Multiple words for one action/command

[Marco Cattaneo]

Sorry for the misleading or generic title. What I mean is: let's suppose I want to use different words to obtain one command.

For example, in Arma I can use commands like "Regroup", "Return to formation", "Fall back" to just obtain one command. In voice attack, right now I must create three different commands that are pointing to the same key combination. Is there a way to just create a single new command and tell to Voice attack to execute it IF one of the words listed is recognized? Like separating words with commas, or something like that! 

[Gary]

Hi, Marco.

 

This has been suggested before, but, I keep putting it off since it would require a bit of work to do.  Not a difficult amount of work, but not trivial either.  What I do with VoiceAttack is make one command and then I create new commands that execute the first command (I think you said that already).  From there on, I just copy/paste the second command (the last beta has a, 'duplicate' feature).

 

Under the covers, I would need to process each command, see if it had a delimiter (comma, semicolon, dash, etc) and make several commands out of it.  It's not a terribly big deal, but, it's still a fair amount of work.

 

Gary

[Kevin P]

Hey, Gary. I've also requested this, along with a bunch of other people on this forum. I also know that there have been discussions of a "version 2" that your customer base would be willing to purchase if there were enough new features. I'd think this would be a huge addition, and I'm sure many of us would be willing to pay for another version if this feature was included. Hell... it's not really like you charge that much for your product, anyways. For as wonderfully as it does work, the 8 bucks you charge honestly isn't a whole lot. Most companies charge at least 5x more for similar products. I'd be perfectly willing to buy a new version if it had some of these new features.

[Dave T]

it can already do that.....  for sto i had sometimes 3 or 4 commands for the same word or phrase..    not sure why your asking for this unless im missing something...

 

 

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Gary Magenheimer]

Dave, I know what you're saying.  I think what they're wanting is to have one command with multiple phrases (delimited by a comma or semicolon or whatever).  So, instead of having three commands for, 'fire', 'open fire', 'fire all lasers', they can just have, 'fire;open fire;fire all lasers'.

 

I think this is ok, but, I also think that in the end it would be just as easy to create one (fire) and either duplicate it (coming in next beta... no more copy, paste to same profile) or, create a new command that calls the first ('open fire'...  executes, 'fire').  If you need more, you just duplicate.  That's just my opinion.  It's not off the list, it just has never been a crowd priority until now :)

 

Gary

[Dave T]

i see your point and also agree its just to easy to duplicate and just change the spoken word or phrase...  also if you were just able to enter multiple words and phrases as suggested with a semicolon or whatever what if one of those is the one your trained software cant recognise... how would you then fix that... cause right now at least with the windows recog you can go in and physically record your voice with a problematic word or phrase that the default training cant understand...

[Gary Magenheimer]

What I would do behind the scenes is load all the commands and if I find a command that has a semicolon, I would split on the semicolon and duplicate the command in memory...  so, the speech engine would see the individual words and not one big word all together (the speech engine would get, 'fire', 'open fire' and 'fire all' as three commands that do the same thing instead of just one, 'fire;open fire;fire all').

[Gary]

Ok, so... I'm thinking I'm not as far off as I supposed.  I was thinking I had painted myself into a corner in certain respects, but, it turns out that I didn't.  Just for fun, I popped in some code to split the commands & it pretty much worked the first try... the part that I thought was going to give me a fit was the log... it works, too.  There's a high potential for this to be in the next beta... just need to play around with it some more & make sure I did't break something else (regression testing... zzzzzzzzzz).

Gary

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kevin P]

I suppose the idea for a single command with multiple options would be good, but then you'd also have to add associated commands for each option. If the idea was to "fire something", and you wanted the options to be "phasers, torpedos, or all", you'd have to set up 3 different mappings in the same command. I guess it would be convenient, but it seems like it would be more dynamic if you had multiple commands that could be linked from one to another. for instance, lets say you had command A, B, C, D, E and F that could apply to options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. what if you had a catagory of "linked" commands that could combine with other commands? I suppose designating a grouping of combinations would limit the system to only the set of commands you want to combine, and not every possible combination of every command.

For instance... let's say command A-F are different healing abilities. Let's then say options 1-6 are friendly players (away team 1-4, plus yourself, plus a focus target). This example alone would require 36 different commands... but if you had some sort of directional link between these commands, you could do all of this in 12 commands instead. If you could then do an additional output link to another set of commands, you could then add a second directional link combination from the second group to a third group... such as "attack target, follow me, hold position, move to nav". Obviously, the "step one" link would only be for away team 1-4 (individually), the whole squad, maybe the focus, but after linking those 6 to the attack/move commands listed, that would be just another 6 commands to create instead of 24. Maybe I made things more complicated... but this seems to work well in my head, and if a step 1 > 2 command set does not exist for a command, it's just a normal command.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VoiceAttack" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to voiceattack...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary]

I think for this thread, I've met the requirement.  What I believe you are talking about is something that may be resolved with the, 'prefix' and 'suffix' commands that were floating around a while back.  Where basically you could indicate a command as either a, 'prefix' or a 'suffix' and neither command would execute on its own unless both the prefix and suffix were present in a spoken statement (am I saying this right?).  At that time the prefix command's actions would execute, followed by the suffix command's actions.  For example, the iRacing guys could have suffix commands that were the car numbers, such as  'eighty eight'. The command would basically type, '88' and then hit enter.  A prefix command like, 'eject driver' would type, 'eject driver '.  The user could say, 'eighty eight' or, 'eject driver' and nothing would happen.  If the user says, 'eject driver eighty eight', VoiceAttack would see this an unrecognized command and then start looking to see if there are prefixes and suffixes it can use.  Once it finds this combination, it types out the actions from each command.  I'm thinking this would be a reasonable compromise, and not terribly difficult to explain to users what it does.

Does that help some?

Gary

[Gary]

Looks like prefix/suffix commands may be a go.  Preliminary testing looks like it plays well.  More to come...

 

Gary