Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by roshnak

  1. TF2 and CSGO were not free when all this began.

    That's why I said "free or cost less than $20." The standalone version of TF2 was $19.99 at release and CS:GO costs $14.99.

    Does that mean FUNDAMENTALLY for you?

    Does your "huge change" also has a negative connotation?

    Yeah, for people who bought Arma 3 because they were primarily interested in the modding scene, it's a pretty fundamental change.

    And, again, I did not state one way or the other whether that change was positive or negative. Whether or not one considers it negative probably has a lot to do with whether they are looking at potentially gaining money or potentially spending money. It should really not be surprising that people would rather not spend more money if they can help it.

    but then again, those games don't have "added" content, they have pure cosmetic changes (well TF2 has some changes but they are not game breaking). So you paying for hats and rainbow shitting unicorns, NOT. FOR. CONTENT. (again content also means missions and campaigns, not only addons)

    The thing is, from an average user's perpsective, it doesn't make much difference if the content being added is purely cosmetic or a new weapon or mission or whatever. The money they are being asked to spend is the same, and Arma is significantly more expensive than just about any other game with a community marketplace.

  2. why would it change? Again, you consider if there is this option, everything will become payware...

    Why wouldn't it? Even if only some of the higher quality addons went payware, that's still a pretty huge change from everything being free.

    just don't forget that the revenue came from CSGO, TF2 and Dota with pure cosmetics

    On this note, I would also like to point out that all of these games are either free or cost less than $20, which makes the idea of paying for extra content much more palatable than it would be in a full priced game like Arma.

  3. How would you lose money?Surely you would've made the choice to purchase something you wanted.

    "lose" makes it sound like an automatic process out of the user's control.

    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).

    That's true.It doesn't.Why is there an expectation that it must?Why do you feel a modder must facilitate the player's need to save money?

    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.

  4. CONCLUSION - I still don't understand what the average user would have to loose?

    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.

  5. Youtube videos can have perfectly acceptable audio quality that would be undistinguishable in blind tests for 99.9% listeners. I would like to ask local "audio engineers" and "audiophiles" to stop overreacting about it and to stop spreading myths. Bitrate (to some point) is one of the least important things when deciding about production quality and design of a sound.

    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.

    If that's echo that got added to the sample, it should be separate from the snap, now it's as instant as the snap itself resulting a single sound, instead if a snap and its echo coming back from where ever.

    Edit: Oh, and the echo is too loud too, it buries the snap under itself.

    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 have onboard audio too, using both headphones and speakers.

    That sound is what I have too, and I can't help it but it sounds to me like an impact, sure, there is the snap, but there's also something else I cannot describe other than an impact. :shrug:

    An impact with what? Like, it sounds like ______ hitting ______? Because I have never heard any object hitting any other object make that sound.

  7. Also using headphones here, wierd but maybe it's just my old ears - LOL!

    I will try to record it somehow, just have to figure out a way to do it first.


    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.

  8. Are we talking about the same thing? Have you tested it in MP?

    I can also hear snaps/cracks in SP but I assure you that it sounds like bullets is hitting the ground all around me when playing MP (when it's not). I asked another player last night in MP and he also experienced it. Would be nice to hear a comment from the devs if they noticed the same thing in MP?

    Maybe it's my sound HW that makes a differerence - I don't know? I'm running a common Realtek on-board soundcard, are you using something else roshnak? What sound HW are you using CaptainObvious?


    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.

  9. Have to say mine runs it very well, though I do use a private server for mp with the group. But it was just a thought to help any that may have needed it, there are a lot complaining on the forum here regards performance, mostly in mp. I think a lot of that is down to bad public servers though. But not sure as I don't use them.

    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.

  10. Yes? b/c you hear stereo... For example the indoor tail with the flattering echo is a result of the sound bouncing between the left and right wall pretty fast. Ergo left wall=left ear and right wall=right ear -> stereo. Its natural hearing and realistic.

    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?

  11. I disagree. You already need a medic in singleplayer anyways because FAKs don't quite cut it- even when you treated yourself, you will still suffer from increased sway and constant wheezing. It'd be pretty much what we have now, except more immersive.

    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.

    You've brushed upon something that's intrigued me for a while now: that being scripts and addons that are later introduced into vanilla. But BIS and its devs won't give credit because that'll be an admission that they've based their ideas and work on other people's creations, and then there's the legal implications as there's an universal agreement that people's work is automatically copyrighted. "Every poet's a thief" but morally it could be argued that sooner or later BIS would have thought of the idea anyway, hence why patents are time limited.

    How I see it is BIS and its devs have time and budget restraints that prioritise what they develop and such features are planned but not yet released due to this.

    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.

  12. And that the current magic IFAKs instantly heal all wounds.

    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.

    Field medical actions should only stabilize the victim, not heal them. They would then require evac to a field hospital where then I would be okay with insta-healing. The amount of detail that does into modeling medical systems can be incredibly detailed (preferred) or really simple. But the user interface doesn't need to reflect either decision.

    Ultimately, being severely wounded should take you out of the fight. Being slightly wounded should drastically reduce combat effectiveness. And neither should be able to be fixed in the field.

    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.

  13. 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.

    I'm not talking about spatial stuff, I'm talking about the immersive quality of the sounds.

    Software modulating an existing sound is a substandard practice, whether it happens in-engine or engineered and then incorporated into the game.

    Again, why?

    For example:

    For a good example of really good sound design, see Thief: The Dark Project (from 1998). That game does so much right when it comes to sound. One example is the hilariously loud footsteps. Garret is supposed to be a master thief but his steps are so loud that, In real life, every guard in the entire building would know he was there after his first few steps. But In the game it works perfectly and makes you as a player feel connected with the environment in a way that, for some reason, has not been topped since. You know that feeling when you are trying to walk silently over a wodden floor at night but every step you take makes massive wodden shrieks that makes your hearth jump in fear of waking up somebody? Thief replicaded that feeling so so well

    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.

  14. Norrin mod however, (kuddos to him on coding ofcourse) takes that half second of delay before switch happens

    which is bloody important in close combat scenario.

    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.

  15. Maybe because theyve completely ruined a massive component of the in-game combat and actually value their player community enough to allow them to play a game with a useable audio while they iron out the faults.

    Rolling back the changes is not the solution. Continuing to refine the distance attenuation effect is.

    I think you guys have some audio settings messed up because I can always tell where things are via sound. Are you sure you don't have sound set as 7.1 in system sound settings and are using stereo headphones? This will really mess up your ability to perceive direction. Try Razer Surround app.

    For me the audio directionality of Arma is world class.

    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.

    Of course they do a great job, I wouldnt be so angry if I wasnt so heavily invested in the game but they have a track record of putting out seemingly untested updates. 5 minutes on a server after that update and I knew something was seriously awry.

    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.

  16. The proof of how it was done is in the actual sound itself.

    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.

    I would go on if I thought it might influence BIS to roll back the changes but implementing new bugs onto an already problematic (im being kind) game seems to be their modus operandi.

    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?

  17. What I'm saying is, no amount of software processing and modulation of an existing sound can even come remotely close to a separate sample with an explicitly engineered/recorded purpose.

    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.