- User Since
- Mar 11 2013, 1:41 PM (423 w, 17 h)
Jan 26 2021
As far as I can tell, this issue has not be resolved. What is the status of getting it fixed?
May 10 2016
I have just found that, if you check the config viewer and look at "radiochannels" and look through the configs for Side, command, group etc... the only one with the line "sound3D = 1" is the direct channel.
If this line was added to the channels for SIDE, COMMAND, GROUP, VEHICLE, then the issue would be solved.
I am unsure how this would affect custom radio channels however, to achieve the same effect.
I have just checked it with the latest dev branch 1.46 prep (1.45.130969) and the fix appears not to be working.
I have tested in both listen and dedicated servers, testing whether the voice can be heard across side, vehicle, group and command. No voices could be heard (as you would hear them in direct chat) outside the radio channel.
You can achieve this within the editor, or at least this works in A2. Place your units / groups of the opfor for example. Then place one unit from blufor near each opfor group. Make him max rank, and use the group function to join them to the blufor. Set the blufor units probability of presence to 0. The opfor groups will now be on blufor sides. Either that or edit the side in the mission.sqm.
I do agree though, something what you have suggested would make it much easier, to select actual side. A drop down box within the unit dialog with the options of CIV, BLUFOR, OPFOR, RESISTANCE or something simple like that.
I think you misunderstand me :)
I fully agree with your request, in and outside of the editor. My point was, that you can do it in the editor, and also via scripting infact, by creating a group for the desired side, and spawning the required group and getting them to join it. It is all possible, just very messy and long winded.
Again, I agree with your comments and idea's. Their should be a better system both via scripting (such as a parameter in createUnit or BIS_fnc_spawnunit or group) and in the editor.
I was just being helpful to give you a work around, and to illustrate the current method employed needed to get around such issues. I personnally love making cool scenario's like with these, and so upvoted the issue. It does open up a new world to basic combat, into espionage and other things.
IMO the person being healed, movements should be locked. It should be the person healing / medic that should be able to abort the procedure. I think vanilla A2 always worked this way, and it was fine.
Besides, if someone is recieving treatment, like with the origional first aid modules, they are either unconscious / agony anyhow, so they wouldn't move.
I was able to take down the ATC tower with 2 shots of the RPG.
This will be a major problem when RPG's are flying around in a large battle, and the building you are in collapses.
May 9 2016
I commanded a mission once, where the person relaying info back to me from a busy battlefield, had speakers on his desktop, so whilst he was screaming down the radio, i could here his surrounding hell :) . Which was even better once the radio stopped and I heard the muffled gunfire in the distance.
Unfortunately with gaming headsets, this cannot be achieved. You therefore also have the issue of doubling the sound coming over from those broadcasting and having speakers.
Sorry to point out that flaw, because I REALLY would love this to work somehow, and have voted yes, but it will need some clever cancelation of sound and programing to account for this.
I like the old arma2 module for first aid and battle field clearance. The ability to carry and drag incapacitated soldiers was really immersive.
The new system I believe works with first aid kit to patch up and medic kit to heal. This combined with the old bleed out system / clearance system would be a great compromise IMO. The old tweaks I would make to the old system part, would be to extend the bleeding time and sort out the syncing issues for new joiners.
I agree, it is not as fun making it precise. I made an AI arty FSM for A2, and had to script the inaccuracy into it. I felt really sad that I couldn't do the same for player controlled so easily.
Less accuracy over distance would be good.
I can confirm this also
A nice idea would be to a have a fixed crosshair that only becomes visible when your HUD is over where the crosshair should be. So no perminant one is visible, but it will appear when focusing on aiming. Something akin to a ILS system, if that makes sense?