[IVC] How to disable the mute system and some other question
-
Hi, My team and I use IVC but when we talk over each other, the mic just mute itself and we don’t hear each other.
I want to know if there is a way to return back to the old system with the mic block but we still hear each other, and ultimately, if we can disable that too ( The Micblock .wav )
Thanks
-
Enable duplex in the IVC settings and rename the mic blocker.
Its all in the BMS manual.
-
Thanks for the reply, yup, i’ve checked the manual but it is chinese to me.
Is there an interface for configuration of the IVC client ?
Because it is written, starting page 249 to :
You can enter command line options either by launching the applet from the cmd prompt or by setting the command line string in a Windows shortcut.
And Further down:
Example: “<yourinstallpath>:\FalconBMS\Bin\x86\ivc\IVC Client.exe” /d</yourinstallpath>
This is the part I don’t understand, should I open property on IVC Client.exe ? Because I don’t see the usual “target” where I think i’m supposed to put the “/d” and I prefere asking before doing dumb things
EDIT: re-reading it, I think i’ve understand, should I rename IVC client.exe, then make a shortcut named IVC client.exe and then add the command in ? Just want to be sure.
EDIT2: And /d is for enabling half duplex in 3D world, but if i’m right, I want the opposite, I don’t want us to be muted when we talk at the same time
-
Thanks for the reply, yup, i’ve checked the manual but it is chinese to me.
Is there an interface for configuration of the IVC client ?
Because it is written, starting page 249 to :
And Further down:
This is the part I don’t understand, should I open property on IVC Client.exe ? Because I don’t see the usual “target” where I think i’m supposed to put the “/d” and I prefere asking before doing dumb things
EDIT: re-reading it, I think i’ve understand, should I rename IVC client.exe, then make a shortcut named IVC client.exe and then add the command in ? Just want to be sure.
EDIT2: And /d is for enabling half duplex in 3D world, but if i’m right, I want the opposite, I don’t want us to be muted when we talk at the same time
I stand corrected then. It seems you cannot get full duplex mode in 3D. You will have to use radio discipline instead.
-
Oh well, gonna be hard to have discipline in there
Thanks for the confirmation
-
It is easier to set up an .ini file which will be used automatically by the IVC Client.
Please copy and paste the text inside the CODE box into a Notepad window and save it as IVC Client.ini in your \Falcon BMS 4.33\Bin\x86\IVC folder.
A config setting with a # in front of it is ignored by the code. Please read the BMS Manual (Chapter 7.6 and 14.5) for more details and explanation of what the different settings do.
This .ini file will be included with the next Update.
# See chapter 7.6 of the BMS manual for detailed explanation of available options. # File to be saved as IVC Client.ini in your //localinstall/bin/x86/IVC/ folder. #duplex = 0 #server = XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX #connect = 1 #nickname = Callsign #port = 8086 #key-hook = 1 quick = 1 #word = password #capture = sound_device #nofx = 1 #playback = sound_device #tone = loop:3 #loudness = 1 #fuzz = 5 #hum-level = -18 #hiss-level = -18 #toneVol = +6 #uhf = 307300 #vhf = 1234 #uhfVol = 0 #vhfVol = 0 outsiders = seat #log = 1 #minimize = 1 #force-local = 1
-
The IVC system is designed to model real aviation radios – there is no full duplex mode in the radios that are fitted to F-16’s so there’s no support for that when you are flying in the 3D world. If you need or want full duplex while flying you are probably better off using plain old TeamSpeak (or equivalent or even a telephony app like Skype) instead.
-
The IVC system is designed to model real aviation radios –
Might be wrong, but IIRC, some real life ATCo’s have the possibility to “step over” a transmission (e.g. to inform there’s an open mic on the frequency) by temporarily increasing the transmission strength. Is that also how BMS now models it? (ie. the strongest signal should still get through, albeit maybe just partially, while the weakest signal is entirely cut off)
If it is not possible to step over an open mic, can you confirm that the IVC bug of blocked frequencies (when someone is shot down with open mic) has been fixed? I spent some time looking but couldn’t really find anything on the topic in the BMS Manual, and I’d hate to suddenly lose contact with the entire package and not have a clue whether anyone was actually able to hear me.
-
Might be wrong, but IIRC, some real life ATCo’s have the possibility to “step over” a transmission (e.g. to inform there’s an open mic on the frequency) by temporarily increasing the transmission strength. Is that also how BMS now models it? (ie. the strongest signal should still get through, albeit maybe just partially, while the weakest signal is entirely cut off)
As I think it says in the manual (I know I’ve written this a couple of times but perhaps it’s only on posts to the test team), there’s no support for comparative signal strength assessment so the blocked channel sound doesn’t vary at all ever…and that’s not realistic behavior. This remains an opportunity for improvement perhaps one day.
If it is not possible to step over an open mic, can you confirm that the IVC bug of blocked frequencies (when someone is shot down with open mic) has been fixed? I spent some time looking but couldn’t really find anything on the topic in the BMS Manual, and I’d hate to suddenly lose contact with the entire package and not have a clue whether anyone was actually able to hear me.
Yes, this should be fixed. I think that was changed literally years ago in the code. It’s not really practical for the manuals to detail every change that’s been made over the intervening times between the last 4.32 patch and the initial release of 4.33 so there are probably a number of things like this which are fixed but not documented.
-
[…]IIRC, some real life ATCo’s have the possibility to “step over” a transmission […]
True BUT we are not ATC are we…? ATC is Coordinating traffic flow and this is the reason that he has the ability to do so…
-
[…]
Thanks for the quick reply. Understood.
True BUT we are not ATC are we…? ATC is Coordinating traffic flow and this is the reason that he has the ability to do so…
The point I was trying to make is that a stronger signal should still be able to get through, though maybe a bit garbled by another transmission. I should be able to receive the signal of my wingman 1NM to my left a lot better than that of a pilot 50NM away, so if the latter keeps his mic open, that should have some impact, but not enough to entirely mute my wingman.
-
The point I was trying to make is that a stronger signal should still be able to get through, though maybe a bit garbled by another transmission. I should be able to receive the signal of my wingman 1NM to my left a lot better than that of a pilot 50NM away, so if the latter keeps his mic open, that should have some impact, but not enough to entirely mute my wingman.
…and I’d accept that as fair criticism of the present implementation. In point of fact, the part where I got stuck was not in assessing comparative signal strength – the client has enough information to quantify that from the signal propagation model – the tricky part was and remains having a good idea of how to process the sound so the audible result is credible for the wide variety of possible incoming, interfering signals. In the end, I just decided to go for the crudest model of just using one sound effect, albeit one taken from an actual ATC recording, for all of those various cases.
Someone smarter than me will either have to add this for us or point me in the right direction for this aspect of the IVC model to improve. I taught myself enough about DSP coding to deliver what’s there now in the way of sound bending for better realism but I know my own limit and we’re at that point staring at this problem. Never say never of course.
-
FWIW Boxer I think the DSP effects sound awesome even without it being a radio simulator.