DCS Carrier Communication Test

This is pretty cool. Looking forward to the carrier module.


Yep, looking great. If they need people to not be able to land for testing then where do I sign up? :wink:

One thing that could do with a future tweak would be how we issue radio commands in DCS. I should bite the bullet and set up Voice Attack (or VAICOM as well - Anybody using VAICOM with DCS?), but since the Windows Speech Input API is pretty much everywhere on Win10 and Win7 OS then it would be ideal if they did some simple speech command inputs built-in.

In VR I hitting those number keys for comms is pretty brutal, even if learning the gaps between the F keys. I don’t think the ‘press with mouse’ selection works with VR either, and even that would help a bit.

1 Like

In VR I select my comms with the mouse and have the comms menu set up with a button box.


I’ll have to try again - is it a setting or just works like that, as in you can click the responses once the menu is up, even in VR?

EDIT: Oh, just tried it again - it does work - thanks @Kinger. What I was doing wrong was using the blue ‘cross’ cursor that you get around with VR, but it is the solid white dot cursor that does it. Nice, I’ve been doing it wrong for years!


I use Voice Attack and it works great.
I will certainly use it for this too.
Looking forward to that a lot.


This is very exciting. But I am a little disappointed that this is the same old comms system and with rather wooden speeches. There is exactly the same three-zero-one heard all over again. And the clunky input is goin to be brutal in the pattern. Heatblur showed what is possible in both regards with JESTER and set the new standard.

It is nice, but not exactly next gen…

1 Like

Is this a VR thing? I’m currently using TrackIR but hate trying to hit the F-keys while flying…plus the F-keys are different for different aircraft. Anything that I can find to do DCS comms will be helpful.

…such as this? :grinning:

Well, if they get the boat procedures integrated in the comms, it will still be there for whenever they upgrade the inputs and outputs of the overall system.

Not a VR thing. Works with track IR as well :slight_smile:


Also seeing this ATC comms system appears to be applied to the new carrier module. Won’t be included on the Stennis we have now.

Also, if you don’t own the carrier module, you wont be able to join servers using it. Like the WW2 asset pack.

1 Like

That’ll certainly limit it on the big DCS MP servers. They must see it as more a single player specialization thing, or perhaps for small MP groups really into the Naval stuff. I wonder if it’s a tech reason or more a business one. I could picture being allowed to join, but not getting the marshal calls, deck people etc if I didn’t own it. I wonder what features need a server synch side rather than just different views for different ‘clients’ with stuff enabled - perhaps the flight sequencing out of the stack?

I guess a $20 or $30 price point, like the Asset pack, hopefully.

Wow, they really like to milk their customers … i can buy it but still its not good solution to MP

Maybe they should sell also sam systems.
Only ir systems free but radar sam’s as dlc :slight_smile:

Has ED come out and said this yet? If that’s the way it’s gonna be, then I don’t see a lot of people using it.

ETA: ED Forums: Carrier comms - Mini Updates - Chit-Chat - ED Forums

Highly displeased with this decision. To the point that I probably won’t buy it – I don’t like the MP community getting fractured more than it already is. I can understand the WW2 stuff because that is almost a separate core, but the modern age is DCS’ bread and butter.


There’s a thread on hoggit where Wags confirmed it.

Being that we are still a ways from release, maybe it will change. Lots of understandable push back on this from the multiplayer community.

1 Like

And what would be next?

An AI tanker improvement with better Comms and the ability to fly the boom? But its paywalled for everyone? A slippery slope.

1 Like

Speaking of which…has anybody heard if the Leatherneck Corsair F4U will come with a WW II carrier?

A little off topic. Sorry

So do we have a confirmed list of features for this module yet? Advanced comms, animated deck crew, air boss, LSO, and steering the ship I know. Will we have more parking spots and hangar deck access as well? I thought I remembered those being mentioned at some point. If priced reasonably I think it will be a worthwhile addition. Worst case scenario we wait for one of the big sales.

Hyperbole aside, I understand where you are coming from because I remember adding the WWII Assets to a mission I had created and then removing them because not everyone had them.

Honest question, but, how does ED recoup the cost of adding a complex feature like this? It’s not like regular modules where you flying the F-14 breaks my fun because I don’t have it but it is like a map where multiple people fly on it. Yeah, it fragments the multiplayer community but someone has to pay for the addition of the model, the code, and animations, etc. And I don’t see animations and such being disabled because although it is fun for me to follow the deck crew’s instructions and such, its really going to be jarring to have everyone who didn’t pay for it driving through and over all those things that I paid for.

It is a pain in the arse but unless we go back from the DCS World OS I can’t see a solution around this.


Saw this on Hoggit and it is an interesting option:

“I like the suggestion someone else made of simply turning off collision with the Nimitz carrier for non owners, basically turning it into a massive advert.” - posted by e798ajmnv9

That’s a cool idea but it may be a challenge to code and retain the ability to n ot just have people mod/hack their game to allow it.


If you look at games like path of exile, where the game developer recoups its costs solely through DLC that is not needed in any way to play the game, maybe this could be a way to go for ED. I’m not saying that they should give away aircraft for free, but the tendency to sell features that alter the gameplay is something that I find, in principle, very problematic (for the MP community).