PDA

View Full Version : BoB voice comms suggestion



Hristo_
01-12-2006, 06:32 AM

Hristo_
01-12-2006, 06:32 AM
Based on discussion in this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1951035793), I decided to bring the issue before Oleg.


Suggestion:

Make voice comms integral part of BoB, with one tuneable virtual radio for all players.

How it works:

After entering online server, a player enters a 3-digit radio code. This would allow him to use one specific radio channel associated with the code.

The enemy can do it too, with risk of both using the same channel.

Simply, one radio for all, like in real life.

Benefits:

Step towards realistic use of radio, radio silence, radio discipline, periodic changes of frequency, radio-espionage and counter radio-espionage...

Edited:

The radio could be damaged and thus non-functional.

Signal strength could also be modeled, but I guess it would not matter unless you flew over Pacific.

Furthermore, some planes didn't have radio in RL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

.

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 06:42 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Absolutely brilliant.

This way we'll get rid of TS. Very realistic, immensely immersive and directly accessible comms even by newbies.

Feathered_IV
01-12-2006, 06:54 AM
Make the radios vulnerable to damage too

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 06:59 AM
Even better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. Hristo, why don't you add this one too in your proposal?
And if the plane has no radio then in Full-real no comms for this one.

stathem
01-12-2006, 07:09 AM
Yep, suberb idea, if possible.

Capt.LoneRanger
01-12-2006, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Make the radios vulnerable to damage too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now, THAT sounds cool! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Sturm_Williger
01-12-2006, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
And if the plane has no radio then in Full-real no comms for this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Superb idea ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

masaker2005
01-12-2006, 08:18 AM
Send this idea to Oleg.

PFS_BlackBird
01-12-2006, 08:36 AM
Anything to simulate real life even better than it already is gets my vote.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This way we'll get rid of TS. Very realistic, immensely immersive and directly accessible comms even by newbies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt if our friends at GoTeamspeak would be very happy with that. I don't see it happen though, unless BoB will be written for console only.


BB

Lucius_Esox
01-12-2006, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing modelled in F4 apart from Bullseyes btw is radio strength. If you fly on a really deep strike mission you can actually lose touch with your awacs,,, that is immersion,, very lonely feeling.
Maybe apart from the obvious to be worked on in Bob such as FM, gfx, etc a really good look at the present comms system is needed?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do think having played a sim where comms plays such a large part in g/play, and feeling what an effect it has on immersion, this could be something to be looked at in Bob.

noace
01-12-2006, 09:34 AM
And what does prevent people from nevertheless using TS?

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 09:50 AM
Nothing really, but it will be inconvenient comparing to good in-game comms.

noace
01-12-2006, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Nothing really, but it will be inconvenient comparing to good in-game comms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, having to use TS will be more convenient than having no comms at all - after the radio may have been damaged, or your plane does not have them in first place.

noace

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 10:18 AM
At the moment u can see only a few of a server's gamers using voice comms (TS) - at most 50% I'd say. If in-game comms are convenient the majority will use them. If then some want to kill their immersion by using radio in a non-radio plane and at the same time be separated from the majority of the gamers who will be in the brand new realistic, fancy-looking in-game comms, that's their problem. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Plus it'll be cheating; comms in a plane without radio http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. At the moment it's happening with the early Japanese planes and TS. Teamspeak isn't radio simulation. It's just VoIP group telephone call.

I'll get involved later again in this discussion. Not that I'll have anything else to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

zaelu
01-12-2006, 11:03 AM
The ideea is nice... but next thing you will hear will be:

"TeamSpeak cheater!!" when someone gets help although he wouldn't supose to... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MrQBerrt
01-12-2006, 12:41 PM
I also like the idea, but I also see dangers in it.

Danger #1, if I had to guess, I would assume that Oleg wouldn't implement this very well (see our current in game comms for an example). This is not to say I think Oleg incapable of the task, I just think he wont spend as much time on it as the creators of teamspeak have. Teamspeak will still probably be better and thus used more often.

Danger #2, if everyone is on comms, we'll have more people abusing them, if you haven't heard comm abuse, go play counter-strike for awhile and listen in on comms. Most people end up turning them off in those type of servers.

With that said, as long as the comms are done right, and have an easy way for the hoster to kick/ban the freaks. Then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif way up.

Hristo_
01-12-2006, 12:41 PM
OK, there are some possible drawbacks too:

- How to handle players who have just switched teams, presuming they know the frequency ?

Possible solution would be to change frequency every few minutes, as a safety measure. Also, upon sideswitching your radio frequency should be reset, just to avoid spying by default.

Primarily, one should be careful to give radio frequency info only to trusted persons, not just anyone who has joined the server.



- How to handle spying in form of joining a team only to pass the frequency info to the enemy via private messaging or some other way ?

See previous answer. Simply be careful to who you give the info and be sure to change the frequency periodically.

Historically, armies had teams of specialists who did nothing else but monitor enemy communications. It took them very little time to find out what the new frequency was, almost as simple as we search for radio stations in our cars. Once found out, this info was passed to units in the field.

p1ngu666
01-12-2006, 12:45 PM
ever played camper strike? few use ingame comms, even fewer use it productivly.

u get mostly a)kiddies with annoying voices, b)two french kids talkin to each other, while everyone else is english.. c)music comin across badly, d)jamming/annoying noise being played constantly

the last one has some historical merit.

imo, might be better to forget about ingame comms, and just use ventilo and teamspeak, cos then u can boot the annoying gits.

SlickStick
01-12-2006, 12:48 PM
Public comms are like public restrooms, you never know what you'll find in there.

IMO, no squadron in competition would use in-game comms that could easily be intercepted, when they can guarantee security of their comms by making it a private channel on a privately-controlled server.

As has been said, and much like public servers, they can be a pain to moderate and who really needs to hear about Cousin Jake's prostate check-up while lining-up a bogey's six? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 12:58 PM
I see, but tbh I think it's miserable using a VoIP group telephone call to substitute radio comms simulation in a 2006-2007 sim. Maybe Lucius_Esox can explain to us how ingame radio comms are successful in F4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing modelled in F4 apart from Bullseyes btw is radio strength. If you fly on a really deep strike mission you can actually lose touch with your awacs,,, that is immersion,, very lonely feeling.
Maybe apart from the obvious to be worked on in Bob such as FM, gfx, etc a really good look at the present comms system is needed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
- How to handle players who have just switched teams, presuming they know the frequency ?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why switch sides during a mission in the first place? I think that shouldn't be allowed if there's any sense of working towards a common goal and not just collecting kills. Switch side when the mission ends. It doesn't last that long any way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


edit: All that we suggest for FULL-REAL, as an additional difficulty switch:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ˆ</span> realistic radio comms

Lucius_Esox
01-12-2006, 02:38 PM
In game in F4 when playing multiplayer they use the same setup we do, i.e. t/speak/Ventrillo.

The radio comms in the single player is pretty sophisticated. You can communicate with virtually everything including re-fuelling tankers and FAC's (Forward Air Controllers).

An element I really like is the target allocation for your flight when attacking ground targets.

Say your attacking an airfield, you basically tell the other flight members what target you are going to hit, this is done just prior to reaching the target and of course can be changed. For instance you might say "runway 120r" When you look in their attack menus they will allocate themselves appropriate targets for there weapons carried and they wont double up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The idea of radio strength works really well. Ask your wingman for his position and you can tell instantly how far away he is by the sound quality of his reply before he gives you his position, might not even reply!! When playing it makes you realise what an immersion maker this sort of thing is.

Considering F4 models radio comms 50-70yrs after WW2 you would think that reliabilty and range would be greatly reduced.

I don't know how they implemented communicating target position in WW2, if it was even done on the fly so to speak, or was as critical?

But while adding to pilot workload, i.e. working out your own position in relation to Bullseye before being able to say where you are it certainley would help to mantain security over your own comms.

SlickStick
01-12-2006, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
I don't know how they implemented communicating target position in WW2, if it was even done on the fly so to speak, or was as critical?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read around here somewhere that field spotters were used to communicate target positioning on certain fronts. I don't recall the details though.

p1ngu666
01-12-2006, 03:21 PM
forward air controlers where used everywhere, u have guys who are with the army and liase with the ground attack units, pointing out targets, giving information etc.

there was also the master bomber in later raf bomber command raids, he would circle the target and radio to crews what to hit and other information

its by no means unuseal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HelSqnProtos
01-12-2006, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Public comms are like public restrooms, you never know what you'll find in there.

IMO, no squadron in competition would use in-game comms that could easily be intercepted, when they can guarantee security of their comms by making it a private channel on a privately-controlled server.

As has been said, and much like public servers, they can be a pain to moderate and who really needs to hear about Cousin Jake's prostate check-up while lining-up a bogey's six? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, this will never catch on competitively. In game comms are largely ignored by developers because as has been stated they are already 'done' by others. Why waste time on them? Its and interesting idea, but its sort of a pink elephant. I doubt we will see it.

neural_dream
01-12-2006, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
In game comms are largely ignored by developers because as has been stated they are already 'done' by others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you mean Ventrillo and Teamspeak then game radio comms haven't already been done by others. Such software doesn't replace the radio comms of a ww2 simulator. It only replaces the telephone call between friends.
I see your points, but if simulating the radio comms weren't important for the devs then why did this game have ingame comms in the first place? They didn't succeed because they didn't do it correctly. It's been 5 years since then. Incorporating VoIP in a game has become trivial.

What's the point of staying at the same configuration we have until? Hyperlobby and Teamspeak. Archaic.

Hristo_
01-12-2006, 11:13 PM
For example, Aces High from http://www.hitechcreations.com has its own in-game voice comms, which are generally closer to what radio comms were in WW2.

Bartolomeo_ita
01-13-2006, 02:34 AM
so we need a cheating death to check if teamspeak is off ;P

Bartolomeo_ita
01-13-2006, 02:34 AM
btw; good idea, i love it. espionage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HelSqnProtos
01-13-2006, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:

If you mean Ventrillo and Teamspeak then game radio comms haven't already been done by others. Such software doesn't replace the radio comms of a ww2 simulator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your opinion of course. Seems to suit the vast majority just fine.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:I see your points, but if simulating the radio comms weren't important for the devs then why did this game have ingame comms in the first place? They didn't succeed because they didn't do it correctly. It's been 5 years since then. Incorporating VoIP in a game has become trivial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Comms are about 'Competition' not about having a good time or 'simulating' WWII radios imho. No one is going to leave the functionality of TeamSpeak for a limited ingame comms system. Oleg would have to offer something better or AT LEAST equal to get Squadrons to switch over. He wont do it because it makes ZERO economic sense. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

TeamSpeak II is expected out this year and should further revolutionize gaming voip. I cant see any possible reason for Oleg and Team to waste a second of their dev time on something like comms. B.O.B. is about 18months away. You think they will waste time giving you ingame comms???

Lots of other things have priority imho. I personally would love to see an ingame server browser and better player identification systems, high speed redirects for skin download and just a boatload of other stuff that should come first.

triggerhappyfin
01-13-2006, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:

...B.O.B. is about 18months away. You think they will waste time giving you ingame comms???

...Lots of other things have priority imho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If any online community at all would benefit and make use of ingame comms, it would be the IL-2 community. The IL-2 online community has its owne rules of conduct wich the majority agree upon(among them is the use of civil language) and this would make ingame comms useful. There are indeed a lot of other things to do but that isnt in my opinion no reason for excluding a feature that would increase the feel of realism. Add some atmosferic disturbances and other R/T malfunctions as well as the possibilitys mentioned in this thread. R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. Furthermore there is too much trivial speaking on it, perhaps a function of too few users=too little radio trafic and no need of R/T discipline.

The proposal of three digit code for frequenses gives an immersion of realism never experienced before and surely make the ingame comms more useful as you could alter frequenses during flight. different wings could use a frequensy of their owne and thereby make the R/T less cluttered as they did in RL.

stubby
01-13-2006, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
At the moment u can see only a few of a server's gamers using voice comms (TS) - at most 50% I'd say. If in-game comms are convenient the majority will use them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not necessarily true. i have xbox live w/ integrated voice technology and 80% either mute the mic or don't have it plugged in at all. over time, i just get sick of hearing a 12 year old call me a beyootch after he's fragged me Halo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The real voice technology I would like to see in BOB is the ability to talk to my AI pilots instead of having to use keyboard commands.

AustinPowers_
01-13-2006, 07:16 AM
I would just use external voice comms.

neural_dream
01-13-2006, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stubby:
The real voice technology I would like to see in BOB is the ability to talk to my AI pilots instead of having to use keyboard commands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Download Shoot or Vac. For Vac you have to pay something.

WWSensei
01-13-2006, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:

...B.O.B. is about 18months away. You think they will waste time giving you ingame comms???

...Lots of other things have priority imho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If any online community at all would benefit and make use of ingame comms, it would be the IL-2 community. The IL-2 online community has its owne rules of conduct wich the majority agree upon(among them is the use of civil language) and this would make ingame comms useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point applies to having comms at all--not ust in-game comms. It already has in game comms and almost no one uses it. I agree with you that comms are ideal for an online function, but that need is already met by other software.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are indeed a lot of other things to do but that isnt in my opinion no reason for excluding a feature that would increase the feel of realism. Add some atmosferic disturbances and other R/T malfunctions as well as the possibilitys mentioned in this thread. R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the amount of feedback I've heard over the years in various comm packages there has been one, constant request--better sound quality. A comms package, in-game, of lesser quality already exists in IL2. No one uses it. In nearly 10 years of online flight simming I've never heard a single request for poorer comms.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. Furthermore there is too much trivial speaking on it, perhaps a function of too few users=too little radio trafic and no need of R/T discipline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trivial speaking has nothing to do with the use of TeamSpeak--that's the nature of people. Whether your comms package was in-game or out that problem would still exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The proposal of three digit code for frequenses gives an immersion of realism never experienced before and surely make the ingame comms more useful as you could alter frequenses during flight. different wings could use a frequensy of their owne and thereby make the R/T less cluttered as they did in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can be currently simulated by other packages. No difference between a "frequency" and an IP address, or for that matter, another channel. In TS you can assign keys to switch servers, channels etc. Recently fought in an online war wher we had at least 4 different online squadrons using comms. Each flight had their own channel and flight leads had the capability to communicate between channels to coordinate rondos or strike packages. With current packages like TS you can switch channels etc with a keystroke and you don't have to leave the game to do so...just map a key. Oh, and the quality of transmissions in TS is settable by the operator. Trust me, you can make TS sound really crappy if you want too. Never heard anyone ask for low quality though.

Your point on people cluttering up channels isn't a valid one for proposing in-game comms. That problem would still exist. It won't enfore strict comms discipline--that has to be done by people.

A lot of functionality you desire already exists and few use it effectively--having it in-game won't suddenly make people use it correctly. Bad comms usage and bad comms discipline is a fault of human beings and can't be corrected by technology. It has been learned and practived.

Sturm_Williger
01-13-2006, 08:01 AM
It's not talking to AI rather than k/b that I want, it's COMMUNICATING with the AI that I want.

He11, even in Aces over Europe you could tell them stuff, ask them stuff. Now it's just &lt;there's AI out there ... somewhere&gt;

neural_dream
01-13-2006, 08:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif true. Anyway, that's another issue. Has to do with the game's AI, not with VoIP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

OldMan____
01-13-2006, 08:20 AM
It is NOT hard to avoid such problems. You can easily discover if TS is running and not allow game to connect to a server with INTERNAL COMMS ON, for example.

Davion1985
01-13-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm all for it, one reason being because it's more immersive, and the second because I don't really like having to run another program, set it up and then run it in the background while playing a game just to be able to communicate over a mic.

If this were to be implemented I think in order to get the best of both worlds there should be a way for a server to set whether or not you can have multiple freq in a game or just one for red and blue. That way you can get more relaxed servers that will allow more then one freq or you can join a full realism server that has only one freq for each team. That way you wouldn't get squads complaining, but you'd still be satisfying the people that want a full on experience. It'd just depend on which server you went to.

WWSensei
01-13-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
It's not talking to AI rather than k/b that I want, it's COMMUNICATING with the AI that I want.

He11, even in Aces over Europe you could tell them stuff, ask them stuff. Now it's just &lt;there's AI out there ... somewhere&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. The current set of even keyboard commands and requests is seriously lacking. I can't even tell my AI flight I see bandits at 2 o'clock and I could even do that back the original Red Baron.

triggerhappyfin
01-14-2006, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:

...B.O.B. is about 18months away. You think they will waste time giving you ingame comms???

...Lots of other things have priority imho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If any online community at all would benefit and make use of ingame comms, it would be the IL-2 community. The IL-2 online community has its owne rules of conduct wich the majority agree upon(among them is the use of civil language) and this would make ingame comms useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point applies to having comms at all--not ust in-game comms. It already has in game comms and almost no one uses it. I agree with you that comms are ideal for an online function, but that need is already met by other software.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">My view on this is, that the present onboard comms seem to be hard to get in order and ppl are unsatisfied by its performance. Some ppl like myself dont really bother with TS and such as it isnt that easy to handle either. The ideal thing would be what the original thread starter suggest.</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are indeed a lot of other things to do but that isnt in my opinion no reason for excluding a feature that would increase the feel of realism. Add some atmosferic disturbances and other R/T malfunctions as well as the possibilitys mentioned in this thread. R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the amount of feedback I've heard over the years in various comm packages there has been one, constant request--better sound quality. A comms package, in-game, of lesser quality already exists in IL2. No one uses it. In nearly 10 years of online flight simming I've never heard a single request for poorer comms.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well, actually I didnt consider the fact you could take it as a request for poorer comms. I was only speaking about immersion and simulation of WW2 aircombat and the R/T usage of the time. I´ve been suggesting the ability of gunspotting for navalartillery or artillery for that matter in the past. The main difficulty for the flying artillery spotters seem to have been the R/T. It was things like that I was thinking of when I wrote my post.</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. Furthermore there is too much trivial speaking on it, perhaps a function of too few users=too little radio trafic and no need of R/T discipline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trivial speaking has nothing to do with the use of TeamSpeak--that's the nature of people. Whether your comms package was in-game or out that problem would still exist.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I´m with you on that. The need of radio discipline rises with the amount of ppl who´s using the comms. On dogfight servers there usually isn´t so much ppl on the comms. Further more let´s not forget the thread starters point of having the ability to seach for eachothers channels in order to counteract on the foes plans.</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The proposal of three digit code for frequenses gives an immersion of realism never experienced before and surely make the ingame comms more useful as you could alter frequenses during flight. different wings could use a frequensy of their owne and thereby make the R/T less cluttered as they did in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can be currently simulated by other packages. No difference between a "frequency" and an IP address, or for that matter, another channel. In TS you can assign keys to switch servers, channels etc. Recently fought in an online war wher we had at least 4 different online squadrons using comms. Each flight had their own channel and flight leads had the capability to communicate between channels to coordinate rondos or strike packages. With current packages like TS you can switch channels etc with a keystroke and you don't have to leave the game to do so...just map a key. Oh, and the quality of transmissions in TS is settable by the operator. Trust me, you can make TS sound really crappy if you want too. Never heard anyone ask for low quality though.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A three digit channel choice I suggested in my post differs a lot from an IP and the possibility to use several comms outside the game( Which my suggestion in no way prevent anybody from using). The number of digits in an IP and the number of comms gives a total of choises nobody in the run of one evenings game can handle. If espionage is in mind to be an element of the game.</span>

Your point on people cluttering up channels isn't a valid one for proposing in-game comms. That problem would still exist. It won't enfore strict comms discipline--that has to be done by people.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well ppl cluttering the channels isn´t my main point. My main point is the increase of immersion, which of course can be left unused if one desires as many other features in the game we on occasion dont use.</span>

A lot of functionality you desire already exists and few use it effectively--having it in-game won't suddenly make people use it correctly. Bad comms usage and bad comms discipline is a fault of human beings and can't be corrected by technology. It has been learned and practived.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I´m with in total on this. The fact I made a suggestion doesn´t mean it´s happening....it´s only a suggestion and I´m all ears and eyes to take part in other ppls thoughts and interesse on this.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWSensei
01-14-2006, 01:29 PM
trigger,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some ppl like myself dont really bother with TS and such as it isnt that easy to handle either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TS is about as brain dead simple as you can make the idea of voice comms. If people won't be bothered to figure it out I doubt highly they will bother to figure out an in-game comms system.

I guess what I'm saying is that for comms or R/T or anything I've seen requested (AI commands aside) there is software to do that today and very easily--people don't do it. Having it built into the game won't solve 90% of the problems (because 90% of the problems are the people) listed as reasons for wanting some sort of in-game comms.

I mean so far I've seen requests for:
1) channels for each side and possibly individual flights - check, can be done now.

2) Ability to seek frequencies and "spy" on the enemy. Agree there is a certain "cool" factor to it, but a complete waste of time. As soon as people get fed up with being spyed on they will move to another, more secore method. Same category as all the calls to allow a server operator to prevent screenshots--totally useless as there are third party software packages that do the same thing the server could never detect.

And spying can be done already. It was doing that very thing that got the original author kicked from a popular server. I think the number of people really desiring something like this is much lower than you expect. I know of no online wars that would allow it (in fact, all the ones I'm aware of specifically say users doing so will be banned).

3) Quality of radio transmission being of varible quality -- check, can be done now.

4) Cut down on useless chatter -- in game comms won't change this.

5) Give more diverse set of commands (or mission types) via voice possibly to AI or other players. Agree this would be nice for AI but command set has to be expanded first. For AI commands to date this can be done with a variety of voice recognition programs.

I'm confused by this statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well ppl cluttering the channels isn´t my main point. My main point is the increase of immersion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was responding to this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">R/T in the days of WW2 wasnt of any superb quality. TS in my opinion sounds like and work as a modern telefone. Furthermore there is too much trivial speaking on it, perhaps a function of too few users=too little radio trafic and no need of R/T discipline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TS can absolutely be made to sound poorly enough to simulate the electronic chirps and questionable quality. It's always sounded like a telephone to you most likely because the operator of the server has used high bandwidth quality settings due to demand.

Immersion I like, but most of the things you site as being problems for immersion won't be any different with in-game comms. It's like trying to fix a burned out light bulb by changing the light switch.

Jetbuff
01-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Seriously flawed idea. Oleg and Co's time is better spent working on BOB's core functionalities than monkeying around with voice comms. There's a reason TeamSpeak is a standalone development that has gone through a gazillion versions to get to where it is right now.

The only way this has even a slim chance of coming about is if a Teamspeak licensed plugin was developed to work within the game.

neural_dream
01-14-2006, 02:03 PM
I fail to see why TS is the only way. It's a simple archaic VoIP program and nothing more. I don't see why you insist on it. At the moment it's a 76% yes - 24% no for this proposal.

triggerhappyfin
01-14-2006, 02:12 PM
Dear Sensei!

Your point of view is valid as is mine.
Nothing implemented in the game will never be perfect in any circumbstancies. It´s all up to us users. There are a lot of codes of conduct within the community that dont have any bearing on RL simulation. It´s concidered to be a no-no to attack airfields. Often called vuching. An event in regular practice by any airforce in war. Spying is practised during any war and even peace period. During war ppl get shot for it when caught. We ban people for it. etc etc. What people ever say about shooting pilots in chutes, I can believe it was used to decimate the ability of enemy airforce. Those dead pilots were replaced by wartime replacements with in best circumstamcies some couple of hours in the planetype they were expected to combat in. I read in some book dealing with tankwarfare that when a tank was disabled and the crew tried to escape it was more or less common, those people were gunned down. That with the specific thought in mind that a tank could be replaced within weeks but a new crew took twenty years to bring forward.
The chivalrous behaviour desired by so many players online didnt exist in RL.

My stand of point here isnt about Vulching or not vulching, spying or not spying, online comms of use or not. Its about when saying somethings undoable we deny our selves a lot of possibilities for development of the game and the simulation itself. We close doors behind us by saying no can do!

Jetbuff
01-14-2006, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
I fail to see why TS is the only way. It's a simple archaic VoIP program and nothing more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's the best free version available and, being a dedicated project that has evolved over time, has already proven its mettle and is reasonably mature. Anything Oleg does will be from scratch or close to it, i.e. it will not be a simple thing to do. BTW, proof's in the pudding, ever used IL-2's in-game comms?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't see why you insist on it. At the moment it's a 76% yes - 24% no for this proposal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good for you, doesn't make it any less of a bad idea though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

neural_dream
01-14-2006, 10:39 PM
Could be, but most people want it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

and yes I use in-game comms when I play with friends in the LAN. Nothing wrong with it and rather immersive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

jamesdietz
01-15-2006, 10:17 AM
I do like the radio possibilities shown in BoBWoV...easy to understand & use...

Jetbuff
01-15-2006, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
and yes I use in-game comms when I play with friends in the LAN. Nothing wrong with it and rather immersive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me translate: "rather immersive" = terrible lag and horrible static, just like real WWII radios. Thanks, but I'd rather go with a functional rather than an immersive comms system on this one.

Hristo_
01-15-2006, 02:37 PM
Personally, I'd rather go with immersive.

Otherwise, I wouldn't play this sim at all, but some MS CFS version with airborne radar and all.

Moreover, I'd enjoy the sound of archaic radio comms - crackling, static, poor sound quality and occassional interference. If we get it in BoB, I'd a very happy simmer.

Even further - comms implemented in sim would give new opportunities. Would I-153 or Zero still be so inviting if you wouldn't be able to use the radio ? How about damaged radio ? Sounds too cool to just disregard the idea.

How about poor or no reception in canyons and behind mountains ?

For those who like the comfort and quality of a telephone call, there will always be a TS option.

jamesdietz
01-15-2006, 02:50 PM
Honestly & I know this is just me ...I'd like to have a music option something like we have in IL-2 FB for patrolswhere I could program a RT Music program( that could be over-ridden by Official RT alerts) I would program in an endless loop of English Dance bands of the 3o's like Ray Noble , Ambrose,Carroll Gibbons etc to set the mood...then again that's just me...

waffen-79
01-16-2006, 09:05 AM
mods please make sure Maddox people see this thread.

Excellent suggestion

Ares_336sqn
01-16-2006, 05:47 PM
For players that are not members of a squadron the idea of an in-game radio would be fine.
For those who are flying for a squadron, TS is also the place where everyone hangs around and meet.
When not in the game, game comms do not work. This is not acceptable. We want to talk when we are not in a game as well. This is crucial. Now, if the voice/radio part can also work when not in the game, that would mean that someone would have to be the host, right? We have our own TS server 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for a few euros a month. It is always there and there is no need for hosting.
As i said, for a squadron, the ingame radio is simply not enough.

TooCooL34
01-16-2006, 06:08 PM
Try Aces High and Battlefield2.

I love TS but ingame comm is indispensable feature now for any game which requires cooperation between gamers. Even no-brain fps kids can use it effectively.
If some squad guys want to talk to each other then use TS of their own and mute ingame comms for a while, that's it.

Ares_336sqn
01-16-2006, 06:33 PM
most people on HL are squad guys. So, online, TS simply rules.
Now, sometimes in a coop, it would be nice to be able to speak to the players on the same team but not on your TS/Squad.If they speak your language and If they know how to use it correctly. But in my experience that is seldom the case.
Not to mention the extra bandwith needed by the host.
Many of my squad mates do not speak english. Would anyone like to hear me translating everything they hear into Greek then translate everything they say into English for the rest?
I like the general idea, but i doubt it can really work. Does it woth the effort? Not my call http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 07:42 PM
They can select difference 3-digit frequency as proposed by Hristo. Let's say 336 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Then we'll have intelligence wars through forums on what frequency the rivals use http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.
Greek btw isn't that bad a choice I reckon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Ares_336sqn
01-16-2006, 07:53 PM
Yes, that could work. but it would not solve the bandwith problem. Now for dedicated servers, perhaps the problem would be minimum but, for online wars where the hosts just barely usually have enough bandwith, it would be a problem.
And, yes, the use of Greek language would be enough to solve the... spying problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
01-17-2006, 05:39 AM
I'll stick to my private squad comms thanks.

No Jerry ******s listening in.

neural_dream
01-17-2006, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
And, yes, the use of Greek language would be enough to solve the... spying problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't bet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ares_336sqn
01-17-2006, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
And, yes, the use of Greek language would be enough to solve the... spying problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't bet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our CO is from Crete too. Dare to spy on us if you can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Still, i would not change a private TS server for ingame comm . I am too spoiled by it and all the goodies it offers. And they are too many! Different channels, ability to speak to a certain person or a group, or to a channel only.
And it is there 24 hours a day without having to worry about bandwidth problems when we or others host.

P.S. But i do try and keep an open mind about it.how is it going to solve the above problems? it is just that the effort for something like that would seem to be too much and the outcome unkkown at best.

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
And, yes, the use of Greek language would be enough to solve the... spying problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't bet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our CO is from Crete too. Dare to spy on us if you can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Still, i would not change a private TS server for ingame comm . I am too spoiled by it and all the goodies it offers. And they are too many! Different channels, ability to speak to a certain person or a group, or to a channel only.
And it is there 24 hours a day without having to worry about bandwidth problems when we or others host.

P.S. But i do try and keep an open mind about it.how is it going to solve the above problems? it is just that the effort for something like that would seem to be too much and the outcome unkkown at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it this dicussion is only hypothetical as none of us really dont know what it takes to fully implement the functionality of internal comms as we discuss them in this thread. It might show the implementation of it will affect low end machines in a negative way. Thereby decreasing the number of online pilots. In that case a third party outside comms as the TS(with some adjustments) could be used in similar way.
Perhaps this discussion could end up in such a solution. At least the waiting time would be much shorter. Two weeks, maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

neural_dream
01-18-2006, 10:23 AM
Hristo's full proposal is not difficult to implement. BoB will probably have ingame comms just like FB had and a few advanced features and better quality should be expected. What we ask is that the developers will look at the specific approach, which offers realism and great immersion. If you don't like some aspects of it, the proposal can be readjusted, but I can't understand how a few drop it altogether so easily in favor of an unrealistic external VoIP application which can't have any interaction with the actual game.

If you want Teamspeak to talk with a squadmate in a plane without radio or out of range, then why not play in servers with unlimited ammo? Equally completely unrealistic.

If you think ingame comms will take network resources then let's discuss about it, and see for example why it works seamlessly in many games and it should be different in BoB. That would be interesting.

If you think the proposal is oriented towards eavesdropping, let's be serious ... Just make it togglable and not allow to listen to enemy's frequency. In fact, Teamspeak doesn't offer that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. In this proposal it will be regulated. Either you can or you can't. No grey areas and server rules of chivalry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

What you gain: Simulated radio comms.

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Hristo's full proposal is not difficult to implement. BoB will probably have ingame comms just like FB had and a few advanced features and better quality should be expected. What we ask is that the developers will look at the specific approach, which offers realism and great immersion. If you don't like some aspects of it, the proposal can be readjusted, but I can't understand how a few drop it altogether so easily in favor of an unrealistic external VoIP application which can't have any interaction with the actual game.

If you want Teamspeak to talk with a squadmate in a plane without radio or out of range, then why not play in servers with unlimited ammo? Equally completely unrealistic.

If you think ingame comms will take network resources then let's discuss about it, and see for example why it works seamlessly in many games and it should be different in BoB. That would be interesting.

If you think the proposal is oriented towards eavesdropping, let's be serious ... Just make it togglable and not allow to listen to enemy's frequency. In fact, Teamspeak doesn't offer that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. In this proposal it will be regulated. Either you can or you can't. No grey areas and server rules of chivalry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

What you gain: Simulated radio comms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I´m with you on that ingame comms as they are sudgested to function in this thread would be optimal.

HelSqnProtos
01-19-2006, 01:35 AM
Ingame comms failed in FB and so it likely won't happen in B.O.B.

Team Speak is the voip of choice. The number of pilots who would drop its functionality,ease and excellence in favour of 'simulated realism' in a non dedicated untested voip system is marginal - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">and that is being kind.</span>.

Those people who say that it would be easy to do, yada yada yada...... should undertake large scale programming projects. You will QUICKLY change your mind.

This issue is a pink elephant. It serves no useful purpose except as a side show.

This request ranks right up there with Fin's pipedream of using the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">awacs cheat</span> for 'radar' in scripted df servers.

I don't see anyone jumping up to spend programming time on that one either.

In a perfect world we would have 100% virtual reality where all things that were happening in the actual conflict could be simulated. We are not yet able to do that, so we must utilize the available processing cycles in the game to their maximun in order to give us the most realistic flight models, damage models and gun models. That is what is TRULY important.

When we get to the point where we have enough resources to model something as esoteric and unimportant as comms in the game then I will stand behind you in your request. We are not at that point and at the moment there are pre existing packages that do it BETTER than anything Oleg and team can provide. I can't think of a single squadron that would use in game comms as an alternative to 'private' 'dedicated' 'secure' comms.

Lets move on.

EDCF_Rama
01-19-2006, 03:21 AM
Proto... the man characer isn't unique. (and hopefully diversity exist in man thinking)

So what's important for you may be less important for other... and in the reverse, what you find useless maybe the graal of immersion for others.

So far, the poll gives 70% peoples interested (and yes, it isn't representative of the total online player community, but it's still an indication that a part of it is interested)

For myself, I would love to have such kind of in-game voice coms available for coops (and I would still use TS when not playing, or in dogfights), it would be of a great immersion (and that's a big part of the playing pleasure for me)
and probably it will not be a big deal to add (and I know about large scale programming projects, having been involved in some).

Of course "realistic" FM and DM are important... but even there the "feal" of realism is more important than real realism.... since none of us are piloting real warbirds and can have a good judgment on this kind of "reality" (and that's why the FM and DM discussion are generally so hot...).
So for myself, I wouldn't say "realistic" comms are less or more important... it's equal to me.

Also, in contrary to you... I know a good half-dozen of very active online squads that would use this type of comms if available. (I think that more of 50% of the virtual pilots I konw would like it.... and I know a lot of them, since years, and also IRL)

Now when you say it's "esoteric and unimportant", you say that only your oppinion is valid, and that other oppinions shouldn't be considered (so in short, that peoples that don't think alike you are unimportant... contemptibles...)

Hristo_
01-19-2006, 04:09 AM
I suggest nobody speaks in name of majority, as for now majority has been silent. At that is being kind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Only few people voted and most are interested.

As for the suggestion itself, by all means make it configureable. Give realistic radio to realism junkies, allow arcade comms to relaxed realism players. TS will always be an option too, for whatever reason.

Fact is, realism goal has always been an integral part of flight sim community and the main factor to push the limits with every new sim. Back in the day when we had no CEM, I remember people being against it, like "who wants to fiddle with the mixture in the middle of a dogfight ?".

Lucius_Esox
01-19-2006, 04:49 AM
I do not know how ingame comms can be viewed as "unimportant". Although that is my opinion. I do know that many pc games who's sound is given a lot of thought tend to be described as immersive.

Tension building music in fps for instance. Sound plays a very major part in how we communicate, apart from here of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The comms element in F4AF really adds bigtime to immersion. For me the the single player mode of this game/sim lacks in some areas. It is only because it is so so good in others that it gets away with it.

I can see that graphically flight sims still have a long way to go to produce "realism". I will be among the first to cheer when the dreaded icon issue is no longer relevant. But there is the technology there at the moment to give comms realism, just a lot dont want it because they don't think it is important.

I think it is more important than a lot of people realise. Go and turn the sound off and play Doom3 for instance and see if it's still capable of inducing a heart attack!!

I suppose it is about choice in mp but unfortunately the people using telephone like comms would have a big advantage over the realistic version users, so unless across the board it would make in pretty untenable.

Shame really because I think it would be "fun" calling out for your m8,,, and getting no answer!!

"Oh no, Johnies's brought it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Jetbuff
01-19-2006, 06:13 AM
Neural dream, the problem with the suggestion is feasibility. i.e. effort versus likelihood of success and expected payoffs. You and Hristo are making a very one-sided and, no disrespect intended, naive case for in-game comms. To list some of the issues:

1. BoB is already behind schedule, do you think that more features, particularly ones that are not connected with the core disciplines (voice-comm programming is quite distinct from anything else in the game) are likely to be considered?

2. VoIP is actually very difficult to do well. Just look at the first implementation - it's tricky to configure properly and doesn't scale well at all.

3. Meanwhile TS is a mature and highly effective free solution. Asking Oleg to replicate it is anathema from a programmer's point of view - we are very lazy people and hate to duplicate code.

4. Most people would still use TS or other 3rd party programs if the system imposes a disadvantage on them or simply doesn't agree with them - how are you going to stop them? i.e. time and effort might be invested in something that may end up rarely used if ever.

It's not a matter of disliking or discounting the idea and more about having realistic expectations. Would it be great if we had our radio fizzle out once the antenna was damaged? Hell yeah! But I'm not crossing my fingers because I can see the immense number of hurdles along the way. Not the least of which is simple player acceptance of the imposed restrictions.

EDCF_Rama
01-19-2006, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. BoB is already behind schedule, do you think that more features, particularly ones that are not connected with the core disciplines (voice-comm programming is quite distinct from anything else in the game) are likely to be considered? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was only a suggestion... nobody's placing himself at the dev position.... and nobody advocating for Game voice commes is trying to guess what the developper will consider or not.
it's up to the dev to listen, or not, to the suggestion and to use it, or not.
... and you don't know more than others what coule be considered by Maddox:1C

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. VoIP is actually very difficult to do well. Just look at the first implementation - it's tricky to configure properly and doesn't scale well at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First implementation wasn't well done... everybody agree.
Now the question is: was it badly done because it's difficult to do?... or because it was not well thought BEFORE coding and badly specified?
Neither I or you or other participant to this thread knows the answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Meanwhile TS is a mature and highly effective free solution. Asking Oleg to replicate it is anathema from a programmer's point of view - we are very lazy people and hate to duplicate code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it's an anathema from Maddox:1C point of view to make something DIFFERENT from TS (even if it's VoIP) is their thought.
You can read their mind?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4. Most people would still use TS or other 3rd party programs if the system imposes a disadvantage on them or simply doesn't agree with them - how are you going to stop them? i.e. time and effort might be invested in something that may end up rarely used if ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody want's to stop them... everybody who want to use TS (and not the eventual inb-game VoIP) will be allways free to do it.
Now I think you're wrong about the possible frequency of use.
I repeat I know at least a half-dozen squads that would use it intensivelly (on the dozen of squads I know and talk with regurlarly). And I can add the would use it, even if the other peoples in the game (opponent or not) would use TS instead.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not a matter of disliking or discounting the idea and more about having realistic expectations. Would it be great if we had our radio fizzle out once the antenna was damaged? Hell yeah! But I'm not crossing my fingers because I can see the immense number of hurdles along the way. Not the least of which is simple player acceptance of the imposed restrictions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IMHO... yes it would be great to loose radio because of damages.
And if the other players (from other squads) don't like it and user TS instead... absolutly no problem for me...
As long as my feeling of immersion (and those of my friends) is satisfied, I don't care about how the other players satisfy theirs...

Jetbuff
01-19-2006, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. BoB is already behind schedule, do you think that more features, particularly ones that are not connected with the core disciplines (voice-comm programming is quite distinct from anything else in the game) are likely to be considered? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was only a suggestion... nobody's placing himself at the dev position.... and nobody advocating for Game voice commes is trying to guess what the developper will consider or not.
it's up to the dev to listen, or not, to the suggestion and to use it, or not.
... and you don't know more than others what coule be considered by Maddox:1C </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And mine was only an opposing opinion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Meanwhile TS is a mature and highly effective free solution. Asking Oleg to replicate it is anathema from a programmer's point of view - we are very lazy people and hate to duplicate code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it's an anathema from Maddox:1C point of view to make something DIFFERENT from TS (even if it's VoIP) is their thought.
You can read their mind? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not reading anyone's mind, it's simple logic: a program built from the ground up to do VoIP like TS is highly unlikely to be surpassed by something that is only a plugin of an entire product. Factor in how lazy programmers are - I am guilty of it too - it's going to be a hard sell. i.e. they may choose to do it but it's not the most likely event.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4. Most people would still use TS or other 3rd party programs if the system imposes a disadvantage on them or simply doesn't agree with them - how are you going to stop them? i.e. time and effort might be invested in something that may end up rarely used if ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody want's to stop them... everybody who want to use TS (and not the eventual inb-game VoIP) will be allways free to do it.
Now I think you're wrong about the possible frequency of use.
I repeat I know at least a half-dozen squads that would use it intensivelly (on the dozen of squads I know and talk with regurlarly). And I can add the would use it, even if the other peoples in the game (opponent or not) would use TS instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could say the exact opposite; I know dozens of squads who wouldn't give up TS.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not a matter of disliking or discounting the idea and more about having realistic expectations. Would it be great if we had our radio fizzle out once the antenna was damaged? Hell yeah! But I'm not crossing my fingers because I can see the immense number of hurdles along the way. Not the least of which is simple player acceptance of the imposed restrictions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IMHO... yes it would be great to loose radio because of damages.
And if the other players (from other squads) don't like it and user TS instead... absolutly no problem for me...
As long as my feeling of immersion (and those of my friends) is satisfied, I don't care about how the other players satisfy theirs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aye, and there's the rub - I wasn't thinking selfishly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

EDCF_Rama
01-19-2006, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
And mine was only an opposing opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is as good as mine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not reading anyone's mind, it's simple logic: a program built from the ground up to do VoIP like TS is highly unlikely to be surpassed by something that is only a plugin of an entire product. Factor in how lazy programmers are - I am guilty of it too - it's going to be a hard sell. i.e. they may choose to do it but it's not the most likely event. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where's the bookmaker???
If we speak about likehood... let's make it fun and rewarding... let's bet...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I could say the exact opposite; I know dozens of squads who wouldn't give up TS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's not the opposite. I also know a half-dozen of squad that wouldn't like to go with in-game comms.
It doesn't negate the reality of the other half-dozen that would like it.
And moreover... Those who don't want it will loose NOTHING (since they can continue to use TS), when the others will gain in immersion and gaming pleasure

It's a win-win situation.

Jetbuff
01-19-2006, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
It's a win-win situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only if nothing else is compromised to allow for this.

Hristo_
01-19-2006, 04:04 PM
Win-win, if other important things are not compromised. I can live without some irrelevant features.

Well done game implemented comms will win people over TS in the long run. For various reasons, but most important of which are rather simple - if a host sets it up instead of TS, everyone except die-hard squads will have to join in. Or risk talking to themselves.

The damaged radio feature alone is worth it. Sure a player can use outside application like TS when his radio is out, but what good is it if all others are using in-game comms ? He can try and yell through the window too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are numerous possibilities with in-game comms - reception quality, ground obstacles, jamming etc. TS can't support it and that's its drawback, not a feature.

I agree that there are many other things which are higher on the priority list. Most of us agree we'd rather have working guns and decent FM than superb in-game comms. But I'd rather have historical in-game comms than an object viewer or even track player, for that matter.

Given Maddox' attention to detail, I'm expecting it to happen at one time or another. They modeled field toilets - when and who ever sees those ? Why would they disregard historical comms as unimportant ?

TS didn't arrive after our in-game comms - so, I guess people at Maddox made it despite dedicated comms applicationes like TS, RW or such already existed.

Unknown-Pilot
01-23-2006, 10:44 AM
Just another bump and yes vote. I've been saying this for years. Had such a system been incorporated into IL2 we wouldn't have such stupid situations as planes without radios using comms to coordinate.

Might need to completely takeover the audio hardware while the game is running though. Just to make sure it's done right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

diomedes33
01-24-2006, 06:24 PM
How's this for a compromise?

Pitch this idea to Teamspeak. Have them embed vector support in each communication that is sent between clients. This would be a simple x,y,z coordinate. The client would apply a filter to dampen the sound and add static for distances between your postion and the position of the comnunication. Of course the settings for this would be administered by the server to ensure that all clients are running the same settings. The hard part would be getting the game position to teamspeak. Maybe a udp packet similar to devicelink could be used client-side.

This system would work for the WWII fps croud too, disable the static and you could get realistic voice distances. You wouldn't be able to talk to someone clear across the map.

BSS_CUDA
01-27-2006, 07:32 AM
well if your gonna do it for realism, then also give the map different grid for each side. the last I read the enemy might have been able to listen in on conversations but we didnt hand them our maps when they did it. listen in all you want but without the proper map grid it wont help you that much. so if we are talking for the sake of realism and not just padding kill stats that would be the proper way to do things

Stafroty
01-27-2006, 07:38 AM
Been thinkin something like this Hristo as well, but havent never got the idea that the radio program would be internal part of the game!! Good thinkin Hristo, just awsume indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
01-27-2006, 10:23 AM
and chat option as well that dead guys cant even write to those who still are alive, in coop style of missions,if there is gonna be like those.

BSS_CUDA
01-27-2006, 02:12 PM
also if your going to integrate it into the game make it so each server has a random comms code, so if someone wants to listen in they will need to search several code hoping to get he correct one. they could possible end up on the comms of a different server. "IF" we are going to try to be historically correct