major0noob

quieter trucks

27 posts in this topic

The idea or concept of having reduced 3rd person audio detection for trucks has been put forth before. Not that there is anything wrong with putting it out here again. I've even suggested or agreed with similar threads on the same topic.

I think there are a couple of schools of thought here.

One being that you want contact with the enemy to produce content so reducing the audio detection range would be counter to that. Currently the health of the FRU is still too fragile so the content is generated for too short a period of time. The introduction of the fortified MSP that is even more hardened and difficult to take out might make the reduction of audio detection less attractive since it would generate content more readily and if the MSP is fortified well then those conditions would generate more content over longer periods of time.

I personally am not a proponent of reducing content by making the game too stealthy or increasing the fog of war too much, but I think there is some room here. The sound profiles have little to do with it from my point of view. Although I think the sounds should be varied their tones should be close enough to create some balance. The actual audio detection range should be uniform for all truck types.

One of the main concerns here being that the spawn point is the most pervasive mechanic in the game that can create unintended consequences when altering or modifying the mechanic. The truck deployed FRU was a great change but it did have some unintended consequences or affects on other areas of the game and still does. Truck audio obviously having much to do with the deployment of a spawn point since the change, therefore increasing the importance of truck audio detection settings and possibly the tone of each truck vastly more important than before.

My approach would be to reduce the truck audio detection range down to 600 meters. We have EWS so there is that layer of protection against setting up a camp too closely. I'm not sure why I have not seen an official response to this one. Most likely because CRS has been so darn busy focusing on 1.35, to our benefit from my point of view.

I think we still have a ways to go to create the complimentary conditions for the deployment of the MSP by trucks and really make that shine. I think your on to something though as I think an examination of truck audio and the implementation and development of the fortified MSP are the front runners moving forward. I'd say those 2 are equal in priority to any additions in modeling or new equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea or concept of having reduced 3rd person audio detection for trucks has been put forth before. Not that there is anything wrong with putting it out here again. I've even suggested or agreed with similar threads on the same topic.

I think there are a couple of schools of thought here.

One being that you want contact with the enemy to produce content so reducing the audio detection range would be counter to that. Currently the health of the FRU is still too fragile so the content is generated for too short a period of time. The introduction of the fortified MSP that is even more hardened and difficult to take out might make the reduction of audio detection less attractive since it would generate content more readily and if the MSP is fortified well then those conditions would generate more content over longer periods of time.

I personally am not a proponent of reducing content by making the game too stealthy or increasing the fog of war too much, but I think there is some room here. The sound profiles have little to do with it from my point of view. Although I think the sounds should be varied their tones should be close enough to create some balance. The actual audio detection range should be uniform for all truck types.

One of the main concerns here being that the spawn point is the most pervasive mechanic in the game that can create unintended consequences when altering or modifying the mechanic. The truck deployed FRU was a great change but it did have some unintended consequences or affects on other areas of the game and still does. Truck audio obviously having much to do with the deployment of a spawn point since the change, therefore increasing the importance of truck audio detection settings and possibly the tone of each truck vastly more important than before.

My approach would be to reduce the truck audio detection range down to 600 meters. We have EWS so there is that layer of protection against setting up a camp too closely. I'm not sure why I have not seen an official response to this one. Most likely because CRS has been so darn busy focusing on 1.35, to our benefit from my point of view.

I think we still have a ways to go to create the complimentary conditions for the deployment of the MSP by trucks and really make that shine. I think your on to something though as I think an examination of truck audio and the implementation and development of the fortified MSP are the front runners moving forward. I'd say those 2 are equal in priority to any additions in modeling or new equipment.

This one point to me you are saying you want to decrease the sound distance to less than half of what it is today? From 1500M to 600M.

I totally disagree with that. Maybe down to 1kM, but not less than half.

And maybe decrease the EWS for ground vehicles to 1.5kM. Together

this would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This one point to me you are saying you want to decrease the sound distance to less than half of what it is today? From 1500M to 600M.

I totally disagree with that. Maybe down to 1kM, but not less than half.

And maybe decrease the EWS for ground vehicles to 1.5kM. Together

this would be better.

Maybe I got my ranges wrong. I thought truck audio was detected just about at 1k. So take out the recommendation to go down to 600 meters. The point is that because we have gone to using the truck to deploy the FRU that makes the detection of truck audio an important setting in the game. I'm not even sure what EWS for trucks is set at anymore, I know EWS was reduced to help muster at FBs. I think it might already be at 1.5K.

At any rate, I'm not even sure truck audio has to be reduced but it's worth looking into and considering, maybe even trying out some different distances.

If the FRU is converted to the Fortified MSP and the Fortified MSP is well hardened and tough to take out then truck audio detection becomes less of an issue. But in lieu of the Fortified MSP it might be worth reducing the audio detection some and/or making FRUs even more hardy than they are now.

By no means do I think the solution is to reintroduce the Infantry placed FRU. I really think the main issue is MSP hardiness more than audio detection. So we could just increase the FRU health even further. Maybe double what it is now and see if that changes the dynamic without adjusting audio detection.

Bottom line. MSP hardiness and Truck audio detection are very important factors to look at and adjust for maximum content creation within a more realistic framework than an infantry placed FRU and whack-a-mole game play.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring back ML Fru !!

Please no :D

Fru with truck only is great for teamplay and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has already been brought up before. Even though there is general consensus on reducing audio ranges, the Rats have stated that the audio code is so deeply intertwined into the rest of the code that they are afraid of messing with it for now. Or something to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please no :D

Fru with truck only is great for teamplay and fun.

Bull ****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the loud truck engines ... if all trucks were equal.

Sneaking in an ATG or a FRU is all well and good, but it shouldn't be due to the fact that certain trucks *cough* Morris *cough* can coast for a mile offroad.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a test should be performed on a similar type of modern vehicle/engine out in the country to actually see how far away one could 'on average' [over 1 or more tests] hear such with a quiet background.

just my dirty little ho

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ople blitz

laffly

all 3 aren't very loud, not revving harley loud like our trucks.

also, more importantly their all very low pitched, the trucks in game are high pitched and consequently very easy to hear.

rickety-clickety vs vrooom would be my best description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while this is back...

the "hearing range" would be the best direction since everyone can turn up the volume to insane levels, and in reality the sound would be muffled from at least 600m, at 1km trucks are inaudible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn.. that Laffly looks tiny in this video. Must be a different version than the one we have... more like a Jeep-equivalent?

lKYbmQCDyQM

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring back ML Fru !!

+1 It was suppose to be a test the FRU only truck not change and remove permanently the infantry FRU at least this should be polled with the community, CRS should not lie to their subscribers and then get away with things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the biggest problem with all engines in game is the different 'levels' of sound, I'm sure there used to be more before the sound updates a few years ago.

All engines seem to have only 2 or 3 levels, and the last level seems to be far too loud at too far a distance, so when you stand next to an engine it appears to be almost the same volume as when the engine is 500m+ away (guessing, approx).

Don't know if its even possible, but thats what needs sorting imo. But careful what you ask for, that would actually cause engines to be far more easily located than they are now, which is actually difficult in game atm as you know its there, but its very hard to know how far away it is as it sounds like you are stood next to it.

And until the FMS is in game, hopefully not long, FRUs should stay truck based. MLs being able to place infinite FRUs was a really bad idea, even with timers. Theres far more teamwork now (at least on the Allied side) than there ever was with ML placed FRUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is unfortunate about sounds in the game is that if it makes an audible report at all, someone with headphones can jack up the volume to 150%, do a couple quick looks back and forth, and pinpoint exactly where the noise is coming from.

What would be neat is if the engine noises changed in a few ways over distance.

They should be louder as the driver gives more gas, not necessarily how fast they're going (how it does it 3rd person now).

They should be louder the closer you are, but not on a linear scale-- something 400m away should be less than 10% as noisy as something 40m away.

ALL audio needs to degrade over range, both in tone, and your ability to detect the direction it's coming from. I shouldn't be able to tell a Stuart from a Sherman or an Morris from a Laffly and it's direction within 3 degrees at 500m purely on audio. Maybe at 100m, but really I should just hear an engine. I think a lot of vehicles sound too different from each other, and the sounds are no where near what the vehicles really sounded like. Some are OK, a lot are very weird.

Same thing goes for MG's and rifles. Sure you could probably tell an ATR from a rifle, and maybe various MG's by rate of fire, but I can guarantee you not a single person that plays this game can tell you (consistently) a K98 vs. a MAS36 vs. a G43 vs. a No.4 mk1 purely by audio 500m away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1 It was suppose to be a test the FRU only truck not change and remove permanently the infantry FRU at least this should be polled with the community, CRS should not lie to their subscribers and then get away with things.

My vote: Truck only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic should be avoided as much as possible. Keep the physics as accurate as possible. Environmental factors should affect sound propagation as realistically as can be implemented in a 1/2 scale world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to sound modeling, the game could use some upgrades. Although the game seems to follow an inverse square law (I think) for sound intensity, frequency attenuation of the atmosphere and a minimum detectable level of sound.

For example on a typical summer day, attenuation at 1000 Hz is about 5 dB/km, at 4000 Hz it is about 30 dB/km, and at 8000 Hz is is about 105 Hz/km. Hence the loss in high frequencies when sound travels over distance. When that sound level drops to a certain level, like 40 to 50dB or so, the sound should fade into the background and not be distinguishable.

How would this be implemented? I think it only matters for ground vehicle (tanks, trucks, etc). A relatively simple frequency spectrum would have to be developed for each truck and then the calculation of how the intensity level changes with distance would have to be coded. No small task I am sure but it would add a significant amount of realism to the game sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we can hear them from 1km away, it's too easy to hunt down and destroy frus.

your talking about wwii trucks. they were not that quiet.

I can hear a modern day truck more than a mile away.

So 1.5K is NOTHING. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your talking about wwii trucks. they were not that quiet.

I can hear a modern day truck more than a mile away.

So 1.5K is NOTHING. Get over it.

Hearing it, sure.

Can you tell the make and model and give a direct azimuth sight unseen?

If you have 2 or 3 diesel trucks running 50-150m from you, can you still pick up on that truck 1km away, tell make/model, and give a direct azimuth to it?

That's the problem. Sure I can hear the interstate a mile behind my house, but I can't pick out specific vehicles, can't tell how many, and can't track their location along the interstate. I just hear tire/engine noise all garbled together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the problem isn't the range of the audio, it's the volume.

Vehicle audio as a whole in this game has far too little slope in it's audio volume over range. Meaning that at no point do I ever find myself wondering "What is that faint noise in the distance?" Instead, from the moment that I am in audio range, I know that I'm hearing a truck, a halftrack, a scout car, or a tank - and often exactly what kind, regardless of how far away it is.

What CRS needs to do is two things:

1) Put the volume of vehicles on a better scale to their actual distance from the listener. Up close should be very loud. Far away should be very faint. As it stands now, the audio from 10m is nearly the same as 1km away. That's absurd.

2) Add in an audio blur that increases over range, so that it's not so dang easy to identify literally everything that drives simply from it's engine noise alone at absurd distances. Ok, maybe I can hear an engine from 1km out, but should I be able to tell that it's a Panzer38t Steamtank from that range? Audio ID should require being significantly closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M/L placed FRUS was the craziest most idiotic idea , one man carrying a brgd in his pocket(or somewhere on his person) which then became a pile of boxes from which a mass of soldiers spawned.

Bridges were made redundant because our redoubtable M/L could swim rivers and place spawn points behind enemy lines; how ridiculous is that? In fact as a result of this riverbanks had to be made unscalable to bring bridges back into the game again and thereby making perfectly acceptable river swimming impossible.

Futhermore the m/l could take the pile of boxes and put it back in his pocket and then place it somewhere else.

I hope we never ,never ,never see this idea introduced again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.