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

[rogerx 11]

AbortedMan: Just to clarify, ditto on no need for bans, as nobody is abusing the VOIP to this extent yet.

A polite bold letter warning or advisement is best I think.

Edited March 25, 2013 by rogerx

[jumpartist 0]

AS I recall someone just wrote a script that had 10 radio channels. I am not sure how they function but if they are all similar to each one being its own team chat, well then I think tis solved right? I mean it even has a dialog you bring up to change channels. I wonder how many channels you could add? Maybe make it look like a radio as best you can with stock dialogs anyway, and have freqs you can change.

EDIT: Yeah here it is http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148820-Sub_Radio-A-lightweight-and-simple-Radioscript

[AbortedMan 1]

AS I recall someone just wrote a script that had 10 radio channels. I am not sure how they function but if they are all similar to each one being its own team chat, well then I think tis solved right? I mean it even has a dialog you bring up to change channels. I wonder how many channels you could add? Maybe make it look like a radio as best you can with stock dialogs anyway, and have freqs you can change.

EDIT: Yeah here it is http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148820-Sub_Radio-A-lightweight-and-simple-Radioscript

Awesome. That's a huge leap in the right direction. Now if we can get BiS to enable the old script that disables side/global/group/commander channel or someone figures out how to do it themselves, we're almost golden.

---------- Post added at 09:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 ----------

AbortedMan: Just to clarify, ditto on no need for bans, as nobody is abusing the VOIP to this extent yet.

A polite bold letter warning or advisement is best I think.

There's been plenty of abuse of the VoIP system. That's what this thread is kinda about.

[rogerx 11]

Funny. Everybody last night within co-op was using only one channel, the "side" (blue) channel.

Even funnier, they all sound very intelligent and should know better not to use the side channel.

Lots a good 10+ channels will do! Only takes one or two players to make the radio/voip cumbersome. :-/

[AbortedMan 1]

I tested the 10 channel radio script out with jumpartist last night and it needs a bit of work, but its a step in the right direction.

If certain types of radios could be attached to different channels, and some location logic checks to account for signal strength and geography limitations, we'd have a basic ACRE system without the need for mods or third party programs.

[doveman 7]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure we could do without TS3 as it's needed to chat to people before joining the server, if you're having trouble connecting, want to ask if it's OK to JIP, etc, whereas VON or any in-game mod can only be used once you're in-game and then you'd still need to know what channel everyone else is on before you could talk to them. So perhaps it's best to concentrate on plugins for TS3 like ACRE and see if that can be made perfect.

[lev 21]

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.

That is the point of ACRE. It simulates radios and communications in an authentic way. In real life not everyone has a radio and not all scenarios call for everyone to use radios. There are procedures for this type of thing and encourages team play since you need to stick with your squad in order to be in communications with your command structure and team.

If the mission maker intended for all team members to have radios then they would put them in that scenario. It is not uncommon to see missions with only squad leaders having long range radios and squad members only having short ranges or no radios at all.

[jumpartist 0]

Awesome. That's a huge leap in the right direction. Now if we can get BiS to enable the old script that disables side/global/group/commander channel or someone figures out how to do it themselves, we're almost golden.

---------- Post added at 09:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 ----------

There's been plenty of abuse of the VoIP system. That's what this thread is kinda about.

I got that description.ext code working today http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Description.ext what I found was that the channels you WANT are the ones you keep in the array. DERRRR Im a newb though so that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Its mission side. Though I wish it were a server.cfg setting so we didnt have to convert all our missions.

That is the point of ACRE. It simulates radios and communications in an authentic way. In real life not everyone has a radio and not all scenarios call for everyone to use radios. There are procedures for this type of thing and encourages team play since you need to stick with your squad in order to be in communications with your command structure and team.

If the mission maker intended for all team members to have radios then they would put them in that scenario. It is not uncommon to see missions with only squad leaders having long range radios and squad members only having short ranges or no radios at all.

and I think the basic tenant here is that we are trying to get an addon-less acre to avoid dependencies.

[doveman 7]

That is the point of ACRE. It simulates radios and communications in an authentic way. In real life not everyone has a radio and not all scenarios call for everyone to use radios. There are procedures for this type of thing and encourages team play since you need to stick with your squad in order to be in communications with your command structure and team.

If the mission maker intended for all team members to have radios then they would put them in that scenario. It is not uncommon to see missions with only squad leaders having long range radios and squad members only having short ranges or no radios at all.

My point is it's not uncommon to see missions without any radios (i.e. they weren't designed for ACRE), which means the players can't communicate at all unless standing right next to each other, so for those missions it's a choice of VON or TS3.

[Recon19D38 10]

The fact that you're complaining that the VOIP isn't a forced simulation of a secure or Single Channel Plain Text, squelch riddled transmission format is just ignorant for dozens of reasons. If you're looking for a more disciplined and immersive communication format then find disciplined individuals to play with and either mute VON all together, or the just ass-clown over reacting or flexing his over inflated dominance/ignorance into side chat. its that simple.

Radio discipline or the ability to communicate over the 'net' only when necessary isn't an inherit skill for the vast majority of gamers. Learning the jargon/phonetics/format of a particular groups communication dynamic takes some time. Even though I myself am enlisted, if I hop onto an organized, disciplined, mission based TS I can get frustrated with the slight variations or incomplete fire commands required by that servers communication format. I see this more often an issue when I listen to improper engagement commands or completely incorrect fire mission transmissions between the battery commander and the observer calling in the fire mission.

[rogerx 11]

Recon19D38: I think you could have dropped the derogatory comments and you'd likely find your comment to be just as well respected, maybe even more so due to experience.

The problem really lies with map makers not integrating groups properly. They tend to group pilots into separate groups, causing them to voice air traffic control related messages (or messages intended for only other pilots for ensuring air safety) onto side chat as not all pilots are within the same group.

Groups should be utilized sparingly, else too many groups will cause difficulties in using groups. Atypically, a good separation would be only four groups such as; air, land and sea groupings. They also need to drop all exotic groups (ie. squad groups) and integrate their squad players into the existing groups as special slots instead. (Once there is an exotic group, communications become difficult for that group, causing friendly fire accidents or as we're discussing unnecessary overhead on comms.)

If you look at some of the maps, they can have upwards of 8-10 groups, without taking into consideration players cannot see their groups easily after joining. Also, most players never return (or even able to return) to the same area of operations of their group after getting killed within the game.

BTW: When giving strike coordinates to pilots, just mark the map. Toggling to the map interface and then having to zoom into see the proper coordinates is extremely difficult unless they have a knowledgeable copilot. Pretend when you mark the map, you're really relying on GPS/Email technology. ;-) ... Although I have the map key mapped to joystick, trying to perform this task blanks my screen for almost a minute. Anyways, off-topic on this last bit.

Remember, have fun. ;-)

[sqb-sma 66]

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.

Aaaand there it is. To add to this:

If we were to simply say "fuck realism, what's best for the gameplay?" the answer is still ACRE! The fidelity of the combination of direct chat and a group of radios with various features adds new depth to the gameplay, and the separation of groups into specific channels allows for faster, more efficient communication with far more understandable issues (which would make a great change from the vaguely named channels currently in the game "Oh you want to talk to your squad, you shouldn't be in commander chat that's for something else!"). I find the current VOIP implementation clunky and hard to use, gameplay wise. And ACRE solves that.

Plus it's more fun, adds more depth and is realistic (fine, you finally got me to say it). It should be in the game.

(Along with weapon resting/bipods, a medical system and a few other changes that would really make Arma 3 a new Arma gameplay wise and not just graphically/physics-wise. And no diving doesn't count, it's good for advertising but doesn't add a remarkable amount to the much lacking DEFAULT​ Arma gameplay.

[Stlkrash1 1]

First let's get the basics fixed.. Net coding etc.. This is a total clusterfuck as it is now.. They released a patch that completely screwed up the works. Have yet too fix that.... I wouldn't worry about the radio part. As usual the community will be fixing the horrendous bug list coming. Just wait for the Altis release. We will be screwed big time. If Altis even really exists.. Two years and some change now, and we have a bugged out basic arma 2 with new trees....

[kremator 1065]

Sorry to say it but ACRE is yet one more stumbling block for the casual gamer. With more effort on the VON that is already built in EVERYONE can enjoy radio comms. Too often servers enforce ACRE and at that point I leave. Splitting the community ..... No thanks.

[dale0404 5]

Recon19D38: I think you could have dropped the derogatory comments and you'd likely find your comment to be just as well respected, maybe even more so due to experience.

The problem really lies with map makers not integrating groups properly. They tend to group pilots into separate groups, causing them to voice air traffic control related messages (or messages intended for only other pilots for ensuring air safety) onto side chat as not all pilots are within the same group.

Groups should be utilized sparingly, else too many groups will cause difficulties in using groups. Atypically, a good separation would be only four groups such as; air, land and sea groupings. They also need to drop all exotic groups (ie. squad groups) and integrate their squad players into the existing groups as special slots instead. (Once there is an exotic group, communications become difficult for that group, causing friendly fire accidents or as we're discussing unnecessary overhead on comms.)

If you look at some of the maps, they can have upwards of 8-10 groups, without taking into consideration players cannot see their groups easily after joining. Also, most players never return (or even able to return) to the same area of operations of their group after getting killed within the game.

BTW: When giving strike coordinates to pilots, just mark the map. Toggling to the map interface and then having to zoom into see the proper coordinates is extremely difficult unless they have a knowledgeable copilot. Pretend when you mark the map, you're really relying on GPS/Email technology. ;-) ... Although I have the map key mapped to joystick, trying to perform this task blanks my screen for almost a minute. Anyways, off-topic on this last bit.

Remember, have fun. ;-)

Got to say your wrong here mate.

As long as you have a Commander in each group, ie a Group Leader slot then comms are fine. Only the Group leader can use the Command channel in game. He then disseminates the instructions down to the players underneath him.

It is all a matter of good C + C (Command and Control). Nobody uses sidechat or Global unless it is the admin or the overall commander giving a briefing before the game starts. Once in game only the Command, Vehicle, Group and Direct channels are used. But roleplay and realism needs to be adhered to constantly.

The VOIP in Arma is perfectly capable of doing what it is intended for.

Edited July 27, 2013 by dale0404

[KingScuba 1]

I've actually found a rather nice server. JTF2's server removed Side and Global opions, leaving you with Vehicle, Group, and direct unless you're a SL/PL.