Would You like to see Mumble's LINK - 'open plugin' implemented into ARMA 2?

[Karko 0]

Voted YES. Voice in this game is one of the most important things, and why not fix it with something that actually works, Mumble?

[stilpu 0]

I think some of you got this wrong. Read the first post again, this doesn't mean they'd completely integrate Mumble into ArmA2, only that they'd send the ingame position to Mumble so directional sound would work. Mumble would stay a 3rd party app, same as it is now.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I believe we are talking about a socket for Mumble to get game state information such as auto group channel creation and Deadforchannel shifting.

Kind Regards walker

[fincuan 0]

I too understood this poll is only about the positional audio.

The first post says:

What exactly would this mean is not implementing whole Mumble but only linking to Mumble via Link plugin : http://mumble.sourceforge.net/Link

* this will allow positional placement of voice according to ingame world coordinates etc.

Not to say that a full support wouldn't be nice, but I find it hard to believe it ever happens.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Fincuan

[sparks50 0]

I would rather see VON upgraded with "newer technology and codec" so it can compete with mumble.

[xeno 234]

I would rather see VON upgraded with "newer technology and codec" so it can compete with mumble.

Signed.

Voted against it. I would rather like to see VON improved or fixed instead of using a third party app (and mumble has it's own problems).

Maybe TS3 (SDK) is an alternative to replace VON.

Xeno

[Dwarden 1125]

Xeno you do realize this is not replacing anything ?

also i somehow missing the point of asking then to replace VON with TS3 (advantages? cost? etc. ...)

[Herbal Influence 10]

I love BI games because they are that "open".

They match very good with Open Source Software therefore.

Signed.

[Daniel 0]

I'd like to see some sort of link between ArmA2 and TS. Having separate channels depending on PRR or vehicle nets for example. Having access to the entire battle net if you have a radio in your inventory. That would be awesome.

[Meek 10]

Daniel;1452170']I'd like to see some sort of link between ArmA2 and TS. Having separate channels depending on PRR or vehicle nets for example. Having access to the entire battle net if you have a radio in your inventory. That would be awesome.

You mean Mumble right? There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be using TeamSpeak, it is outright inferior in every way (except if you are looking for a way to burn money and/or be disadvantaged).

Integration or cooperation with Mumble in any way is a great idea. I would especially like to see it replace the internals of VON, although since it is licensed under GPL, I am not sure how reasonable that is, perhaps BI can make a deal with the developers.

Communication is extremely important in ArmA2, and it's a shame to see the game being let down by the buggyness, quality and bad reputation of VON.

[draeath 10]

One of the best features of Mumble is the voice preprocessing. It's amazing how clear speech is via mumble, even when people have poor quality microphones.

[osmo 0]

I would rather see VON upgraded with "newer technology and codec" so it can compete with mumble.

I agree. The in-game voice chat is superior in the way that people don't need to download any external software in order to use it, they can just have the game patched up and everything is ready.

Plus, the direct talk in the in-game VON also fades out in distance in addition to being positional and is thus very realistic. I don't know if Mumble has fading with distance, or just positional. Positional without fading with distance is not so useful.

[Cionara 10]

Is it about having Sound envirorement extension like mumble with BF2 with which you can hear where someone is ingame who is talking to you over mumble ?

+1 from me

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Voted no. If mumble don't fade with distance, it has no uses for me. Positional only does nothing. Concentrate on fixing the ingame VoN issues.

[An Fiach 10]

I say no, who needs more 3rd party crap to keep track of and that likely will exclude an even larger number of players. Improve VON to reduce latency and improve direct chat, allow channels to be hotkeyed. If you have to install additional software to use it, it's a no-go. I don't see the wisdom in a game developer adding features for a portion of its customers.

[Sined_{Oz} 10]

i might not be understanding this clearly. but i voted yes. integrate Mumble quality into VOn (replacce whats currently there). allow a user to hear

A: direct local noise(chat from someone in game virtually beside me) as well as hearing hostile local sounds

B: radio traffic: on the channel of my choosing (as well as a: above just like listening to ipod with one ear) if im carrying a radio :-)

C: in vehicle i can have A: above and B: above (personal radio) and an in vehicle radio maybe on a different channel .just like real life!)

Essential that this be modelled ingame. as others above have said.. not another external app to switch to.

Cheers thanks

These forums are helping to make Arma2 experience better and better after initial mission one (campaign timeout trap Aaargh)

[Dwarden 1125]

I say no, who needs more 3rd party crap to keep track of and that likely will exclude an even larger number of players. Improve VON to reduce latency and improve direct chat, allow channels to be hotkeyed. If you have to install additional software to use it, it's a no-go. I don't see the wisdom in a game developer adding features for a portion of its customers.

another one who failed to read ...

you are not forced to use it ...

it will be additional layer/option next to VON

also VON latency can't be improved w/o complete overhaul of code ...

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Voted no. If mumble don't fade with distance, it has no uses for me. Positional only does nothing. Concentrate on fixing the ingame VoN issues.

it depends if you simulate direct channel or radio chanel ...

You don't need fade for radio comms ...

Edited October 16, 2009 by Dwarden

[MirindoR 10]

i tried mumble once and it gave me loads of problems. beside its much less realistic than it seems.. being able to hear someone that is talking 20m away from you but behind a huge concrete building is just dumb;

there is enough spammage with the game's radio as it is;

Arma has no need for it, being CO-op focused all you need is to get your squadmates to get on vent or ts and its all good, the bots aint gonna use mumble, lol.

i think there are much more pressing matters to attend to.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

You don't need positional for radio comms either :) I thought the discussion was mostly about the direct channel. The builtin VoN for radio comms isn't that bad, but it needs some more attention. I.e. the ability to tune down builtin chatter (ai talk, commands) etc which stand out waaay clearer than talking over VoN.

I don't know the benefits of mumble compared to TS which we use and like very much. Sure, if a non BIS dev spends time on it, by all means. We might try, we might like, we might even change. I just don't want to see BIS dev time spent on this while there are more important tasks still available.

On public servers I get the feeling that most people are afraid (I'm not too keen either) to talk anyway. On more tactical servers I think there is way too much radio noise, making the important messages drown.

[SPECOPx 10]

another one who failed to read ...

you are not forced to use it ...

it will be additional layer/option next to VON

also VON latency can't be improved w/o complete overhaul of code ...

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

it depends if you simulate direct channel or radio chanel ...

You don't need fade for radio comms ...

Why would we say no to an added feature!? The obvious answer was going to be yes!!!

[tcp 10]

You should make it more clear in the first post that support for Mumble will change nothing for regular usage.

1) Completely optional and transparent. It only gives an external program, Mumble, support for positional audio.

2) It's already included it many other games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

If you don't have Mumble, nothing will be affected. In fact, only people who have positional audio turned on in their mumble will notice a difference.

Also, stop speaking in terms of public servers, the chances of pubbies getting together on Mumble is very slim.

This is for squads who enforce radio discipline. Unless everybody is a special forces operator, not everybody gets radios. Individuals members of a fire team aren't allowed to talk to other squads. Only the squad leader will have a "radio" and be allowed to cross-communicate.

Now in terms of immersion, this will be great for fireteams who will be staying in close proximity and would like to hear voices linked to their teammates' actual positions.

The only thing I am unsure of is, does positional audio affect Alt Talk in Mumble? If so, radio operators will have to turn off positional audio to hear distant squads on the "radio".

[Dwarden 1125]

You should make it more clear in the first post that support for Mumble will change nothing for regular usage.

1) Completely optional and transparent. It only gives an external program, Mumble, support for positional audio.

2) It's already included it many other games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

If you don't have Mumble, nothing will be affected. In fact, only people who have positional audio turned on in their mumble will notice a difference.

Also, stop speaking in terms of public servers, the chances of pubbies getting together on Mumble is very slim.

This is for squads who enforce radio discipline. Unless everybody is a special forces operator, not everybody gets radios. Individuals members of a fire team aren't allowed to talk to other squads. Only the squad leader will have a "radio" and be allowed to cross-communicate.

Now in terms of immersion, this will be great for fireteams who will be staying in close proximity and would like to hear voices linked to their teammates' actual positions.

The only thing I am unsure of is, does positional audio affect Alt Talk in Mumble? If so, radio operators will have to turn off positional audio to hear distant squads on the "radio".

what part of first post isn't simple and clear enough ?

If you ask:

Why when game also use VON?

Then answer is:

Imagine it as 'addition' or 'expansion' to VON and NOT as replacement! Fully optionable.

What exactly would this mean is not implementing whole Mumble but only linking to Mumble via Link plugin : http://mumble.sourceforge.net/Link

* this will allow positional placement of voice according to ingame world coordinates etc.

strangely enough i find Your post to be bit redundant to state already what i wrote in first post and other posts :j::rolleyes:

note that there is no Mumble support included in games like Call fo Duty or BattleField ...

that's only plugin support inside Mumble itself for these games written by Mumble devs or fans ...

public servers will use what ever owner and admins want to use

considering there is over 150k users of Mumble who decided to return stats then chance of being used a lot is quite big :cool:

another thing what may play role is 0 cost of license for server hosting companies thus cheaper hosting ...

Mumle itself support whisper and specific channels

1.2.0 may also sport (not sure if it's already in) feature similar to channel links so You could create channel link to any channel so You could speak on multiple channels linked by this method and so on (which of course is ideal for any game with complex chain of command)

speaking of Mumble , version 1.2.0 is now beyond Alpha milestone :bounce3:

about last line

i'm not sure if you mean VON vs Mumble or just inside Mumble and even then it's question of tweaking how it would work out

[tcp 10]

You're right, there isn't anything wrong with the OP, but people a lot of people who are saying it's a bad idea are claiming that it will break game play.

Whether it's a plugin or native support, you would think for a game as heavily modded as ArmA2 that it wouldn't be a question of whether to add it or not. It wasn't an issue for other popular games to support it.

I don't think I was wrong to say this is not an issue for public servers because public servers don't force players to use their external voice program and however popular Mumble may be, it's still hard to get people to adopt Mumble over TS and Vent.

I've only used 1.1.8 and as far as I can tell, it supports linking channels, Chan keys (which I think is what you meant by whispering to specific channels), and Alt Talk (which I am not sure if it is working as intended or if I have it configured properly).

What I meant by positional audio affecting Alt Talk had nothing to do in-game VON because when an external VOIP program is used, the in-game VON is not very useful and usually disabled. My meaning is that positional audio needs to be off for cross communication because its not meant to act as if you are talking directly, but via a radio.

[ricoadf 0]

I think there is no need for it.

There would be other suggestions which are more important. (for example cooking grenades)

I would agree, while it would be nice, there are more urgent things that need work on :)

[Dwarden 1125]

well noone says that it will replace more important things :)

for that exist priority list :)