get time to train on the "switchology" of the radios they will be using. I think that eSim Games made the absolute right choice in making a deliberate decision to NOT devote resources towards simulating radios. Arma 3, for example, does include the ability to have voice chat within the game. However, all of the organizations I have played Arma 3 with use TeamSpeak or Discord, and never use the in-game voice chat. 

 

In conclusion, I do not feel that you are attacking Steel Beasts or TS in any way. I am simply giving my opinion on why TeamSpeak is a solution for the majority of Steel Beasts Pro PE players who are playing primarily for entertainment.

 

I hope to see you in a multiplayer game at some point! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I understand your points and agree with most of them, actually. In this case, the normal problem of misinterpreting a post is aggravated by the fact that I´m not using my own language.

I´d love to play with you guys, but sadly the sunday afternoon is a NOGO time for me right now. But I promise it´ll happen sooner tan later.

 

to finish with the radio issue, and now is just a wish (not even a request), what I´d love to see is the system that DCS has, for example. Helicopters (well, aircrafts in general) have the radio sets simulated, and you can enter frecuencies on them. This frecuency for the simulator itself is only used to decide if an order or request used with the radio menú (similar to SB) is heard or not by the receiver. Just this is not so exciting. The interesting thing is that DCS lets to export info, and therefore there are free programs (even plugins for TS) that can take info from the simulator, such as frequencies, position into the game (helicopters are multicrew), distance, etc... and simulate more or less the signals.

Anyway, as I said before, I understand why Esim did not waste resources on this, and that´s all from my side.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×