What shall we do with the radio chatter

Inspired by this thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?139300-ArmA-III-suggestion-A-problem-that-appeared-on-previous-Arma-games

I'd like to know how the community opinions are divided on this.

I'm not happy with the current dialogue in AII. It's clunky and unnatural, not to mention results in unintentionally hilarious lines from time to time, like "3, move, very far" or "2, move to, that tree" in the middle of a forest.

I don't think that's the way real troopers talk. I've played only OFP demo, but this was somewhat better back then, more natural. Even OFP: Dragon Rising had a better system, using pre-recorded phrases instead of individual words. Perhaps another option would be to use a high-tech voice synthesizer, some of them can sound pretty natural. This would enable a massive expansion of dynamic dialogue system, but might not sound as good as real VAs, and sound off when compared to scripted dialogue (though it's not like the current system doesn't have this problem either).

Another, very resource and cost intensive solution lines would be to record every possible line as a whole. It'd most likely require some simplification and cutting down the number of possible lines, so it might be impractical because of this.

Another, very resource and cost intensive solution lines would be to record every possible line as a whole. It'd most likely require some simplification and cutting down the number of possible lines, so it might be impractical because of this.

It would be orders of magnitude more resource-hungry, unless you wanted all your dialogue spoken by the same voice, every time :)

I'm happy with the procedural dialogue rather than the whole recorded dialogue. It could be improved certainly but the robotic nature of it doesn't bother me at all, at least I know it's the result of genuine AI, whole pre-recorded lines come off as rather contrived to me, plus I'd never be entirely sure that all situations are catered for :)

I for my part don't think it is this bad. It was worse in arma 2, but with OA the quality was raised by far.

What I would like is a voice recognition build right into the game - that would be pr0n. And something like ACRE should be build into it too. Communication, communicationtecnology and Logistics goes hand in hand and is one of the big things armies have to master before they can be successful.

B²T: The way the soldiers speak is fine for me. They tell you all the things you need to know. And the information they give you makes sense. Sure in other games it sounds better, but everybody who played arma, knows that the situations are not scripted in a way you could build a fixed amount of sentences by 10 actors.

I think their idea of recording the most spoken calls is a good balanced decision.

I hope they will also bring in epic calls (like when a buddy dies). For example in Falcon 4 BMS you can hear a cry in the radio, or a Man/Women cry/shout that He/she sees no chute. The first time I heard that I thought deaaaamn - it raises one's hackles

Add: they should replace the "O'clock' system with a cardinal (N,S,W,E...) to avoid confusion (mainly while playing with AIs).

During GDC BIS said that they are going to record most common lines as a whole. So yeah I agree that will be the best option.

It will make the installation size only marginally bigger and nothing compared to dozens of gigs mods I've installed - so why not

Add: they should replace the "O'clock' system with a cardinal (N,S,W,E...) to avoid confusion (mainly while playing with AIs).

Eh it will be horribly confusing because N, E, S, W cover a lot of area. With O'Clock it's easy. Just have the clock turned on and you will always see the direction.

During GDC BIS said that they are going to record most common lines as a whole. So yeah I agree that will be the best option.

It will make the installation size only marginally bigger and nothing compared to dozens of gigs mods I've installed - so why not

Eh it will be horribly confusing because N, E, S, W cover a lot of area. With O'Clock it's easy. Just have the clock turned on and you will always see the direction.

The problem with the clock system is that it's subject to sudden reorientation. One contact can yell 3 o'clock and 3 o'clock is NE, the next minute another shout is contact at 7 o'clock and the 7'oclock is SW, the clock has shifted around causing massive confusion. If a clock system is to be used it needs a more robust orientation method. I suggest, in order of priority:

1. Player-placed map marker direction.

2. Next waypoint direction.

3. Direction of movement over last 100m.

4. Direction of first contact.

Doesn't really matter, as long as the clock is consistent for the duration of the current firefight.

The O clock system is a mess,

I wish they would replace it with N;NE;E;SE;S;SW;W;NW

That would be accurate enough. hmm maybe the rough bearing if the reported unit is very far away "Contact, enemy unit, 1-8-5 [almost south], 2 klicks "

That's a good idea. I was going to rant about the clock system in a separate thread (this issue is somewhat separate from dynamic speech), but this one will also do.:)

Such a system is really used in the military, but there's usually a consensus where 12 o'clock is. With ArmA AI, you never know.

Sure, it'd be great if it sounded 100% natural.

But if it turns into "Enemy spotted" instead of "Enemy at grid 042063", ARMA won't ever be the same again.

As I said, real military uses clock system, so ArmA should also do so. DMaverick's idea seems to be the best one in that regard. The "Enemy spotted at grid xxxxxx" would only be useful for high command missions, where you receive reports from multiple unit commanders and command using a map. In general, unit commander chatter in HC is also one of the things that should be improved. High command could become really fun if there was more communication between units and the commander, with no "magic", real time updates of enemy position and numbers (except if you have an UAV in the area, that is).

If you expanded on a BF3 style radio chatter (and not the commo rose, but the sounds when it's used) so when a A.I. see's a tank or you spot it, have it so that a few pre recorded lines play out such as "Yea I can see some infantry moving around there"

BUT at the end of that the distance and O'clock chatter is added. So now it's "Yea I can see some infantry moving around there..at our 2 O'clock..bout 300 metres out"

And I'm sure it can be made to sound more fluid.

P.S. Don't hate on me since I said BF3 :p

Well, considering it's one of the few fields where ArmA loses to arcade FPSes, I guess suggesting a solution from other games shouldn't be bad.

Though the BF3 lines are a bit too long. In combat, you have to be brief, and to the point. Technically, if it wasn't for the odd structure, ArmA chatter isn't bad regarding brevity, though sometimes it lacks vital information, or presents this information in a useless form. Though this is a good suggestion, just shorten the lines.

"2, report status"

...

...

...

"damn, 2, is down"

My personal preference is spotting at bearing, if because my experience bearings were static way more than an o' clock system, and grid spotted callouts did nothing to help.

P.S. Don't hate on me since I said BF3 :p

Sry but as soon as I saw the thread title I hoped no-one mentioned BF3. I found it to be so disconected, listening to all that marine boasting 'whohar' while they were in fact being blow away and I was doing all the killing. But BF3 is another story and your right more fluidity would be great.

I think I heard Jay mention in the latest walkthrough that they were keeping the essence of the current voice system but looking at the most used words and phrases to improve them and hopefully make it sound more natural.

Inspired by this thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?139300-ArmA-III-suggestion-A-problem-that-appeared-on-previous-Arma-games

I'd like to know how the community opinions are divided on this.

I'm not happy with the current dialogue in AII. It's clunky and unnatural, not to mention results in unintentionally hilarious lines from time to time, like "3, move, very far" or "2, move to, that tree" in the middle of a forest.

I don't think that's the way real troopers talk. I've played only OFP demo, but this was somewhat better back then, more natural. Even OFP: Dragon Rising had a better system, using pre-recorded phrases instead of individual words. Perhaps another option would be to use a high-tech voice synthesizer, some of them can sound pretty natural. This would enable a massive expansion of dynamic dialogue system, but might not sound as good as real VAs, and sound off when compared to scripted dialogue (though it's not like the current system doesn't have this problem either).

Another, very resource and cost intensive solution lines would be to record every possible line as a whole. It'd most likely require some simplification and cutting down the number of possible lines, so it might be impractical because of this.

At GC it was mentioned that they are using internal statistics systems to determine which sentence and segment combinations occur most often, so they can then record tailor made, non segmented sounds for those sentences. That should make them more natural. The problem is the sheer amount of information any given sentence could convey, and it´s already less complex than OFP, for example. In OFP, every vehicle was Identified individually (BMP, M113, T-80, etc) as opposed to generic "Tank" or "APC".

We´ve not heard it in action so far, but they will probably implement it until the alpha is released. I am looking forward to seeing what they´ve done with it.

Another reason to look forward to community Alpha. This really sounds interesting, though I hope there won't be too much dissonance between common sentences and those used less often.

.....

Can anyone provide detailed input on a voice synthesiser option: would it use a lot of CPU power client-wise? It seems to be the best bet in terms of quality, though I'm not sure you'll be able to find a proper one for cheap.

gyKj-6oqcwE

Microsoft Sam is an free alternative. :p

J8Hi_NCYNTM

Second option, which I wouldn't like to mention, but I will - Dragoon racing by CM has "pretty decent" (read better than ArmA II) radio chatter.

Third vote goes to the original OFP, though I haven't played it, recorded footage gives a good impression. Could be swapped for second place in my opinion.

qeg6NUeP86I

---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

The O clock system is a mess,

I wish they would replace it with N;NE;E;SE;S;SW;W;NW

That would be accurate enough. hmm maybe the rough bearing if the reported unit is very far away "Contact, enemy unit, 1-8-5 [almost south], 2 klicks "

THIS! Compass direction is used in PvP, should be used for general AI chatter as well, and will be easier on the ears,

"Contact, APC, bearing <small pause if needed!> 0-9-0, 800 metres"

vs

"Contact, APC, Twel-ve.O.Clock, 800 metres."

I think the bearing syst is best, you could even introduce a pause between the word "bearing" and the first digit of the direction, it adds immersion, as if the AI is actually checking his compass to confirm and then relay info. Plus, you can have variations to break the monotone,

"Contact, 1-8-0, Close" With no target type reported.

"Spotted, sniper, 2-5-0" With no range reported.

"Tank, North, 500 metres" North reported, instead of 0-0-0 or 0-0-1, or 3-5-9 etc - Devs could set the deadzone range for North-South-East-West, you get the idea.

can someone explain the difference between OFP, ARMA and ARMA2 chatter? I really don't recall there being much of a difference.

can someone explain the difference between OFP, ARMA and ARMA2 chatter? I really don't recall there being much of a difference.

Watch the above OFP video: the only difference I can spot is the "radio" filter itself on communications, then there's more varied responses and reporting by AI, better voice acting in general. No other difference to be found, honestly.

The OFP system must be used in conjunction with very specific keywords and reporting structure must be such, that it is streamlined and is not heavy on the ears. See above example of "bearing vs. clock position".

Now this is unexpected. I didn't expect VS to actually take the lead.:) One thing to keep in mind is that it's most likely an expensive option, though I don't know how it compares to hiring voice actors. The latest synthesizers can sound pretty convincing, but I don't know how much it costs to buy one and integrate it into a game.

Now this is unexpected. I didn't expect VS to actually take the lead.:) One thing to keep in mind is that it's most likely an expensive option, though I don't know how it compares to hiring voice actors. The latest synthesizers can sound pretty convincing, but I don't know how much it costs to buy one and integrate it into a game.

It's a very appealing option because it opens up AI voice comms to addon makers etc, so that with voice synth, everything becomes possible.

there arent good voice synthesizers- or give example...

there arent good voice synthesizers- or give example...

That is what i wanted to say. You might as well replace that option with 'magic up some neat voices'.