Jump to content

roshnak

Member
  • Content Count

    1128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by roshnak

  1. The expression "What do you have to lose?" doesn't mean "What are you definitely going to lose?" Anyway, it was a semi-snarky comment that I clarified with the rest of my post. I guess I should have been more clear and said that what the average player has to lose is the open and free modding community and content that they have been accustomed to for nearly 14 years (or longer if they were involved in modding communities for other games). I don't see anywhere in my post where I gave an opinion on whether or not mods should be free or suggested that modders had any responsibility to players at all. All I'm saying is that if users suddenly have to pay for stuff that they didn't have to pay for before, that is definitely a loss to the user. It can argued that modders deserve a little more and that it's okay if the average user has to spend some more money to make that happen (this seems like the argument you're making), but let's not pretend like the average user has nothing to lose from the monetization of user generated content.
  2. Money, for one. Or missing out on content that might otherwise be free. There's really no reason to think that any user who doesn't want to regularly spend money on Arma has anything to gain from this. Even in the best case scenario, where paid user created content draws in a ton of new modding talent, the majority of those people will be looking to monetize their content, otherwise they would already be a part of the modding community. Thus, such a scenario doesn't benefit players who don't want to spend more money. Let's be honest here, this is not exactly a win-win. In the end, the average user is probably going to lose something. Modders can't make money without other people spending it, after all. Whether or not you think it's worth it in order to support modders is another question, and probably the one that people should actually be discussing.
  3. Please explain what you mean by this.
  4. Volume aside, these all sound pretty similar to me.
  5. I don't think most people cautioning against taking Youtube videos too seriously are necessarily as concerned with compression as much as they are with the fact that most of those videos are recorded on cell phone cameras or camcorders. I meant that there is more echo in the soundcloud recording than in Arma. But either way, my point is that I don't really see how anyone can hear the bullet cracks in Arma and mistake it for the sound of a bullet colliding with another object.
  6. I was just about to post that, actually. To me, that sounds really close to what we have in game with a lot more echo.
  7. An impact with what? Like, it sounds like ______ hitting ______? Because I have never heard any object hitting any other object make that sound.
  8. Here, it's in single player, but like I said, it sounds the same to me in MP: Edit: I don't know if this will help if it's a problem with your hardware.
  9. I can't think of a single reason that bullet cracks would sound different in SP and MP. They sound the same in both to me, and they don't sound like impacts. I'm also using Realtek onboard sound (probably almost everyone is) and headphones.
  10. roshnak

    Leap Computing

    It might be down to bad servers, but I've played on several End Game servers recently and my frame rate consistently drops from about 60 in stage 1 to around 35 in stage 2. Of course, it could just be a problem with the gamemode. Edit: But yeah Arma 3 definitely has some weird performance quirks, and even if it didn't I don't see game streaming as being an acceptable substitute for having a decent computer any time soon.
  11. Somebody is going to show up to tell you not to use Youtube videos as reference.
  12. Shouldn't the engine be spatializing that stuff for you, though? Like, if a gunshot goes off to my right, shouldn't the game be deciding how much of the sound goes to my right ear and how much goes to my left, not the sound file?
  13. I have a question: Is there any reason that it would be desirable to have stereo sounds in a video game? I don't know that much about sound stuff, so I'm just wondering if there is any advantage to having a stereo sound played in a "3D" environment?
  14. The part I take issue with is the idea of needing to evacuate wounded units from the battlefield in order to treat them, not the idea of advanced wounds. Evil Koala suggested that neither light nor heavy wounds should be fixable in the field. What ideas do you think BIS took from modders? Because I suspect that any modders who you think deserve credit for their ideas either took those ideas from other modders or other games.
  15. For the record, this is not true. They only heal the player back to like 75% health or something like that. A medic with a medical kit is required for a full heal. It's worth noting that this is not only a multiplayer game, and, under this kind of system, being wounded in singleplayer would basically be the same thing as being killed. The system you're proposing, while not necessarily complicated, sounds brutally punishing in a potentially unfun way.
  16. Edit: I see you've edited your post with more info while I was typing this up, but I'm going to leave this post alone since I think its points are still valid, although I'm starting to wonder if we're talking about different things. Again, why? For example: Thief also used EAX to pretty good effect, and has been praised on these forums before. (3 videos here). And a .But maybe these all sound really terrible and artificial to you, or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying.
  17. Yeah, the problem with Norrin's mod was that it was tied to the Arma 3 "lower/raise weapon" states, which were not designed to be something you toggle between frequently. It's a nice idea, but super impractical.
  18. Norrin's mod was super clunky and not good. It was a decent proof of concept at best. I'm sure an official implementation would be smoother, but I would still prefer something like . Since neither is likely to happen any time soon, though, I would rather not have collision at all.
  19. Rolling back the changes is not the solution. Continuing to refine the distance attenuation effect is. I was referring to proper spatialized sound utilizing HRTFs. Arma 3 (and almost every other game) does not have this. Razer Surround is similar in that it is a virtual spatialization from a 7.1 source, but it's limited to 7 sound sources on a horizontal plane and interpolation between them. Real 3D sound can place a sound at any point in space around you, including above and below, using regular stereo headphones. Out of curiosity, did you check out the dev branch at all while these features were being implemented? These features have been tested by the community for over a month and have been receiving relatively positive feedback. The distance attenuation in particular is still in the process of being tweaked based on feedback. Before the Marksman DLC was released gun sounds were good, but not travelling as far as they should have been. It seems like the change that made it into 1.42 adjusted this so that guns were audible over longer distances, but also appears to have messed up the attenuation a little bit. What were they supposed to do, not release the Marksman DLC because some of the sounds weren't quite dialed in yet? It's not like there aren't going to be patches to refine it. Edit: Just in case anyone misinterprets this, I'm not saying that the community is responsible for testing anything, and I'm not saying that people need to test things on the dev branch in order for their opinions to matter or anything. I'm saying that these features have been in development for a while and are overall trending in the right direction. As someone who has seen this feature evolve through the dev branch, it seems like an overreaction to be calling for changes to be rolled back because some settings aren't quite right at the moment.
  20. It doesn't sound anything like a bullet impacting a surface to me. It sounds like a loud snap or crack, similar to a whip crack. It sounds fine to me.
  21. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Arma 3, here. I know roughly how the sound system in Arma 3 works. The environment effects are created by adding "tail" sounds to the end of "shot" sounds, which are then attenuated over distance in the engine. I also wasn't talking about a ray tracing sound engine. What I mean is, aren't reverb and echoes and the like real things and we know how they work, thus allowing us to create that stuff in real time? Shouldn't it be possible to do this in such a way that sounds at least as convincing as someone mixing or recording custom sounds? I mean, I could be completely wrong on this. Maybe there's no way to realistically recreate all of the intricacies of a sound interacting with it's environment in real time. But it seems to me that engineered sounds aren't realistically going to be doing that any better, and are just going to be approximations as well. Why would they roll back the changes instead of just continuing to adjust the new system like they have been doing for weeks on the dev branch?
  22. Uh, to what are you referring?
  23. Serious question: Why not? I don't know that much about sound editing, but are there not mathmatical principles behind the way sound behaves that can be utilized to make something sound not only good but also (more or less) correct for its environment? Also, yeah it kinda just sounds like you don't like the sounds rather than the actual sound system, which is a much more subjective criticism.
  24. Wait - I'm pretty sure HL2's way of doing it is the "old way" and doing this stuff in-engine is the way it's going to be done in the future (and also right now, apparently). It would be pretty great if Arma 3 had proper 3D/spatialized sound.
  25. roshnak

    Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback

    You did. This is this basis for BIS's entire DLC strategy.
×