everyone happy with VOIP or not?

[ShrubMiK 0]

Another alternative to Teamspeak (IMO) is to use the group voice chat function in Xfire.

I already have it running to see which of my frinds is online and what game they are playing, and so I can message them even if they are in a game...therefore it makes sense to use it for voice as well instead of having to start another app.

Also no need to configure a server, make sure everybody knows where it is running today (if you don't have a dedicated TS server), etc.

I'd much prefer the in-game voice chat to work well enough to be consistently usable though. Since 1.08 it does work for me, whereas it never did before, so it's a definite improvement. And most of the time we could hear what we were saying to each other well enough. But there were occasional drop outs that made it annoying and then after a while it stopped working for no obvious reason and wouldn't come back.

[Monkwarrior 0]

So they made 2 huge faults:

1) you cann't see who's talking (with the ability to turn this OSD off)

2) you cann't mute players (admins and clients).

These are basic principles concerning VOIP, wake up BIS

Monk.

[dslyecxi 23]

I like the idea behind the ArmA VOIP. However, the current implementation is too filled with holes to be usable. The primary ones I've experienced (and reported) are:

1. No "Who's Speaking" indicator on the HUD. The scoreboard "Who's Speaking" light-up indication is useless.

2. No ability to adjust or test your mic in-game.

3. Completely unpredictable performance. This is the biggest one - if you never know if any given person can hear you, you cannot depend on the VOIP, simple as that.

4. Direct Speaking volume is seemingly of unpredictable volume for some people. For instance, when I found two people who could both hear me over direct speaking, one of them heard me fairly quiet (as is typical of direct speaking), the other could not hear me at all. Direct Speaking is probably the most powerful and interesting form of ArmA VOIP, so it being reliable and loud enough to be audible is extremely important. Right now the in-game radio commands easily drown it out, and being a few feet from someone makes them unintelligible.

5. "All" chat can be used to transmit to all players when dead.

When the majority of these items are satisfactorily addressed, ArmA VOIP will be a huge boon to those who use it. The group/vehicle/direct channels are going to be particularly useful. I plan to continue to use TS on top of it, since the two will be complementary in their features, but I think ArmA VOIP will do a great deal to make organized ArmA comms much, much better.

[4 IN 1 0]

I like the idea behind the ArmA VOIP. However, the current implementation is too filled with holes to be usable. The primary ones I've experienced (and reported) are:

1. No "Who's Speaking" indicator on the HUD. The scoreboard "Who's Speaking" light-up indication is useless.

2. No ability to adjust or test your mic in-game.

3. Completely unpredictable performance. This is the biggest one - if you never know if any given person can hear you, you cannot depend on the VOIP, simple as that.

4. Direct Speaking volume is seemingly of unpredictable volume for some people. For instance, when I found two people who could both hear me over direct speaking, one of them heard me fairly quiet (as is typical of direct speaking), the other could not hear me at all. Direct Speaking is probably the most powerful and interesting form of ArmA VOIP, so it being reliable and loud enough to be audible is extremely important. Right now the in-game radio commands easily drown it out, and being a few feet from someone makes them unintelligible.

5. "All" chat can be used to transmit to all players when dead.

When the majority of these items are satisfactorily addressed, ArmA VOIP will be a huge boon to those who use it. The group/vehicle/direct channels are going to be particularly useful. I plan to continue to use TS on top of it, since the two will be complementary in their features, but I think ArmA VOIP will do a great deal to make organized ArmA comms much, much better.

about the chennel thing, atless we need an extra "lobby and ghost chennel" which have mute function(like command #mute *playerid*), and all other chennel works as text message, that would do the trick i guess

other then that, cant agree more, i just hope BI could kick out all these issus

[King-Six 0]

I too dont like the in game voip.

i prefer those that want to use comms, to just use teamspeak, or ventrillo or any 3rd party program. this way i dont have to listen to somones rabble. its too distracting.

to get around the problem, i had to turn the radio volume off.

at very least, put a disable checkbox in.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

It's crap if you ask me. No big deal for anyway since I always use TS and/or ingame chat.

[frederf 0]

BF2 very intelligently made VoN only work for groups and not the entire side. People using SIDE channel VoN in ArmA invariably say really stupid stuff like "enemy over there!" or "Did you see that Yankees game?" when everyone on this hemisphere can hear it and usually doesn't care.

I really wish I could mute all channels except group and vehicle and proximity. Between missions Global and Side are useful, but while playing it's nothing but a headache.

[4 IN 1 0]

point is, we have to be able to mute a complete chennel or a single person or even admin have the ability to put spammer into extra chennel, when you dont want spammer to messing your side chennel while you still want it clear for other non-spammers to use it , also you need to sure who is talking/spamming inorder for this system works, server admin have to have more ability on this atless