Jump to content

VATSIM tests voice codec live on network for first time


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just finished reading the blog post. Pretty interesting reading and some fascinating stuff in the works. As I read it Option 1 implementation will work with all existing clients because voice would be separate from the pilot client...is that correct?

 

if so, does that mean the ATC info we get now from the pilot client such as frequencies and "ding dongs" would come from the voice "client" under option one? Text Chat as well would show up...where...in the pilot client control panel or the voice channel control panel?

 

Regardless of which option is implemented, the goal, as I understood it, is to integrate voice into the option two solution of "modern clients"...so, that means vPilot and maybe xSquawkbox only I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume, at least until/if Swift is implemented.

 

But, to close on a positive note, regardless of how it all is implemented, the read was absolutely a enjoyable one. Zach did a really great job putting that information release together.

 

Randy

Randy Tyndall - KBOI

ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4

“A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training

1087023

Link to post
Share on other sites

The update sounds (lol) really good!

I'm in favour of waiting for the client releases. That way you can keep testing with greater and greater numbers before a public release.

I know the temptation is to think "yes, it's done. My code is amazing, nothing can go wrong" but that's not always true.

 

We've heard the proof that it's being worked on and pretty much ready. We can all wait a bit longer while you perfect it. Don't rush it out in the home stretch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just finished reading the blog post. Pretty interesting reading and some fascinating stuff in the works. As I read it Option 1 implementation will work with all existing clients because voice would be separate from the pilot client...is that correct?

 

That is correct (although the legacy clients don't send some of the data required, but the possibility is that the voice client could retrieve that through FSUIPC).

 

does that mean the ATC info we get now from the pilot client such as frequencies and "ding dongs" would come from the voice "client" under option one? Text Chat as well would show up...where...in the pilot client control panel or the voice channel control panel?

 

Nope. All the voice client does is... voice. Everything else is absolutely identical to how it is now (in fact, if you just run and minimise the voice client you wouldn't know anything was any different apart from the new sound!).

uc?export=download&id=0B7VIvxpWVbGuemJEQmVPOUh2U2M&revid=0B7VIvxpWVbGuQUdOREp3TGtiZFZXSXd2WDdUcVpvRzk5NWs0PQ

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wondering why VATISM has been so lethargic as to allow a problem that has been literally driving people off the network exist for so long, and why there's no information available for potential implementation for such a colossal issue the network is facing.

 

I'll believe it when my audio through my pilot client sounds like this.

 

Im just happy that progress is being made. I think these are exciting times for our community.

Mark Hubbert

Division Director VATUSA

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please forgive my ignorance but does this new technology (finally) allow CTAF type voice as used in Australia in FSX and the workaround for P3D? Or is it an update only for ATC voice?

I believe so. Pretty sure the head of tech is part of vatpac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please forgive my ignorance but does this new technology (finally) allow CTAF type voice as used in Australia in FSX and the workaround for P3D? Or is it an update only for ATC voice?

 

It's a completely new system. There will be no such thing as voice rooms, it just works based on VHF line of sight, so you can transmit voice on any frequency regardless of whether there is a controller available. The exception is 122.8 which will be range-limited to make it less chaotic, but there's no technical reason why divisions couldn't use discrete frequencies at individual airfields for CTAF etc if they so choose.

uc?export=download&id=0B7VIvxpWVbGuemJEQmVPOUh2U2M&revid=0B7VIvxpWVbGuQUdOREp3TGtiZFZXSXd2WDdUcVpvRzk5NWs0PQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest fear with this is that Pilot B already fails to leave space after ATC has given an instruction to Pilot A in order to allow Pilot A to read that back -- and that's now, when everyone can hear everyone. Imagine when Pilot B can NOT hear Pilot A.

 

But, other than a bit of re-education, I am excited for the change.

 

Any thought to how the range limitations will affect Oceanic operations? Real-world Oceanic ops use special radios (HF) which have longer range than VHF, but poorer reception. Currently, Oceanic ops on VATSIM are accomplished by way of the VHF radios we simulate having unrealistically long ranges. How will this new system change that?

Cheers,

-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the next challenge will be to allocate freqs so we don't have crosstalk between stations within and outside the various artccs.

Will Centers have to have multiple freqs based on geography? No need to answer, it's just the same problems as in the real world.

Can't imagine that it will get worse than it is right now. If it's implemented properly and the ground stations placed properly, I think that RW frequencies should fit in just fine.

 

About multiple frequencies, either that or multiple transceivers using the same frequency. I asked over at Facebook and bandboxing will be possible.

 

The infrastructure and the current code that’s actually been written supports multiple radio transeceivers in multiple locations. Our next step is to band box the different transceivers . We then plan to add an interface to have each of those transceivers can have a different frequency. If that makes the initial release then great, but if not it will certainly come along later. Cheers Gary (AFV Lead)
Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest fear with this is that Pilot B already fails to leave space after ATC has given an instruction to Pilot A in order to allow Pilot A to read that back -- and that's now, when everyone can hear everyone. Imagine when Pilot B can NOT hear Pilot A.

 

We'll need to deal with this as they do in the real world when combining large chunks of airspace ... by having the controller transmit and receive on multiple frequencies and bandboxing them together.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest fear with this is that Pilot B already fails to leave space after ATC has given an instruction to Pilot A in order to allow Pilot A to read that back -- and that's now, when everyone can hear everyone. Imagine when Pilot B can NOT hear Pilot A.

 

But, other than a bit of re-education, I am excited for the change.

 

Any thought to how the range limitations will affect Oceanic operations? Real-world Oceanic ops use special radios (HF) which have longer range than VHF, but poorer reception. Currently, Oceanic ops on VATSIM are accomplished by way of the VHF radios we simulate having unrealistically long ranges. How will this new system change that?

 

As Ross says, there will be the capability to do some cross-coupling and controller radio range is currently based on visibility range (so if you can see it you can talk to it). There are possibilities in future iterations to implement things like antenna heights and terrain modelling etc in to the protocol, but that's further off.

 

However, this really shouldn't be that much of an issue except in really enormous sectors: remember that VHF range increases quite rapidly with height and even two aircraft at 2000ft AGL will be able to hear each other from around 110nm away. Once you get in to the flight levels you're looking at 450nm+ combined line of sight for two aircraft at FL350 or so. Remember also that even now text is (roughly) line of sight - think how often you can only see a one-sided text conversation? Pretty rare, and the main thing is that provided controllers understand the situation and the limitations of real life communications, there should be no real problem.

 

Re: HF etc... longer term, who knows what might be possible... it's definitely an interesting area!

uc?export=download&id=0B7VIvxpWVbGuemJEQmVPOUh2U2M&revid=0B7VIvxpWVbGuQUdOREp3TGtiZFZXSXd2WDdUcVpvRzk5NWs0PQ

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, this really shouldn't be that much of an issue except in really enormous sectors: remember that VHF range increases quite rapidly with height and even two aircraft at 2000ft AGL will be able to hear each other from around 110nm away.

 

That kind of situation will come up much more frequently with VATSIM than it does real-world, though, since on VATSIM, we often have a controller working an entire ARTCC, top down, meaning he is often controlling two aircraft that are quite far apart but both close to the ground, because they're operating at distant airports.

 

Obviously, we generally only have a single controller covering an entire ARTCC top-down when the traffic is relatively light ... when there's an event, there's usually approach or tower controllers, so the lighter traffic load should mitigate this issue somewhat. However, I do think it'll be enough of an issue that we'll need a tech solution such as bandboxing/cross-coupling/etc. We do get a single controller covering an entire ARTCC top-down with enough traffic where having two aircraft far apart and low enough to not hear each other will be a regular occurrence.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites
That kind of situation will come up much more frequently with VATSIM than it does real-world, though, since on VATSIM, we often have a controller working an entire ARTCC, top down, meaning he is often controlling two aircraft that are quite far apart but both close to the ground, because they're operating at distant airports.

 

Obviously, we generally only have a single controller covering an entire ARTCC top-down when the traffic is relatively light ... when there's an event, there's usually approach or tower controllers, so the lighter traffic load should mitigate this issue somewhat. However, I do think it'll be enough of an issue that we'll need a tech solution such as bandboxing/cross-coupling/etc. We do get a single controller covering an entire ARTCC top-down with enough traffic where having two aircraft far apart and low enough to not hear each other will be a regular occurrence.

 

Absolutely right - and something I've mentioned to the guys. I believe Mark has a plan .

uc?export=download&id=0B7VIvxpWVbGuemJEQmVPOUh2U2M&revid=0B7VIvxpWVbGuQUdOREp3TGtiZFZXSXd2WDdUcVpvRzk5NWs0PQ

Link to post
Share on other sites
Btw, does it mean that 8.33 kHz frequencies are possible? Just technically, I know that many of the major planes can't tune 8.33. Or is the frequency still only 4 digits via Simconnect, and 134.710 would be the same as 134.715?

 

I know, we're far away from this, just curious

 

From a voice point of view 8.33 is not a problem. It's the other stuff around it (like actually being able to tune the frequencies!) that's the issue.

 

I've some thoughts on the subject but it's for a later date as you say - the key at the moment is to focus on delivering a solution which improves on the main issues of voice quality and latency that exist right now on the network and that's what the guys are doing.

uc?export=download&id=0B7VIvxpWVbGuemJEQmVPOUh2U2M&revid=0B7VIvxpWVbGuQUdOREp3TGtiZFZXSXd2WDdUcVpvRzk5NWs0PQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was more about the technical part, guess you guys know more about it. Last time I checked, Simconnect was transmitting only 4 digits of the tuned frequency, so 136.125 would be seen as 3612 for an external tool.

Of course, no 8.33 kHz in that case, since the last digit matters as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think that you can READ the frequency from SimConnect with all three decimal places, but you can't SET a frequency via SimConnect with more than two decimal places. If that's true, that may mean that radio stack gauges cannot be used to tune all three decimal places, if they use SimConnect to set the frequency. Perhaps if they use a different means to set the frequency variables, then maybe they still can. I haven't tested any add-on aircraft that support 8.33 tuning on their radio panel, to see if the tuned frequency can be read via SimConnect with all three decimal places intact.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...