Arma2TS

[noubernou 77]

hmm... nasty...

Are you near the edge of the transmit/receive range ? or does this happen anywhere ?

If you look at the video closely the hint in the upper right is the current signal strength, I think it was about 12% dropping below 25% is where distortion becomes something of an issue in terms of it being comfortable to hear for extended periods of time.

Basically we pegged 25% to be about the what the SINAD rating is on the radios for acceptable noise in the signal.

[gonk 0]

Basically we pegged 25% to be about the what the SINAD rating is on the radios for acceptable noise in the signal.

rgr...

Sorry for the silly questions but who is providing the distortion (i.e. mixing in the noise or lowering bandwidth) ? You or Teamspeak. It sounds almost like the audio quality in TS3 has been turned back to some ridiculously low bandwidth setting. If you are providing the white noise you could always have it reduce with signal strength (adjust the mixing algorithm) just to try and stop that bug and tweak reception quality a little...but I am probably teaching you how to suck eggs..so just tell me to pull my head in..:D.. good luck and thanks for the effort..:bounce3:

Edited June 25, 2010 by gonk

[noubernou 77]

We are providing distortion.

At all radio strengths you hear a slight bit of background hiss, as you lower from 100% towards 0 you begin to gain more noise in relation to volume and once you pass about 25% the signal begins to become distorted, representing the failure of the carrier wave to provide a sound signal that is complete enough to still maintain audible "purity". It begins to clip and all that fun stuff that comes with distortion. Of course as it fades out more the carrier signal fades away altogether in a loss of volume.

[gonk 0]

We are providing distortion.

At all radio strengths you hear a slight bit of background hiss, as you lower from 100% towards 0 you begin to gain more noise in relation to volume and once you pass about 25% the signal begins to become distorted, representing the failure of the carrier wave to provide a sound signal that is complete enough to still maintain audible "purity". It begins to clip and all that fun stuff that comes with distortion. Of course as it fades out more the carrier signal fades away altogether in a loss of volume.

A lot of these military radios have some very intelligent adaptive white noise filters which will adjust with Signal/noise ratio. So reducing the white noise level with distance won't be considered cheating.. . But simulating the noise cancelling filters..

How advance is this add-on ? you going to have fm/am options and with that they have different reception problems ? Just to open up another can or worms... and add some feature creep.. lol.

[noubernou 77]

A lot of these military radios have some very intelligant adaptive white noise filters which will adjust with Signal/noise ratio. So reducing the white noise level with distance won't be considered cheating.. :). But simulating the noise cancelling filters..

How advance is this add-on ? you going to have fm/am options and with that they have different reception problems ? Just to open up another can or worms... and add some feature creep.. lol.

Right now our loss algorithms are based around generic radio signals not really taking into account the modulation. Since a lot of military radios are on FM modulation systems our distortion sounds much more like FM distortion than AM.

The white noise doesn't really become a problem in the signal till the very end of the spectrum, probably around 4-5% signal quality in our simulation, distortion of the carrier is more of the issue in the higher end of low quality signal, which I believe is the case in real life. You get more of a fade of volume + distortion than an increase in white noise, its just that noise does become more apparent with the fade of the carrier wave.

Modeling of individual radios noise canceling features is a future endeavor... :p Also right now were aren't modeling reflection or channel separation (yet) so most of the noise "canceling" features are a lack of simulating things to a point where we would need to implement them.

[gonk 0]

Also right now were aren't modeling reflection or channel separation (yet) so most of the noise "canceling" features are a lack of simulating things to a point where we would need to implement them.

sounds logical... You might want to get a pair of cheap handhelds "walkie talkie" to get a better feel to range limitations/nose.. I see if I can borrow my brothers and record some sounds if you want.

Don't for get the satellite phone...

[noubernou 77]

sounds logical... You might want to get a pair of cheap handhelds "walkie talkie" to get a better feel to range limitations/nose.. I see if I can borrow my brothers and record some sounds if you want.

Don't for get the satellite phone...

Yea there are some definite things that can be tweaked right now with the ranging of the radios. Some of them at lower powers are still broadcasting too far in my opinion.

As far as SATCOM goes, while it'd be cool, and the 117F we are working on support its.... I do not think there are any ranges in ArmA2 that would require it. :p

[gonk 0]

Some of them at lower powers are still broadcasting too far in my opinion.

I am sure you will be inundated with feedback (no pun intended) once it is released... Which willl result in a lot of tweaking and lack of sleep...

As for receiving too far have you modelled antenna gains, receiver gains, receiver sensitivity ? I guess it is hard to get some realworld data on some of the mil stuff.. then next will be digital radios.. and simulating packet loss.. never ending.. I guess you like a challenge..

[noubernou 77]

I am sure you will be inundated with feedback (no pun intended) once it is released... Which willl result in a lot of tweaking and lack of sleep...

As for receiving too far have you modelled antenna gains, receiver gains, receiver sensitivity ? I guess it is hard to get some realworld data on some of the mil stuff.. then next will be digital radios.. and simulating packet loss.. never ending.. I guess you like a challenge..

Yea right now what factors into the signal strength is:

Transmit Frequency

Transmit Power

Transmitter Antenna Gain

Distance (FSPL algorithm)

Terrain (ITU terrain loss model based on greatest difference in terrain height)

Ground clutter in line of sight (subjective, not 100% accruate, but a good approximation) between Tx and Rx.

Receiver Antenna Gain

Receiver Sensitivity (based off of real world statistics for the SnR/SINAD rating).

[gnarly_rider 0]

PS Nouber, have you guys an rough ETA for the actual public release for ACRE, since the last ETA date quite sometime ago now? Are we talking days or weeks?

[noubernou 77]

PS Nouber, have you guys an rough ETA for the actual public release for ACRE, since the last ETA date quite sometime ago now? Are we talking days or weeks?

Days hopefully, we really are on the cusp of releasing it, but we are in the stage where every release candidate out there has some issue we feel would be a show stopper in terms of having to handle support rather than continued development.

The RCs are out there if you look hard enough. ;) We are currently on RC3.

[hamm 10]

By the way, dsound.dll causes really bad performance issues and isn't compatible with the 1.07 ArmA2 update. Not sure if this is fixed in a newer version or not!

[noubernou 77]

Its being worked on. Do not run it with 1.07 as it is incompatible.

[oktane 0]

rgr...

Sorry for the silly questions but who is providing the distortion (i.e. mixing in the noise or lowering bandwidth) ? You or Teamspeak. It sounds almost like the audio quality in TS3 has been turned back to some ridiculously low bandwidth setting. If you are providing the white noise you could always have it reduce with signal strength (adjust the mixing algorithm) just to try and stop that bug and tweak reception quality a little...but I am probably teaching you how to suck eggs..so just tell me to pull my head in..:D.. good luck and thanks for the effort..:bounce3:

This just made me realize all the people with a wide range of crappy mics, and how they are going to sound, lol. Really crappy, even when the signal is perfect. They will have to improve their setup for the sanity of others.

[noubernou 77]

This just made me realize all the people with a wide range of crappy mics, and how they are going to sound, lol. Really crappy, even when the signal is perfect. They will have to improve their setup for the sanity of others.

People that have really crappy mics usually are doing something stupid on their end that they can fix with a little effort. So hopefully this will motivate them. ;)

Also mics are not that expensive and getting a new one shouldn't be a big deal for most people. And really its not about you when your mic is crap, its about other people you play with and having some common courtesy to not sound like you are playing while sitting on top of a washing machine next to a dryer filled with boots. :p

[CarlGustaffa 4]

How about filtering the sound through a sharp bandpass filter, say from around 400Hz to 4kHz? I have no idea what is possible, but it would be nice if the radio could actually sound like a "narrowed down bandwidth" radio, if you know what I mean. For radio transmissions only, not voice direct :p

[jaynus 10]

How about filtering the sound through a sharp bandpass filter, say from around 400Hz to 4kHz? I have no idea what is possible, but it would be nice if the radio could actually sound like a "narrowed down bandwidth" radio, if you know what I mean. For radio transmissions only, not voice direct :p

Ts3 already does this actually. It normalizes sound into a small frequency range.

EDIT: removed retarded "I posted late and did a thumbs down cause i was tired".

Edited June 26, 2010 by jaynus

[oktane 0]

How about filtering the sound through a sharp bandpass filter, say from around 400Hz to 4kHz? I have no idea what is possible, but it would be nice if the radio could actually sound like a "narrowed down bandwidth" radio, if you know what I mean. For radio transmissions only, not voice direct :p

Their FMOD TS3 plugin implementation already sounds very much like a radio. And it behaves how you expect, radio sounds like radio, voice is normal. Complete with little mic key beeps. (aka Roger Beep) It's very cool.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Nice nice. :)

@jaynus: Why the thumbs down? I've been busy with other Arma stuff lately so I haven't really had much chance to really "play" the game. I didn't recall the sound being filtered, but doing some cfgRadio stuff with AI I realize that somehow I'm not getting this filtering effect for custom sounds, even if I'm getting it when AI responds using the vanilla system. I get click sounds and static, but not the EQ'ing. So I just threw in a reminder here just to be sure :)

Edited June 26, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[jaynus 10]

Nice nice. :)

@jaynus: Why the thumbs down? I've been busy with other Arma stuff lately so I haven't really had much chance to really "play" the game. I didn't recall the sound being filtered, but doing some cfgRadio stuff with AI I realize that somehow I'm not getting this filtering effect for custom sounds, even if I'm getting it when AI responds using the vanilla system. I get click sounds and static, but not the EQ'ing. So I just threw in a reminder here just to be sure :)

Woops. Because it was late, and I was banging my head against the wall with a bug. Ignore the thumbs down part :P

Right now we have 0 AI support, and that includes the ingame radio's stuff. We plan on, in the future, over-riding the entire VON system (depending on how OA's pans out...). Until then, its all meat-to-meat TS3 only.

[jaromaz 10]

another custom radio panel

(acre_sys_prc148.pbo, PRC148_Final_Background_Cropped.paa, PRC148_Final_Background_Cropped.png)

Edited June 27, 2010 by jaromaz

[Defunkt 431]

Looks great jaromaz.

[jaynus 10]

Latest test with TacticalGamer.Com . We broke ArmA2 after 4 hours. Plugin never crashed though :)

872XGsUT3Pg

[m1n1d0u 29]

can you explain why i haven't 3D sound in my server ?

[Meek 10]

As I understand it, ACRE currently stands for Advanced Combat Radio Environment. I don't entirely agree with this, because the addon isn't specific to radios (direct speaking), or combat.

May I suggest that it stand for Advanced Communication and Radio Environment, I think it is more suitable, and the acronym is the same, so no code refactoring ;)