VOIP Chat, limited to squads

[WOCrooks]

I am new to these forums, but have been playing PR for quite a while now and I have only come across one thing I feel is worth noting.

The suggestion I have for Project Reality is that squad leaders should be able to communicate with each other. At the present time, voice chat is limited to your own squad which is a good thing to keep overall chatter down; however, there are a lot of situations that involve the cooperation of more than one squad. As an example, an infantry squad needs air support: In a situation where air support is necessary, it is probably not viable to type out a physical message, so simply communicating with the CAS squad would be a more effective (and realistic) method to get the job done.

I suppose the best way to implement this is to have any squad members limited to their squad. Squad leaders, on the other hand, would not only be able to hear and speak with their squad, but also the leaders of other squads on the team. If messages need to be passed on quickly, then this system will allow that to happen without a huge amount of chatter on the airways.

Thanks.

[Maverick]

This is unfortunately hardcoded, which is why we have the saving grace of MUMBLE, and TS, and Ventrillo, and Roger Wilco(for us oldies hehe)

[dtacs]

The suggestion area is restricted to 25 posts for a reason, so players don't just join the forums and instantly suggest things that aren't possible/have been suggested before.

A simple search and reading of the *** thread would have shown you that the VOIP system is hardcoded, meaning it isn't possible to modify it in any way.

You should also realize that there is a program called Mumble which allows the commander/squad leaders to communicate with eachother and everybody else to talk to eachother in game when they are close, regardless of what squad they are in.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

There's one or two servers that even oblige the players to be in Mumble and SL's in a seperate channel.
Many servers use it alot on a optional basis.

[KP]

While this was well-formulated and apparently thought-through, it is in the wrong section. And I believe the posters before me answered it well. So I'm going to lock this.