Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leopardi

AUDIO! Make it right this time!

Recommended Posts

Only 2 concerns I still have in my mind, which is firstly the limited sound channels. 128 still doesn't sounds enough for large battlefield since everything like explosion, vehicles, shouting, weather env sounds are playing together. EAX 5.0 can support 256 channels would be rather works nicely (actually a lot of FPS games with EAX support haven't able to use all the channels since they aren't play too much sounds details than ARMA 2 does.)

what a load of bollocks. the number of channels is inconsequential. even though Sound is perceived as a homogeneous event, you don't hear "128" or whatever number of sounds, you hear your environment as a stream of information, which through selective and very sophisticated mechanisms select only the ones you want to hear. ie they could be perceived as a threat. Its call auditory stream analysis.

and this is where sound design is important, because you actually don't need to reconstruct the entire aural environment. Sound locatisation and distance perception becomes important then.

eb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could also just outsource the Audio aspect to DICE.

just saying...

:P

Indeed

The vanilla audio is pretty bad, nearby bullets passing sound like little "ticks" instead of a crack. In my opinion weapons and vehicles sounds are only good if the sound of their business end is also good. If the outgoing fire sounds okay, but the incoming isn't believable it ruins it for me. That's why I cherry pick the best parts of ACEX SM, JSRS, and RWS to make the game sound realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just note that with with A2:OA engine You can

already achieve 128 simultaneous sounds in 3D (see your audio options ingame)

Lol yeah, all on the CPU which gives a ridiculous performance hit, especially when your CPU is already taxed with all the units making those sounds, i doubt that anyone actually has it over 32. No HW sounds was imo a huge mistake.

IMO the default vehicle sounds are (for the most part) beautiful, but i dont know what the hell they did with those weapon sounds.

Edited by NeMeSiS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a sound engineer, I just helped with the graphics aspect and such as a member of HiFi FX. However, I'm up for any improvements to the engine itself so we can have stuff like the distanced sounds like how WarFX scripted it, right off the bat instead of trying to script around the limitations. Or difference between indoor and outdoor sounds (I guess I'm talking about reverb? Sorry I'm kinda stupid with the technicalities here). Not expecting something like in BF:BC, but any improvements would be welcomed to help out sound modification developers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The radio communication in arma 2 sounded very choppy. How about making radio communication less specific but more fluid? Narrow down target identification to more general classes (ie infantry, tanks, trucks, helicopters) and give more autonomy to the squad. That way you will hear more believable speech.

Edited by Adjutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I FULLY agree with this topic! I hope BIS working hard on better sound, a good and believable atmosphere need this! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The radio communication in arma 2 sounded very choppy. How about making radio communication less specific but more fluid? Narrow down target identification to more general classes (ie infantry, tanks, trucks, helicopters) and give more autonomy to the squad. That way you will hear more believable speech.

No you won't. Why would it become more believable if the phrase generator will be used regardless?

And yes I want to hear stuff like "AT soldier at 11 O'Clock, rifleman at 10 O'Clock" not "Enemy at 11 O'Clock, enemy at 10 O'Clock" because if I'm a tank commander at that time I will know immediately who to kill first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i first installed AO i was personaly very dissapointed by default sounds and started to look for replacement right away.

Though some were happy some were not with default sounds i really aprechiated to freedom of choice.

I mean what is awsome sound for one ain't no same for other and good sounds are as important as good graphics, if not more.

The point being, I for one don't really care for stock sounds and rather wish the sound engine would allow comunity modders more flexible approach and more ''space'' for their creations so we can choose sounds to everyones personal taste:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could also just outsource the Audio aspect to DICE.

just saying...

:P

Agreed, best sounds in a FPS game I've ever heard, I dnt think BIS are that impressed tho, from (my bad) memory in an interview or comment somewhere it was passed of as some sort off trickery that created echoes etc :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that Arma 2's sounds do the job, especially with positioning. I think that battlefield's sound engine is all gimmicky reverb. All the environments in battlefield games sound like concert halls and are very murky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reviewers agree with me. Reality agrees with me. Just your opinion agrees with you.

I Lol'ed when I red that,

I thought the sounds for ARMA II was nice. They could use some work here and there but its not something at the top of my list that needs to be fixed. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse, but the other day I downloaded one of the betas, and I ran it without bothering to include any of the mods I usually use, sound mods included. So it was the first time in a while I've played with vanilla sounds. It was a rude reminder that some of them really are abysmal. Some just need to be louder and they would be OK, but some like the FAL are extremely poor. That one in particular sounds like someone took a real rifle recording and then ran a low pass filter on it fifty times.

I was heartened to hear Ivan Buchta say that improving weapon sounds was a focus. But when he said they're going to 'beef up' the sounds, I hope they're not going to make the same mistake as many people in this thread who think that "improve the too-quiet sounds" means "make everything sound like a cannon".

EDIT: Mistook this for the other thread about the weapons sounds. Still applies, I guess.

Edited by 2nd Ranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EAX 5.0 can support 256 channels would be rather works nicely (actually a lot of FPS games with EAX.

EAX is fine if the "GAME's" audio developing team has implemented Directsound3D protocols/API (obviously) ...and..... You're using windows XP. ALchemy is ok for multi-channel audio for legacy game titles running on Vista, some have had issues with this protocol, including me.

I think most gamers are migrating to windows 7 and so therefore EAX in modern games will just not happen. Microsoft have done away with DirectSound3D in Windows 7, XAudio is the replacement for DirectSound.

XAudio 48kHz is about average for game developers nowadays i think?.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Audio is more important then graphics in my books.

If arma 3 has Arma 2 quality sounds.

I got the best of both worlds then, hey, try turning up the volume maybe?.

I use a dedicated soundblaster and a 2.1 thx speaker system.

Crank that volume up people hahaha!.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

i doubt that anyone actually has it over 32.

I have it set @ 128 +... 1920x1080 120Hz all graphics Very High - aniso+anialising Very High - View distance is 6336...any higher than 6336 and terrain detail is set to High, can't be having that too low now :) haha!:D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EAX is fine if the "GAME's" audio developing team has implemented Directsound3D protocols/API (obviously) ...and..... You're using windows XP. ALchemy is ok for multi-channel audio for legacy game titles running on Vista, some have had issues with this protocol, including me.

I think most gamers are migrating to windows 7 and so therefore EAX in modern games will just not happen. Microsoft have done away with DirectSound3D in Windows 7, XAudio is the replacement for DirectSound.

XAudio 48kHz is about average for game developers nowadays i think?.

Even we decide to use OpenAL or XAudio that's still impossible to get these channels as much as for the "audio simulations".

And actually, 48k is pretty average, but if they could refine the recording channels better I'd like they'll go 24bit/96k instead of AC97 standard.

[/color]

I got the best of both worlds then, hey, try turning up the volume maybe?.

I use a dedicated soundblaster and a 2.1 thx speaker system.

Crank that volume up people hahaha!.

7.1 surrounding Headphones user (Sony MDR DS7100). I can enjoy more accurate surrounding without interrupting my family and neighbors.

And please, protect your ears, wear earplugs when shooting real firearms.

[/color]

I have it set @ 128 +... 1920x1080 120Hz all graphics Very High - aniso+anialising Very High - View distance is 6336...any higher than 6336 and terrain detail is set to High, can't be having that too low now :) haha!:D.

Same as 128. But it still can be overloaded when firing A-10 Gatling or in massive bombardments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need 24bit/96k for gaming? It doesn't make sense. Memory usage would be nuts. Plain nuts. In prefetched 7.1? Let's go babysteps and go from 22/44 mono to 22/44 stereo first, with maybe automatic center channel extractor :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with ArmA2 sound is that 3D directional sound with headphones is pretty poor. Even sometimes with a 5.1 setup you get weird sound directionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, even in pure stereo headphones. Why is it that when I turn my head I can only hear a vehicle with the strong ear? There has to be other realtime solutions available to provide good but subtle enough cues on the "weak ear" than making it completely deaf. Like bass attenuation when facing sound and treble attenuation when facing away from sound, with only a 50% volume attenuation on the weak ear. When close, and if stereo files are supported (see TAKOH trailer), stereo channel blends from 100% to 50% when looking at or orthogonally at the sound source, with changing more to a mono source with distance as well. Just pulled out of my head, needs to be tested for usability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol yeah, all on the CPU which gives a ridiculous performance hit, especially when your CPU is already taxed with all the units making those sounds, i doubt that anyone actually has it over 32. No HW sounds was imo a huge mistake.

Really? I've had it at 128 since it came out and I didn't really notice a difference in performance. Has anyone done any research on this (with links if possible)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound absorption would be pretty much everything we need to get believable experience. Because that is the number one factor creating environment around you with distance and height. It needs engine capable of changing frequency ratio of sounds in real time.

Edit:

Ok and some reverbs calculated by objects around a source of a sound (but that would be CPU heavy I think)

Edited by Bouben

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×