ACRE2

Arma Lounge
41

I suspect that ACRE2 people will, despite what they say, work to come up with a solution to the clipping/volume problems. I personally didn’t notice it as a major problem but I suspect that with two or three dozen people on an operation I would encounter it. The dev guys for ACRE2 obviously have had troubles dealing with it because modding development can be so difficult without a proper testing and a detailed feedback mechanism.

I personally think that any of the three systems is usable they just require a change in communications methods to make them work. Knowing exactly how we would change our behaviour requires using a system over several operations and perhaps we still not quite there for TFR. I guess what I am trying to say is evaluation on such a limited test it really difficult to make, we spent a good chunk of Saturday testing, discussing and setting up (thanks to Robbi for making a training mission that allowed the testing of ACRE2 in an environment as similar as possible to what we are used to). But even that amount of time was not enough to be comprehensive.

I would definitely keep a change in mind and it is really great that Bull is in touch with the ACRE2 devs so that we know what the state of development is and when we might have another test session.

42

I think you’re making a mistake in asserting we would have to make a switch with our radio procedures / system if we switched to ACRE1 or ACRE2.

We can retain each FT on private nets. Only hard thing would be to learn to hear that "Khhhhshht" sound after someone has ended their transmission, before saying something ourselves.

With any ACRE system, the quality of directional speech allows us to use one-net-per-FT system much more efficiently, as the drop-off distance and overall direct voices mixing is much smoother than in TFAR.

My conclusion is, that downgrading our systems to allow for usage of ACRE1 is too much of a hassle. While current ACRE2 build is also unsatisfactory with it’s volume. Because of this I think currently it’s the best to stick with TFAR.

43

With further thinking I came to the conclusion that the most common ‘stepping on each other’ manifestation is a by-product of TFAR and our current net organization. Because there is no communication between SL and FT members, what happens every operation, regardless of how trained we are, is that SL will speak at the same time as FT members and vice versa - there’s just no way for either side to know that the other is speaking. Any other less-common type of stepping on each other will be equally bad in both radio system.

After a good night’s sleep and playing today with ACRE1 and still seeing how superior it is, I still hope that they could improve ACRE2 (although their lack of confidence is unnerving). I will keep testing it in the future… Perhaps choosing an alpha build (.778) for the test session and not the last beta RC build (.763) was a mistake. We also very clearly had technical difficulties that we ignored, which might have had a global effect on our test results (ex: Robi couldn’t hear me, meaning his mod was installed incorrectly).

Stay tuned for more. :dizzy:

44

UPDATE:

The discussion got heated, some anger and hate flying all over the Skype chat and then Dslyecxi jumped to the rescue lol. We somehow managed to calm everyone down and reach a mature discussion on further testing. Provided a ton more information and received a new test build ACRE2.1.0.780.

Skip to minute 5, where Xander sounds LOUDER than me (is that even possible?!) without clipping:
[youtube]VmrpcKDSgMs[/youtube]

All I can say is YAY and I’ll test it more in the following weeks.

45

Sorry I wasn’t very clear when I talked about changing our behaviour depending on the system we use I mean exactly what Ryujin and Bull just said. That both ACRE systems with their gradual drop off on direct speech volume allows fire-team communication directly without a radio.

We use fire-team radios because TFR direct speech suddenly vanishes and is quite shot ranged (unless we use shouting all the time but that is also very unrealistic and generally disliked by most people). ACRE systems allow dual radios and I find the setup for that quite simple (although talking to others that were not there for our test I gather some find it very awkward). We could go the shacktac way with one radio per fire-team member, direct speech within a fire-team and perhaps squad leaders being the only ones with a secondary platoon net radio. That would require fire-teams to operate within the direct speech range on an ACRE system, I consider this a change of behaviour because with a fire-team net a FTL can send buddy teams off with a mission further away than 50m (or what ever the reliable speech distance is in ACRE 1 or 2) and stay in instant communication without occupying a squad net. Perhaps not that common an occurrence but I remember doing this a few times when defending a large base or leaving a small team with a vehicle.

This way of doing things with fire-team nets in not a choice we have made because it is the best way but because in TFR direct speech is not a very reliable way of communicating within a fire-team. As a consequence (even with full-duplex) you will get radio communications stepping on each other. This is less of a problem for squad leaders to platoon (if they bother with a separate platoon net) because they can concentrate on the bigger picture and are not so busy as FTLs.

I wonder what it would be like to try one squad net for an official operation just to see how we handle it. We could still use TFR and have FTLs on shouting perhaps. It would be nice to see if I am correct in the assumptions I made above or if we are as a unit capable of operating in such a manner.

46

I think this would be hard for us Teddy for the same reason you said. The reason shacktac can do it is that they aren’t sending of buddy teams for flanking meanuevers but fireteams or squads. Their numbers make it much easier to use this radio system since they don’t have to split up fireteams and squads like we have too.

Bull I see that you guys are having issues with the volume on the radios being too low. Did you try to use the knob on the top of the radio? There was one in ACRE 1 up there that changed the volume and i’m pretty sure it’s in ACRE 2 aswell

47

I don’t think it has anything to do with Shactacs player numbers. I have seen videos where the second buddy team is more than 50m away from FTL. In that case they do use the radio to communicate. This means that at any one time they could have 5 players needing to speak on the radio: ASL, A1FTL, A1AAR, A2FTL & A2AAR. This is one less than our current TFAR setup (6 FT members).

I am really coming around to the idea that our communications could actually be improved by having everyone in a squad on a single net channel. There would be far less stepping on each other and everyone would be aware of the overall situation and FT orders, so the FTL won’t need to repeat things as much allowing us to react faster.

I think there has always been a general consensus here, in that most people would prefer to use ACRE. it feels like the general agreement is that ACRE1 is too much hassle so it is a no go, but when ACRE2 is louder with less clipping we will be switching to it ASAP.

48

Radios are set to 100% volume by default, I made sure. Also made sure the Headset is Raised, otherwise it’s much quieter. .780 was a huge improvement, I’m waiting for more testers to give me their opinions.

49

Did some testing of the latest version of ACRE2 with Bull last night and it now seems to be working correctly.

There were no issues either with the installation process (it uses same TS3 version as TFAR) and there were no clipping or volume issues in game. In many ways it seems to sound better than TFAR and direct speaking is amazing.

I would say that ACRE2 is now working as it should and if we wanted to switch over to it today I don’t think we would have any issues.

50

What about the ‘small hill massively decreasing transmission range’ problem? Lets evaluate what problems still exist before jumping to conclusions.

Says the one person who doesn’t know a single fly about ACRE…

51

It’s a feature that can be disabled entirely with a single line of code:
[0] call acre_api_fnc_setLossModelScale;

52

If that is a bad thing or not is not up for me to say, but considering the ease with which it can (apparently) be disabled it is a non-issue. Was there anything else remaining to speak against ACRE2? It is beginning to sound very positive, I’m only worried that it might sound positive for a lack of fair perspective

53

You’re welcome to join our testing, so far everyone who tested it was satisfied and those who participated in ACRE2-mini-ops had a tooooon of fun. :geek:

Whoever cares more about this kind of crap can read about the AN-PRC343. I learned recently that it uses 2.4GHz frequency for transmissions. You know what else transmits over 2.4GHz? Yep. Your home WiFi router. No wonder the transmission range is so bad :LOL:

54

The current testing results sound fairly conclusive as is. I’m just trying to get the whole picture the lazy way :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

55

[justify]In ACRE1 if you transmit a message while anyone else is talking on the same net your message will not be sent out, at all. In TFAR your message will be sent out albeit it at the same time as another which sometimes makes it harder to understand. However, TFAR has two major advantages over ACRE1 when it comes to stepping on each other: 1.) If you set up your radios correctly (e.g. left ear squad radio, right ear FT radio) you can train your hearing with practise to ignore one input over the other - though this is quite difficult to master. 2.) Even if you can’t master said technique you wil still be aware that someone of a specific net (left or right ear) tried to contact you or transmit a message, that awareness is key as it allows you to ask for sending it again if you didn’t hear it fully. With ACRE1 on the other hand you won’t be ever aware that someone tried to reach you because the message wasn’t transmitted to begin with. The sender on the other hand remains frustrated as he might not be aware that you had your finger on the transmission button as he was speaking thus he assumes you must have heard until it’s too late and major mistakes happen due to miscommunication. If we are changing to ACRE it will be ACRE2 not ACRE1.[/justify]

[quote user_id=“11586380” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/11586380/avatar/medium.1412025928.jpeg” name=“Ozzie”]I don’t think it has anything to do with Shactacs player numbers. I have seen videos where the second buddy team is more than 50m away from FTL. In that case they do use the radio to communicate. This means that at any one time they could have 5 players needing to speak on the radio: ASL, A1FTL, A1AAR, A2FTL & A2AAR. This is one less than our current TFAR setup (6 FT members).

I am really coming around to the idea that our communications could actually be improved by having everyone in a squad on a single net channel. There would be far less stepping on each other and everyone would be aware of the overall situation and FT orders, so the FTL won’t need to repeat things as much allowing us to react faster.[/quote]
[justify]Every squad member on one channel would be an absolute nightmare, the only way this could work is if we introduce strict mil-sim clear comms at all times. Just imagine you and Zero having one of your radio banters and 12 other people would constantly receive it, including the SL who’s trying to coordinate multiple elements via LR radio. Check out the ShackTac video in this thread. It’s a rare insight into their SL / FTL comms as Dslyecxi is playing as SL for once. Their radio setup is identical to ours (with the exception that AARs do not get squad radios) - 1 squad radio channel for the leaders and two fire team channels for each FT.[/justify]

56

Half-duplex can be disabled with a module/API.

Their radio setup is not identical to ours. There’s one 343 net for each squad. Intra-fireteam communications are done via direct speech. Around 3:07 you can hear a message from Bricks (Command) on the Platoon 152 net, and then Dslyecxi updates the entire Charlie squad with a single message over the Squad 343 and thus FTLs don’t have to repeat the same thing.

Squad 343 net is used for SL and FTLs to coordinate and for the FT members to hear the coordination and communication first-hand. FT members operate within hearing range, which ACRE1/2 allows to be as far as ~100-150 meters but that’s really just stretching it, FTL and his members are rarely spread apart for more than 50 meters. There’s really no reason for FT members to use the radios except in extreme cases like fire-team wipe or FTL afk.

The fact Zero and Ozzie have to talk shit over the radio just shows how flawed our current direct speech system is.

57

The fact Zero and Ozzie have to talk shit over the radio just shows how flawed our current direct speech system is.[/quote]

Oi, when did this turn into an ‘Ozzie’s poor radio protocal bashing’ thread? For the record my conversations with Zero were never anything but constructive and relevant to the task at hand!!! :cool:

Seriously though, if we did only have 1 radio channel per squad then I would never have that kind of chat in that way. Everything would be said in direct speaking which is possible in ACRE2 in a way that we can’t in TFAR. I don’t think that only having the one channel would be too mil-sim like. Very rarely do I hear ShacTac give contact reports over the net. They do all FT comms, or at least as much as is possible via direct speaking. I would say this is more immersive rather than realistic.

For the record I don’t pretend to be an expert with ACRE2. I am not saying that anything I have suggested will work, only that it might be worth trying.

I have very rarely used ACRE in any form so feel free to ignore everything I am saying.

58

[quote user_id=“12211388” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/12211388/avatar/medium.1649779431.png” name=“Bull”]Their radio setup is not identical to ours. There’s one 343 net for each squad. Intra-fireteam communications are done via direct speech. Around 3:07 you can hear a message from Bricks (Command) on the Platoon 152 net, and then Dslyecxi updates the entire Charlie squad with a single message over the Squad 343 and thus FTLs don’t have to repeat the same thing.

Squad 343 net is used for SL and FTLs to coordinate and for the FT members to hear the coordination and communication first-hand. FT members operate within hearing range, which ACRE1/2 allows to be as far as ~100-150 meters but that’s really just stretching it, FTL and his members are rarely spread apart for more than 50 meters. There’s really no reason for FT members to use the radios except in extreme cases like fire-team wipe or FTL afk.[/quote]
[justify]Just checked the video again as well as another video by Taconic and you are absolutely right, they’ve changed their radio system from seperate channels in FTs to one channel per squad. I’ve never noticed that. :oops:

Having all squad members in the same channel (no matter what mod we use) will mean that we will have to do more radio communication trainings. Most likely we’ll also need more precisely defined radio SOPs. Currently the access to squad channel is limited and thus the chance for inexperienced members messing up traffic for everyone is limited as well. If everyone has full access to the squad level channel we’ll need some kind of rules we can teach, e.g. you shouldn’t use the squad radio as long as your FT and AAR are still alive, let them handle radio comms. Otherwhise we’ll hear in stressful situations all kinds of overlapping bad transmissions àla "uuuhm, I think there might be a vehicle… I hear engines… uuuhm left I think… I mean West. Vehicle West!" Even with the increased direct speech of ACRE2 all orders and most contact reports will still be given via the radio (watch fire fight till ca. 21min mark). If we’re considering a switch in channel systems, independent from the mod used, we’ll also have to write the procedures and training SOPs for said system. Switching from multi channel to single squad channel without proper training most likely will result in a lot of unecessary radio clutter.

I see the benefits of the change, but before we implement it we all need to focus on identifying possible problems first, so we can find solutions and SOPs proactively and not run into nasty suprises during the battlefield.

For example: what will the radio procedure be if an AR gets heavily insured but is still conscious? Is he allowed to directly access the squad channel and ask for a medic or should he use directional speech to inform an AAR or FTL who then in turn calls for the medic on the radio? If he is allowed to access the squad channel what is he supposed to say, meaning what info does he have to remember to include? Should he just say his name or does he have to say "A1, NAME needs a medic asap". What if that AR is a Recruit completely unfamiliar with Arma comms, thus forcing SL, Medic or FTL to ask for more information, thus prolonging a radio transmission that could be done in one message? The training staff will have to establish radio comm rules for these kind of situations and hold a couple of radio trainings to make sure the community as a whole is used to / will be able to work with a one channel system.

Until now we never had to really think about such issues because of the limited nature of our squad channel access. The more people have access to the squad level radio the more radio discipline and proper transmissions grow in importance as bad transmissions spam a greater number of people.[/justify]

[justify]I still maintain that in TFAR one can switch to yelling in order to be well heard, especially in non-combat / banter situations. All it takes is remembering to switch back immediately, not ten minutes later because by then most people will forget. However, a lot of people do prefer the "easier" method of just using the radio instead of having to remember to switch back from yelling, which is understandable as it is the path of less resistance. And no worries Ozzie, I’m not bashing you or Zero. I’ve seen many people using the radios for banter everynow and then, including myself. :-d

Aside from the squad channel discussion (which is kinda independent from TFAR vs ACRE2) we should have a large community ACRE2 test soon to stress test the mod under operation conditions: 3+ hours gameplay, 25+ people playing etc. A Friday would probably be best for that, as long as it is announced a week in advance. We could offer a download of ACRE2 on the google drive or provide a short manual on how to install it with PWS / how to disable the TFAR TS3 plugin. As far as I know this manual does already exist from the previous testings.[/justify]

59

Our biggest issue right now is concluding a test that introduces as little noise as possible. I don’t want people messing with radio crates or MCC. I want people to spawn and respawn with the correct radios and never have to touch them.
So far Robihunn and Xander tried to extract the v10 training mission, remove all TFAR remnants and introduce ACRE2 instead but both were unsuccessful.

In regards to your example, an injured person doesn’t need a medic. If he’s conscious, he should be able to handle himself. In the video minutes 12-21, the contact reports are usually made by the FTLs for the SL to know what’s going on (this is also part of our radio SOP and an answer to a question in the FTLQF). For every concern you raise, either it’s a non-issue or there’s a solution or workaround.

The reason big communities do it this way - is because it works. I don’t see the problem with doing things right with the risk of falling into ‘mil-sim’ territory. I also don’t mind the fact we play in first-person only and don’t use magnifying scopes or NVG - it is a very mil-sim thing to do but it only improves the gameplay - and that’s the ONLY reason I’m so hyped about ACRE. I’m actually getting a ton of shit in the ACRE chat for this.

Of course, most of the changes are common sense, for FT members:
Direct speech is good, use it.
Feel free to shout at any time, except maybe during CQB PVP…
Radio is crucial, so let the FTLs and SLs handle it.
Use the radio only in emergencies.

And of course, none of the changes to net structure need to happen, the same current radio nets can still be assigned. However I’m mentioning the idea of net restructure because from tests we concluded, when we tried to use identical radio structure to TFAR vs. realistic radio structure, we found that using our current structure with ACRE2 eliminates the benefits that we gain from ACRE2’s strong points (specifically not having to use radio constantly and not having to constantly repeat the SL’s orders).

p.s. their radio structure was like this since the birth of ACRE, for example in 2011.

60

Not necessarily true. One can get heavily insured, fall unconscious, loose a lot of blood and wake up. Then you will need a medic for a blood transfusion and we need to have a solid understanding among all community members how the person in questions should proceed. So far we trained people to use FT radio to inform FTL and AAR about needing a medic, they in turn relay that info to SL via squad radio. So the question arises how do we train them now? There are pros and cons worth discussing on them directly using squad channel to call out the need for a medic or letting an FTL do it. Another similar issue comes up with contact reports, current system everyone should make a contact report over their local FT radio and then FTL or AAR relays via squad radio. Under the new system should everyone be free to contact report over the radio or should it be done via directional speech and then relayed from FTLs to SL? There will be a couple of situations we will have to think about in depth whether or not they will be affected by a possible new system, ergo adaptions to our trainings might have to be written.

I’m beginning to think that you are misinterpreting my posts as a "no" to proposed changes. However, I am for the proposed changes as long as we settle and write down any possible issues before switching the radio mod / channel systems. I see a lot of enthusiasm for the changes but very little concerns to what could go wrong if we don’t prepare for said changes adequately. We need to identify what details in our current communication training have to be changed if we use the single-channel system. Yes, there is a solution and workaround for every concern I raise, and that is exactly my point: I want possible concerns raised and a proper documentation written in the training google drives before we change the radio systems. Otherwhise old habits will have negative effects on the new playstyle. Relying on common sense is nice, but relying on training SOPs that match a new channel system is better.