Voice-commmunication software -1 reply

Please wait...

StuG44

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th April 2003

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#1 16 years ago

I have experience with TeamSpeak software. I have heard about RW for years, tried it many times, never with success. I have never had problems with TS, so I am automatically partial to TS, but I'm wondering if anyone can give me advice on RW, because it seems to be much more popular. The only multi clan/squad I've been a member of had no problems integrating TS into the entire squad (those with mics anyways, and even those without could hear our comms), but I've never been able to succesfully connect on a RW server. any suggestions for that, or any confirmation from any that use TS that TS is better, despite the lower volume of use? I am definitely partial to TS, but I haven't fully experienced RW, so I'd love to hear from someone that is familiar with both.




Cobra5mil

Pro-Filer thinks I'm cool!!

50 XP

23rd March 2004

0 Uploads

450 Posts

0 Threads

#2 16 years ago

Well, I personaly think RW is just as easy to use as teamspeak. Not sure what your problem is getting connected but I use it and even create servers for my friends. One thing for you to know when creating a server...you have to set up a host base first! That will bring up a DOS prompt, which you just leave running in the background. Then I go to the channel tab and click create. Use the same name and password as the host base for it to work. That should let other people join you. Hope you have fun with it. Both of them work just as fine with me. I have noticed that RW has a bit better sound than TS, but nothing that noticable.




valor_dragon

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

17th December 2002

0 Uploads

330 Posts

0 Threads

#3 16 years ago

i would still say both of them sucks. I wil say this again and say it since the game first came out, "we need a build ingame voice communication!!!"




azzkiker

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

5th January 2003

0 Uploads

4,259 Posts

0 Threads

#4 16 years ago
Originally posted by valor_dragon i would still say both of them sucks. I wil say this again and say it since the game first came out, "we need a build ingame voice communication!!!"

Now to that ... i give 10000% AGREED!!! :agreed: :agreed: :agreed:

We need soem PROPER communication using microphones etc.!

After all, "realistic" is what we are after, right?? :agreed:




StuG44

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th April 2003

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#5 16 years ago

Yeah, just as realistic as typeing to your teammate on the other side of the map. Just as realistic as being thrown into the map, with no idea of what weapon, what squad position you will have. And just as realistic as having no set plan of action before you are thrown into the map.

The game's not 100% realistic now, and voice communication doesn't introduce an entirely new aspect to the game, it only makes an existing aspect more efficient. If you want 100% realism, then do it for real: enlist as infantry in the U.S. Army.




valor_dragon

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

17th December 2002

0 Uploads

330 Posts

0 Threads

#6 16 years ago

You are really picky about it. In real army they have voice communication, or other communication. WHen an army is sent to a battle field they knew what's there and where to go. They knew what position they are in. That's how it is.

Vocie communication will introduce a new aspect of the game. For exmaple they changed gun jerking in version 1.3 it did change the entire aspect of the game.




Ekhaat

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

12th April 2003

0 Uploads

2 Posts

0 Threads

#7 16 years ago

I would like voice commo, too.

And a map overview like in Flashpoint would also add to realism.