Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AbortedMan

Radio/VoIP communication simulation in ArmA 3...it fails.

Recommended Posts

LOL. I was playing on TAW's server a few nights ago, and TAW himself was playing on the server and was chatting constantly with few breaks to one of his buddies concerning client side performance issues.

Needless to say, the conversation really hogged the radio communication from everybody else playing and I ended-up muting the two individuals after five to 15 minutes. The side effect, when I talk on voice chat, it will over-run those two chats because I won't be able to hear them. On the flip, good! It's probably the only rational way of hinting that they were hogging the radio on unrelated chatting which should have been discussed here within the forums. Maybe I should have politely let him know, but being a server admin, you'd think they would have realized already. Think they also use TeamSpeak.

I sincerely think Direct Chat is broken as I was clear across the other side of the island with nobody around. Shouldn't have been picking up everybody elses global chat out of my proximity.

If utility costs were cheaper here, I'd likely run a server myself ... and without Team Speak. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have an ACRE like radio in ArmA III, even if it would be optional. That way those who want to have a more realistic gamepaly could simply activate it in the options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe voices get distorted on purpose to model real-life interference of distance/terrain. It's a feature, not a bug, no?

Yeah it is but this was with proximity voice and people right near me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a newcomer to the Arma series, one of the things I've been most exited about are the radio communications I've seen on Dslyecxi's channel in the ShackTak videos. I'm definitely disappointed to find out that's not actually in the game, and in most of the multiplayer games I've played, I end up just muting the VOIP because of the idiots. If there's a way to mute just 1 person, I haven't been able to figure it out yet. (google has not been helpful)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. I was playing on TAW's server a few nights ago, and TAW himself was playing on the server and was chatting constantly with few breaks to one of his buddies concerning client side performance issues.

Needless to say, the conversation really hogged the radio communication from everybody else playing and I ended-up muting the two individuals after five to 15 minutes. The side effect, when I talk on voice chat, it will over-run those two chats because I won't be able to hear them. On the flip, good! It's probably the only rational way of hinting that they were hogging the radio on unrelated chatting which should have been discussed here within the forums. Maybe I should have politely let him know, but being a server admin, you'd think they would have realized already. Think they also use TeamSpeak.

I sincerely think Direct Chat is broken as I was clear across the other side of the island with nobody around. Shouldn't have been picking up everybody elses global chat out of my proximity.

If utility costs were cheaper here, I'd likely run a server myself ... and without Team Speak. ;-)

Are you sure someone wasn't near you and talking? You can hear other players and enemies talk on *any* channel that you're not currently receiving (enemy channels, other teammate's group channel, vehicle channel that you're not in) as if they're just talking in direct channel. Many people don't realize this and find themselves getting found by enemies and killed in CQB scenarios after using VoIP in side channel simply because the enemy heard them and zeroed in on their location.

---------- Post added at 01:40 ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 ----------

As a newcomer to the Arma series, one of the things I've been most exited about are the radio communications I've seen on Dslyecxi's channel in the ShackTak videos. I'm definitely disappointed to find out that's not actually in the game, and in most of the multiplayer games I've played, I end up just muting the VOIP because of the idiots. If there's a way to mute just 1 person, I haven't been able to figure it out yet. (google has not been helpful)

I believe you can mute individual players by opening the map (or pressing Lshift+P when you can't access the map), going to the player list, clicking their name, and clicking "mute" (should be near their ping/latency information).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an ACRE-style voice communication system would be a great feature in vanilla Arma 3. Being able to have the functionality of ACRE without having to use third party programs or fiddle with mods sounds like a dream. If the current VoIP isn't meant for realistic communication then I think it would be a good idea to include not only the ACRE features but the vanilla chat as well. That way if normal, or vanilla, communication is desired then it can be used, but people or groups who want to use a more accurate, realistic radio system would have the ACRE functions they could work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure someone wasn't near you and talking? You can hear other players and enemies talk on *any* channel that you're not currently receiving (enemy channels, other teammate's group channel, vehicle channel that you're not in) as if they're just talking in direct channel. Many people don't realize this and find themselves getting found by enemies and killed in CQB scenarios after using VoIP in side channel simply because the enemy heard them and zeroed in on their location.

---------- Post added at 01:40 ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 ----------

I am absolutely positive no one is near me, during co-op mission, as there are no others on the map. (They were all off on the west side of the island, while I went on a vacation to Kamino Bay. ;-) So, I should have heard nobody on direct/group/vehicle channels.

I understand about the enemy possibly overhearing radio chatter, but unsure if this feature would be implemented within Arma 3. But what I don't understand here with your explanation, with my own explanation, when in "Direct Channel" I should only be hearing people within my proximity. When in Vehicle Channel, I should only be hearing people within my Vehicle, or this would be desired because if the radio chatter were able to be heard from a repeater while on direct/group/vehicle channels, it would make it difficult to wait for radio chatter to clear before transmitting your own voice chat. This is the main reason for independent channels. Haven't you read your Amateur Radio manual yet? ;-)

From my own experience and my Google Searches regarding this Arma feature, this should hold true. I think you're implying we should still be able to hear global people even when switched to direct/group/vehicle channels? If so, would make it extremely difficult to communicate on the radio.

I also don't understand the fascination with Team Speak and it seem unfounded. Not only this, but if you're not playing on co-op, then the chat server is going to be a weakness for the opponents to exploit. The only way Team Speak would be beneficial, is if the Arma devs create hooks, to make Team Speak work with the in game voice chat. Which seems like redundant work. God I love Linux or Open Source.

Thanks for advising lokoroth of this. ;-) Yup. Get the player list, I think with LShift+P, and click on the player name. At the bottom of the player's statistics will be a mute box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am absolutely positive no one is near me, during co-op mission, as there are no others on the map. (They were all off on the west side of the island, while I went on a vacation to Kamino Bay. ;-) So, I should have heard nobody on direct/group/vehicle channels.

I understand about the enemy possibly overhearing radio chatter, but unsure if this feature would be implemented within Arma 3. But what I don't understand here with your explanation, with my own explanation, when in "Direct Channel" I should only be hearing people within my proximity. When in Vehicle Channel, I should only be hearing people within my Vehicle, or this would be desired because if the radio chatter were able to be heard from a repeater while on direct/group/vehicle channels, it would make it difficult to wait for radio chatter to clear before transmitting your own voice chat. This is the main reason for independent channels. Haven't you read your Amateur Radio manual yet? ;-)

From my own experience and my Google Searches regarding this Arma feature, this should hold true. I think you're implying we should still be able to hear global people even when switched to direct/group/vehicle channels? If so, would make it extremely difficult to communicate on the radio.

I also don't understand the fascination with Team Speak and it seem unfounded. Not only this, but if you're not playing on co-op, then the chat server is going to be a weakness for the opponents to exploit. The only way Team Speak would be beneficial, is if the Arma devs create hooks, to make Team Speak work with the in game voice chat. Which seems like redundant work. God I love Linux or Open Source.

Thanks for advising lokoroth of this. ;-) Yup. Get the player list, I think with LShift+P, and click on the player name. At the bottom of the player's statistics will be a mute box.

Your idea of the current implementation of ArmA 3 VoIP is a bit skewed...in its current iteration, it is not modeling radio communication...just a voice-chat feature, as in every other modern video game. Changing your channel doesn't opt you out of the other channels, you're always receiving on all channels that are available to your team. Changing your channel changes your transmit channel, while you're permanently receiving all channels. There is no one-at-a-time limitation on talking, everyone on the server can talk all at once on the same channel if they were so inclined (and in some unruly servers, it happens...it's absolute brain-jarring chaos). So the current VoIP system is a far cry from any true radio system.

The only cool and acceptable baked in feature of ArmA3 regarding communication, IMO, is the direct channel VoIP. It's the first of its kind in a mainstream game...directional VoIP is waaay cool and brings so much to the game. It's a pity you can't limit servers to only use direct VoIP.

Regarding TeamSpeak being a weakness to exploit, there are plenty of resources that allow servers to force people to join their TeamSpeak server (and using the ACRE plugin) and be in a certain channel or they get kicked from the game back to the server lobby. Servers use this to enforce players to be on TeamSpeak and using ACRE while they're in pilot slots and using air assets (as a non-communicative air asset is a loose cannon) while in COOP games, and usually enforce team-wide channel rules for PvP. This is happening right now in ArmA2 servers such as militarygaming.org's server and scripts run to make it very apparent to the player that TS/ACRE is a requirement in certain slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think an ACRE-style voice communication system would be a great feature in vanilla Arma 3. Being able to have the functionality of ACRE without having to use third party programs or fiddle with mods sounds like a dream. If the current VoIP isn't meant for realistic communication then I think it would be a good idea to include not only the ACRE features but the vanilla chat as well. That way if normal, or vanilla, communication is desired then it can be used, but people or groups who want to use a more accurate, realistic radio system would have the ACRE functions they could work with.

I think leave it to modders makes it optional for each server.

I've always played public server domination(arma 2) without micro(I return from work after suffering the orders of my boss,

and i do not want is continue to receive orders, or talk, just sound of war),just for fun with great ppl(thx Niceteam!) i use chat channels or command squad if anyone joins my squad, others server are private or intolerant.After all this is a game and there are many styles of play and many kinds of players

Edited by PFC Magician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm agreeing with PFC Magician about what the OP calls for remaining optional or mod-only; I actually participated in an Insurgency mission for over two hours on the in-game VOIP without issues simply by sticking to group channel for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AbortedMan: Thanks for taking the time to confirm my suspicions of the voice chat channels being broken or lacking receiving chats by channel selection. LOL. Actually, I think the developers' modeling is a bit skewed. If they have a current Amateur Radio license, they might loose it. ;-)

But I think about writing programming code, it would be far more rational to speculate that they just haven't implemented a few hooks to prevent players from receiving all channels, hence emulating full channel switching. I sure hope they fix this, because if I'm not mistaken, this is the golden rule and the reasoning behind Amateur Radio or FCC licensing, etc etc. This includes other International Governments' frequency usage laws as well.

I have yet to utilize the Group Channel, but have recently started noticing a "Join B Group" ... etc ... on the middle mouse click button on the TAW server last night. Friendly tags were also off, making it essential to stick together to prevent friendly fire accidents. I usually use or prefer Direct Channel, as it's what I'm used to. So if they just get the two Direct and Side/Global channels working, I'm sure most will then be happy campers.

Thanks AbortMan for confirming my suspicions, now I can try working around it without playing needless guessing games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the devs probably didn't consider an ACRE like radio simulation to be important and hence their focus on other features but that doesn't mean that we should as a community should not be pushing for this to become a priority.

ACRE requires teamspeak 3. That, on its own, complicates things quite a bit when you're musing aloud, 'why don't they just take the community mods and make them game parts?' Also, buying mods from the community is messy business in itself and if I was a businessman I would avoid that like the plague as a general practice. Lastly, BI is probably not going for a 'radio simulator'. This is the same reason the helicopters aren't like Blackshark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...why don't they just take the community mods and make them game parts?

Amen! ...and 'nuff said bro!

---------- Post added at 05:56 ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 ----------

I agree that the devs probably didn't consider an ACRE like radio simulation to be important and hence their focus on other features but that doesn't mean that we should as a community should not be pushing for this to become a priority. Of course there are other key features they need to work on as well and understanding that, I don't expect them to release with radios simulated but I do wish that in the future they will try to build this into Arma. My example of hiring Smookie is to demonstrate how features provided though mods can be integrated into Arma to add value and shouldn't necessarily just be left to a mod. Your counter example of not hiring ACRE modders does not indicate that ACRE like features should not be built into Arma. There are many reasons for hiring or not hiring various devs and I would not presume that it was because of interest or lack of interest in a particular feature that drives their hiring process. Most jobs hire to fill roles, not for specific features (that is what contractors are for).

I'm going to close with the following:

It is very easy to come up with reasons for not adding new features. But if we maintain that mindset we are denying ourselves a better game and preventing Arma from reaching a better state. Of course there needs to be discretion as to the prioritization of new features but we should not take this to mean that these features do not need to be added. We as a community should support efforts to improve Arma even if it is ambitious and requires a lot of resources and leave the prioritization and development to BIS.

IMO an ACRE like system is very innovational and adds great value to Arma by providing more realism, authenticity and depth to the core game. The OP brings up many valid points regarding including an advanced radio simulation. Of course it will not be easy to implement and might not be necessary at this moment but it is a feature I think should be built into the game. I'd much rather debate the value or usefulness of a radio simulation rather than argue the priority (pointless argument for us to engage in and if we really want to discuss that there are so many other problems to be talked about before even getting to the adding of new features)

Should of done this in the first place didn't even realize I was quoting the wrong person...

Amen Sir. Probably the best short post I've seen so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only cool and acceptable baked in feature of ArmA3 regarding communication, IMO, is the direct channel VoIP. It's the first of its kind in a mainstream game...directional VoIP is waaay cool and brings so much to the game. It's a pity you can't limit servers to only use direct VoIP.

AFAIK you can, in the server cfg, disable any and all of the VOIP "channels". At least since A2OA beta #something (added as a side bonus of DayZ). I assume this command made it to A3a, but haven't tested it (without a server). You could then disable Global and Side, leaving only Command (which, IIRC, only group leader slots can hear) and Group (plus Vehicle and Direct of course). Might make for a tighter command structure on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edit:

I agree.... Playing arma 3 without acre after using it for so long in arma 2 felt like a step back in time. It really does add a whole dimension to the game that should really be there from the start.

Yes when you have 3 teams on the same TS3 channel without ACRE and try to figure which is which it's a mess. The only choice is to constantly have/make multiple rooms with whisper keys to each ones.

In-game VOIP doesn't have even that functionality. Since if you will use chat within the game - only people on that channel will hear you. In TS3? Only people in your room will hear you.

The great thing about ACRE is that it can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. And no matter which radio channel you use or a single person you talk to - you still can be heard by other people in your team or other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was playing on TAW's server last few hours, and noticed it was quite civil with the in-game Voice Chat/Radio feature. This is the first time I noticed the radios as civil as this, since I started playing this Arma 3 game for the past month! (Also, it appears the TAW server has fixed the radio spamming problems as well some how.)

It really appeared as if people were using the proper channels, preventing "Global" (or "Side") channel usage and reserving for only necessity island wide communications. I'm always quite courteous myself and make sure I transmit on "Vehicle" or "Direct" channels, while limiting my own chatter.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say the radios were working just fine. Maybe it truly is just the folks abusing the global (and side) channels.

I might add also, we were quite effective about constantly clearing the island quickly and efficiently as well. The only sad part, I was really wanting to get to one of TAW's night missions to really test our skills, and then the server finally quit after three or so games. ;-)

And if you're wonder if it was a fluke, doubt it because others responded to my voice chat, while at the end of the game everybody chimed in pretty much all at once. So, many others were also using voice chat too.

Had a pretty good time last night. ;-)

Edited by rogerx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone use Mumble before? It can really encourage teamwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mumble's just a VOIP client like TeamSpeak is, I don't believe that it's inherently more or less "teamwork inducing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at least should be added an option for admins to set Mute-bans for Global/Side/Group etc. channels (Voice and/or Text) by GUID/UID/IP, which can be placed for a time (minutes/hours/days/months) and such bans doesn't kick out players from the server but making them shut up.

Edit: Plus ability to disable VON in certain channels.

Edited by helldesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a well administered server a player abusing Global/Side/... would be kicked and subsequently banned upon repeated offence anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a well administered server a player abusing Global/Side/... would be kicked and subsequently banned upon repeated offence anyway

When we have a few people playing together as a squad and one of them made ​​a mistake (raging in side chat or just improper use of the channels, sometimes people don't do it on purpose) and he get banned, most likely the whole squad will leave the server. It will be a lot better if we have ability to just mute the guy and he can continue playing with his friends without bothering everyone.

Edited by helldesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

helldesign: Some very good points. I like the temporary bans. On the TAW server, after a teamkill, the screen blanks for 4 seconds or so. All mine are accidental, but the intent is to prevent further undesirable actions to give others a chance to control what is happening. I even sometimes forget to switch channels, as most do.

As such, probably a 5-10 second temp ban on the global/side channels or maybe a voting system within the GUI -- if enough people click "mute", or whatever.

Shrugs, I'm pretty happy most are thinking of appropriate methods of tackling the issues versus just deploying universal bans, for which are cumbersome for accidental issues. ;-)

Maybe as simple as a big bold letter warning prior to logging into the game, "Only use global/side chats for when local direct/group/vehicle channels will not be sufficient. (ie. Calls for air support or pickups) Personally, I think this would be more than adequate. I don't think there is a majority of abuse, and if there is abuse, clicking "mute" would be extremely efficient!

Oh, and just wait for the day when more aircraft are going to require global/side during dog fights or whatever. Probably should be an "air" specific channel for them for air combat missions only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes when you have 3 teams on the same TS3 channel without ACRE and try to figure which is which it's a mess. The only choice is to constantly have/make multiple rooms with whisper keys to each ones.

In-game VOIP doesn't have even that functionality. Since if you will use chat within the game - only people on that channel will hear you. In TS3? Only people in your room will hear you.

The great thing about ACRE is that it can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. And no matter which radio channel you use or a single person you talk to - you still can be heard by other people in your team or other teams.

ACRE's great but I don't think it can be used unless the mission's have been designed to give all the players radios and the squad leaders an extra LR radio, for squad-to-squad comms. So on many servers, the choice is VON or plain TS3 using a whisper plugin for squad to squad and TS3 at least allows us to split the group into two or more channels, even if the mission designer has all the players in one group which means we can't split into comms groups using VON.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
helldesign: Some very good points. I like the temporary bans. On the TAW server, after a teamkill, the screen blanks for 4 seconds or so. All mine are accidental, but the intent is to prevent further undesirable actions to give others a chance to control what is happening. I even sometimes forget to switch channels, as most do.

As such, probably a 5-10 second temp ban on the global/side channels or maybe a voting system within the GUI -- if enough people click "mute", or whatever.

Shrugs, I'm pretty happy most are thinking of appropriate methods of tackling the issues versus just deploying universal bans, for which are cumbersome for accidental issues. ;-)

Maybe as simple as a big bold letter warning prior to logging into the game, "Only use global/side chats for when local direct/group/vehicle channels will not be sufficient. (ie. Calls for air support or pickups) Personally, I think this would be more than adequate. I don't think there is a majority of abuse, and if there is abuse, clicking "mute" would be extremely efficient!

Oh, and just wait for the day when more aircraft are going to require global/side during dog fights or whatever. Probably should be an "air" specific channel for them for air combat missions only.

Ok, ok...getting a little off track and out of focus now. Instead of implementing a banning system that punishes people for falling victim to the inadequacies of a old and beaten VoIP system, why not just forego all this for a revamp and update the system to something more in-line with today's standards/possibilities?

We know what's capable in regards to modding, we have a community produced version of a great system (ACRE), but it needs streamlining and integration. Bans aren't needed if organization is the emphasis, communication permissions are given on a as-needed basis, and communication is finally included into the milsim/immersion game experience (I'm astonished it has gone through 3 major releases and not changed already).

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  

×