Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

ThePredator

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    616

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ThePredator

  1. Posted

    You need to create a modfolder with all the stuff inside, just posting/sending the cfg won't do the trick. However, this won't activate centipedes tracers, it just disables all the vanilla laser tracers.

    If anyone got a solution, like calling the script for the gun beiing fired, let me know.

  3. Posted

    @plaintiff: Try to set low light settings and use the Cobra optics to spot a tank in the underbush on 2 klicks. *Should* be no problem then. I don't even see them on the Ramahdi airport, in one of my preview videos (Laser designator & laser guidance for the AH-1Z) I was barley able to spot the tank. And the fog was not the issue at all.

    I was hovering, now try that on a gun run with infantry as big as the scratches.

  5. Posted

    It's not about authenticity, I was sailing alot some time back, but it's the effect itself.

    I don't know if a Zodiac rubber boat is much different to those of lifesavers here at the "beach", but they have not this hard splash noise, it's softer and not that loud (all the time).

    I was trying to execute a covert beach assault...Well, pretty spooky without the splashing when you turn off the engine (there shouldn't be a correlation between speed and the engine status).

    I'd prefer a softer sound so you hear the surroundings better.

    I could reduce the volume of the splashing, though...

    The M4...why yes, I thought there was such popping sound last time I heard them on the range, single auto only... "YUCK!"

    I wish the german gun laws would allow for fully automatic firearms & suppressors & lam units... But as long as I can weild my OHWS, I don't bother biggrin_o.gif

    If anyone with experience in Zodiac CRRCs could verify the sound or point me to a better source, you're welcome.gif

  6. Posted

    Well, if I had the chance, I would've joint the long range, one-shot-one-kill branch. With all the responsibility and duties.

    However, I wouldn't even kill animals just for killing sake. In a war-situation, not necessarily threatened, I could go for the pink mist. Don't really know if this would be the case, when it comes to such decision, though.

  7. Posted

    Well, if I had the chance, I would've joint the long range, one-shot-one-kill branch. With all the responsibility and duties.

    However, I wouldn't even kill animals just for killing sake. In a war-situation, not necessarily threatened, I could go for the pink mist. Don't really know if this would be the case, when it comes to such decision, though.

  8. Posted

    Does anybody own a inflatable rubber boat?

    I really hate the watersplashing sound. I live close to the baltic sea but I don't have the appropriate equipment.

    I ran some tests for the supersonic crack...Well, I can't do much about that.

    Enhanced most sounds, stay tuned for an awesome preview made by one of the ArmA video gurus.

  9. Posted

    I guess my point is still valid.

    Clean optics for the high-tech optical gunsights will increase the combat distance. Since 1.07 we can actually see much farther into the landscape and therefore the combat distance can be pushed beyond the current limits.

    Dirty optics are useless in low-light conditions, no FLIR available, too, engaging infantry with the AH-1Z is futile.

    The TOW optics...How should I lead the rocket into the target, if I don't see the difference between a dirtmark on the lense and the tank I try to hit (remember the TOW could fly 3,75 klicks !wink_o.gif

    Dirt is nice to see you're watching through lenses, but this could be achieved with the Stryker-Driver overlay, too, and it would even look way better for some optics.

  11. Posted

    @ Sickboy: Well, I am new to modding this game and don't have experience with OFP either.

    The mentioned limitation is just what I experienced while playing with the engine.

    A bullet passing creates a sonic shockwave which is damn loud (like a whip cracking above your head). This sound travels some distance, beyond the actual path of flight.

    In ArmA, it seems, that the hearing distance is linked to the volume (makes sense). Increasing the volume also increases the hearing distance.

    For a supersonic crack caused by a bullet, it is necessary to limit the effect to - let's say - 3 meters. In this zone, the sound should be at 100% volume, therefore achieving a scary *snap* sound. Beyond that range the sound should fade out pretty fast, otherwise the snap would be heard several meters away from the actual bullet. Might be realistic, sound is not limited to a specific area, but it will reduce the threatening nature of the supersonic crack.

    Imagine you are under fire and you hear the sound even if you are not in danger. You will get used to the then annoying sound and don't really bother, because the sound of a bullet passing is no indication of a threat.

    To the stereo issue: Every sound is 3 dimensional. Even if the source is singular. You can always hear where the sound is originating (except some occassions where the sound is reflected and distorted).

    A mono source will always sound the same, moving around does not alter the sound at all. Normally walking around an area you hear a lot of sounds reaching your ear. Most of them can be located just by the stereo effect of your ears.

    The other thing is, one single sound can change the channels, left to right and vice versa. You have the possibility to achieve a 3 dimensional environment by one sound only. Now put 30 sounds, like vehicles, birds, gunshots and voices into that scene and you feel like being in the middle of something.

    Mono sources will be split to both front speakers (for 5.1 systems all three front speakers) and they sound like they are direktly ahead. Modern sound engines can alter the volume of each speaker to simulate distance and position. But the sound is still the same all the time.

    It is difficult to explain such things in a language I don't speak perfectly.

    Anyway, a stereo sound contains more nuances to recreate the actual event.

    @Agamoth: This sound comes close to the GAU-12, a test firing sound I found is useless, I'd love to have a video showing the harrier firing the GAU-12...

    GAU-12 Testfire

    Both GAU-8 sounds are authentic and open air fired. I like the first one, but with a 2 second burst I had to use two different samples. I hope I'll receive a high-quality video soon.

    There is no difference heard, and that is another issue of mono sounds. Limited possibilities of editing the sound.

    Stay tuned for updates, progress is quite slow, though.

  15. Posted

    There are some significant aspects creating a typical gunshot.

    The most noteable for the shooter is the muzzleblast, consisting of high pressured gases leaving the barrel. Mostly misinterpreted as bass due to the high pressure on the stomach.

    The second and not really apparent aspect is mechanical noise made by the boltcarrier or breech/slide.

    The third would be the echo, only heard outside with some distance between the shooter and the reflection surface.

    The shot (muzzleblast) itself is pretty clean and straight forward, actually a loud explosion with a few distinct signatures, like diverted gases and vibrations (flashsuppressors shift the sound of a gun and reduce the burning gases to some extend).

    Mechanical actions can only be heard in some occasions, the AK-47 for example has a quite slow boltcarrier and it will add a distinct nuance to the overall shot.

    Belt-fed machineguns also have such effects.

    Echo is only generated overdistance long enough to seperate the actual shot from the reflected sound. It's more of a reverb than an echo, anyway.

    Now let's try to compare a real gunshot with a recorded one, played in ArmA.

    A real shot sounds quite different each time you hear it. The first shot differs from the second and last (in a burst).

    In ArmA only one sound can be played over and over again. Using the first is the best choice for proper recreation, it is the dirtiest sound but with the distinct signature intact. However, mechanics and reverb are not audible in this case.

    Cameras do have an auto-gain for microphone input leveling the sound to reduce clippings. The first shot is the loudest and every shot in the burst thereafter will be limited.

    Following shots consist of the reverb, mechanical movement and the shot itself. As stated above, the sound is limited by the microphone.

    The last shot will have the typical reverb but may exclude the mechanical action, dependent on the type of weapon used (boltcarrier locks in rear-most position).

    Now we have different approaches, or philosophies, what the sound environment should be like.

    FDF made all sounds have reverb and a sharp report.

    Chammy tries to make all sounds have their dirty natural, recorded features.

    Predator tries to make them sound clean and sharp, as you would experience them in life.

    Which mod the user elects to be his favourite depends on his/her taste.

    Chammy and I try to keep the shot as authentic as possible. I for myself, don't want them to sound like I am watching combat footage on YouTube or Liveleak but not as artificial as FDF made them.

    There is a thin red line to follow, I hope I don't struggle and fall into the hands of the dark side.

    This should be enough to clarify the difference in the current sound projects.

    To end the post, I have to admit, the sound-only project is not my main concern, I will work on the config mod most of the time, if the final 1.07 or 1.08 was released, never intended to work on two projects.

  16. Posted

    Binoculars are fine, but TOW, AH-1Z and such optiks are useless in the current state.

    I don't think the multimillion US$ vehicles have such poor visual quality, it might be OK for east-block countries, but I doubt the western countries can't afford such maintenance.

    I guess it was a balancing issue to make the optics look like that. And we all know balancing = not good.

  19. Posted

    It is a bit difficult, indeed.

    I triple checked most sounds and there are not many good sources for proper samples that don't sound like they were directly from YouTube.

    As a perfectionist, I need something that reminds me of the actual gun. Since I have no talent in recreating or enhancing sounds from low quiality sources, I have to find and collect good recordings...

    However, I think we can work together on the configs and help each other out, that way the people have a chance to choose their favourite mod.

    I don't care who has the #1 sound mod, actually, it doesn't matter, so there is nothing wrong with three sound mods out there.

    Anyway, the time difference is a major issue with co-working, Chammy lives thousands of clicks in the west and if he gets up, I nearly fall asleep (10 hours difference).

    BTW, like to know what you think about this sound:

    G36

  20. Posted

    I'd like to...but the sound engine is really below any standard.

    This said, you hear the crack far away from the actual path of flight, so it does not really scare you at all.

    Reducing the hearing distance also decreases the volume of the sound. Raising the volume of the sound itself will produce clipping.

    You can test that even in vanilla ArmA.

    Put a civilian between a machinegunner or sniper and place an enemy car or truck a distance away. Force the shooter to fire at the target. Lie down and listen to the cracks. Now move away from the line of fire...you still hear the cracks several meters away. I was aprox. 20 m away and still had the sound of bullets passing. This is hardly some sort of immersion...it sounds stupid.

    You will also notice the poor sound engine in a different way. The report of the gun is played with some delay (which is good) but it is not dynamic. The gun shot is not really changed by distance, should be more like a diffuse cracker going off. Nope, sire, in ArmA they sound the same on distance.

    So how should I make a bullet passing sound scary, if the engine does not allow such things?

    I have good contact to the BF2 Project Reality Soundartist and talked alot about sound effects. BF2 got a better engine, stereo sound (wohow..stereo! what a sci-fi-game is that???) and more events for sounds to be played...

    ArmA got mono sounds, no dynamics...no fun.

  24. Posted

    I will try to record another combat scene with the current sounds.

    The new damage model does not really help in that, even a T-72 will shoot down an AH-1Z, so I need to re-play the demo-mission again and again to get one decent cut.

    If anybody still got input, criticism and suggestion, just shoot.

    If anybody got first hand experience with any of the weapons featured in ArmA, let me know. Could need some feedback on how to improve the weapons config for the cfg version later on.

  25. Posted

    That RPG will have to go, unless, thats what's to your liking . I love the Shilka Fire though. I think I can see what sound you are aiming at. The thing with the M16 or M4 sound is that hollowness, I guess when you amplified the volume it increased that "bark" sound in it. That A10 is right on, nice job. The 20mm cannon for the Cobra should be slower, BUT in order for it to match up with the other weapon it sounds fine the way it is. The 5.56 silencer is right on, the AK sound is great also, the Dshk or KORD, should sound like the M2, but a slight difference.

    Well, there is the problem:

    RPG is dead on and confirmed authentic, however, the Shilka is far from realistic, it was recorded from a game trailer for some upcoming RTS game.

    This is a good example for the difference in authentic and realistic sounding weapons.

    Amplifing the M16/M4 sounds will lead to clipping, reducing the peaks will be the same as it is now. The more peaks are out of range, the less quality will be.

×