"Radio"

[tomylee]

I dont know if there is this somewhere already, coudn't find anything with the search.

I would love to have a radio, so that all drivers can chat during the race together. This would be a great thing. Maybe right over Skype, or what ever.....

tomylee :thumb:

[Leifde]

Not implemented in the game but there are 3rd-party ones such as Teamspeak and Ventrillo, do a search on google for them. The only problem with these is you have to have a seperate server for them :shrug:

[Viper93]

Hmm, the idea sounds nice. I know there are servers out there now that have a TeamSpeak server that goes with the Racing server. I think this would be your best bet instead of having TS directly inside the game.

[Dajmin]

One of the things I really like about Counter-Strike is that it has voice comms built into the game. It means no fiddling with an extra program in the background or having to join a different voice server every time you switch games. I fully support the idea of built in voice comms in LFS!

+100

[Scrabby]

yes would be really nice :D
+1

[zeugnimod]

No, thx, I already find Teamspeak very distracting.

Dont want to hear other people scream while driving.

[Scrabby]

well "normal" ppl shouldn't scream while driving:pillepall

[zeugnimod]

I have already seen some people, that are not that "normal", in LFS. ;)

[Jamexing]

Voive intercoms are a brilliant idea. Just imagine the tactical possibilities of intra team intercoms allowing team members to coordinate their tactics and strategies in REAL TIME. Genius. :)

[ajp71]

So long as it can be turned off...

[TiJay]

Great idea as long as Squeakers stay away.. http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20060821

[Fischfix]

VENTRILLO RULEZ!!!

by the way: www.fragmaster.net/vt

join our voicechat and the community.:thumb:

[duke_toaster]

VENTRILLO RULEZ!!!

by the way: www.fragmaster.net/vt

join our voicechat and the community.:thumb:

Bah, TS is way better,

[bbman]

No, TS uses more memory AND is slower than Ventrilo... It isn't better in any way...

[Crazy Harry]

Bah, TS is way better.


If you think a clock radio speaker sounds better as a High-End Soundsystem... yes. :tilt:

[Gunn]

I can see where this might be handy to talk with a team mate during a race, but otherwise I don't see the point. Voice comms have ruined more than one online gaming experience due to immature noise-spammers, so an option to mute a particular player would be required. However the last thing I want to be doing while battling for position is trying to mute some fool who is failing in his goal to reach puberty and taking it out on world of online gaming.

[RoCkBiGdAvE]

Maybe not voice chat as such but what about pre-recorded ones? Like how CSS and BF2 have. "Enemy Spotted" "Requesting UAV" etc etc. Maybe have some racing ones (i dno what tho) and they could be programmed to use the number pad so the F keys arent being interfered with?

But as for built in servers for voice like TS and vent, no thanks. Theirs enough lag in some servers while racing a full grid, let alone everyone talking and potentialy lagging it out further.

[dave4002000]

Bah, TS is way better,


If you think a clock radio speaker sounds better as a High-End Soundsystem... yes. :tilt:


lmao, yea teamspeak does suck in comparision to Ventrillo. Teamspeak's voice quality is so bad it makes me laugh.

@duke_toaster-have you ever USED ventrillo????????????

[tomylee]

Of course there should be the option to turn it off or just to turn off some racers, this would be need. Maybe an option like max talk of 5sec. every min (just an exemple).
I dont like to make big conversation but sometimes during a race you have to say something important but to write it I would crash my car.
I do agree what the others said about an extra programm. It is just to complicated and than are several ones, so everybody would have to have the same and you would have to intall all of them. So that is crap. There got to be a standard which does takes the microphone intalled in win.

[tomylee]

I dont know about Skypecast, if it runs over the host of the Skypecast or over a Skype server!?
Mayber that would be a nice think.

[mrodgers]

I often thought previously that voice chat in the game would be nice. But I was just thinking, the main reason to have voice chat would be to talk with teammates about strategy, etc. To have it in the game, everyone would be in the same chat, thus cancelling out the benefit of team voice chat. That is why you have Ventrillo and Teamspeak other than simple chatting with your buds.

About the TS versus Vent. I can't use either because I'm on dialup. I have attempted to use both. The difference is with Ventrilo, as soon as someone would talk, I would lag out and loose connection. In Teamspeak, I would only lag on the server, so I'd say that Ventrilo has the heavier bandwidth usage. Quality wise, I didn't notice a difference between either of them. I do use TS with my online flying when we do ATC sessions. But that is a completely different way the game to server connection is. I can download stuff, surf in a browser, us TS, and fly online at the same time with my dialup connection. I can only race with no other stuff running across the net connection with LFS or it's a server disconnect.

[dave4002000]

yea, i've always used TS for online flying/ATC with IVAO and with HoverControl but i use Ventrillo for LFS. When i switched to vent, i really was amazed by the sound quality. I believe that ventrillo does have a higher bandwidth use, though. Because i have cable and i still lag out from time to time depending on what i'm doing.

[Becky Rose]

This would be a bad idea because the linguistic quality of online gamers, even in LFS, is very poor. I'm not talking about sound quality either.

Besides, there is nothing more distracting than trying to translate a central American accent into Suburban British, save maybe translating a German accent... ;).

[tomylee]

Man be careful what ya saying :bigeye:
But you are right, there should be an option to ban all the british. Nobody can understand them and does like to here their accent :nod: :D

But anyway......it's not that everybody has to use it and there should be an option to switch persons off. And when somebody does speak not good english, I think this person will anyway not paticipate in the conversation :x
And why do we speak English at all? How about you English speaking people learn a second language :doh:

[blackfang]

There are alot of people who trash talk allready using text only. This will be very anoying to LISTEN to when doing voicetalk.
It would be nice to have voicetalk though but would also be very anoying.
One way to prevent trash talk would be to have options to put people on ignore or turn voicetalk off.

Am up for the idea of voicetalk but as long as it's possible to do ignore/turn off, I think alot of people would feel the same....:thumb:
I used to use Skype when I played LFS but LFS lags BIG time when this is being runned. I think it all depends on the inet connection but this also happend in Singleplayer session...

[Jakg]

Skype wasnt designed to be run with a game or in the background - Teamspeak or Ventrilo was

[blackfang]

Skype wasnt designed to be run with a game or in the background - Teamspeak or Ventrilo was
Yeah, I know. Am just saying :razz:

[Becky Rose]

And why do we speak English at all? How about you English speaking people learn a second language
You foreigners need to understand that most of you only speak two languages, whereas Brits speak 3: [Native] English; SMS English; Hollywood English

The word native has been used to denote a bastardised version of the language, because Brits are trilingual English itself is very hard for us to learn. We're much more in tune with SMS and Hollywood English though, which we can use fluently.

[CSU1]

You foreigners need to understand that most of you only speak two languages, whereas Brits speak 3: [Native] English; SMS English; Hollywood English

The word native has been used to denote a bastardised version of the language, because Brits are trilingual English itself is very hard for us to learn. We're much more in tune with SMS and Hollywood English though, which we can use fluently.
What we need is an international translator...lmao:)
As the title of the song reads "Speak English Or Die"....lmao:D

[Jamexing]

Or better, a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATER! :D

Oh, sorry, guys, I thought I'm living in the 24th century now.

To seek new life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!

[CSU1]

Or better, a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATER! :D

Oh, sorry, guys, I thought I'm living in the 24th century now.

To seek new life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!
No an intergalactic translator:scratchch I'd say Funnybear knows one :)

[tomylee]

You foreigners need to understand that most of you only speak two languages, whereas Brits speak 3: [Native] English; SMS English; Hollywood English

The word native has been used to denote a bastardised version of the language, because Brits are trilingual English itself is very hard for us to learn. We're much more in tune with SMS and Hollywood English though, which we can use fluently.

Hollywood English can speak everybody. Those 5 word's arn't hard to learn :razz:
And when u come along like this then I can speak much more languages......look at all the German dialect's where the north can't understand the south and the the west arn't the east and the south arn't the east........and so on.......:schwitz:

Skype wasnt designed to be run with a game or in the background - Teamspeak or Ventrilo was
So that means we can't use it during a game? :scratchch Be open for changes :shy:

[Jakg]

no, but it was designed to have all the bandwidth to itself and thus uses alot and tends to trade quality for CPU usage, you can run it with a game, but it will lag it and slow it down

[tomylee]

no, but it was designed to have all the bandwidth to itself and thus uses alot and tends to trade quality for CPU usage, you can run it with a game, but it will lag it and slow it down
I can't say that. I used to play NHL and FIFA with it and mostly it worked fine.

[silentwarrior]

Why not add a variable to the server-side program with the IP and port of the TS server, and add an auto-join button, so once i clicked it, it would open my TS and join that server.

This can be done with launching commands, and Xfire already does it.

Its easy to implement in new versions :) +- 1 hour to make the code for detection of current TS server, and auto-join server and channel .. then depending on the games code, link that code to the game, with client side buttons, and parcer for server info, and the server-side coding

[Becky Rose]

And when u come along like this then I can speak much more languages......look at all the German dialect's where the north can't understand the south and the the west arn't the east and the south arn't the east........and so on.......
Britain has regional accents too, despite being much smaller. The problem is most Brits dont even speak their regional dialect properly.

[CSU1]

Britain has regional accents too, despite being much smaller. The problem is most Brits dont even speak their regional dialect properly.

lol; yeah throw this guy into the arse end of Kerry and he wouldn't know where the fu*k he is:D :D :D

[Jakg]

lol; yeah throw this guy into the arse end of Kerry and he wouldn't know where the fu*k he is:D :D :Dwell i was there a few weeks ago and the accents arent that bad!

[tomylee]

Britain has regional accents too, despite being much smaller. The problem is most Brits dont even speak their regional dialect properly.
OK. Back to the topic. When du u learn German? :D :D

[Jakg]

at School (its optional, we are forced to learn French, but the ones that are best at it get the option of learning German, and as i hate French i took German), although some schools do spanish instead, but morst teach French

[Becky Rose]

OK. Back to the topic. When du u learn GermanFor me from my family as I grew up, and formerly during my 4th year of secondary education, they now call it year 15 I think.

[CSU1]

well i was there a few weeks ago and the accents arent that bad!

Oh no! you having ANOTHER smartass day?:D
lol you know what I meant, I struggle to understand these country lads sometimes as talking to them on the phone is 50% of my job > the other 50% well:scratchch
- Talking to mates at work 15%
- Smoking 10%
- LFS forum 24%
- Actually doing a bit of work .5%
- Temporarally falling asleep .5%
Going home and doing LFS , priceless....:D :D :D

[Jakg]

year 15? i you can leave school at year 11, then have two years of 6th form (aka year 12-13), but then they kick you out - never heard of year 15Oh no! you having ANOTHER smartass day?
lol you know what I meant, I struggle to understand these country lads sometimes as talking to them on the phone is 50% of my job > the other 50% well
- Talking to mates at work 15%
- Smoking 10%
- LFS forum 24%
- Actually doing a bit of work .5%
- Temporarally falling asleep .5%
Going home and doing LFS , priceless.... i (well, my mum) was visiting family and there was one bloke who i just humored because he had a speech impediment, talked REALLY quickly and had a really thick irish accent, so i just sat their nodding

[Becky Rose]

I thought secondary started with year 11, I guess not, I dont really get the new numbering system or indeed why we even needed one.

[Jakg]

OT - From your profile

"Biography:
Egocentrical, narcicistic, and always right"

Your still being modest aren't you? :D

[Becky Rose]

Just shut up or talk about me...

[Becky Rose]

Oh and the information you where looking for is 1975. :)

[Jakg]

Oh and the information you where looking for is 1975. :):x

How did you do that?

[CSU1]

:duck:
Where's that topic gone too....

[Jakg]

what topic?

oh yeh! as nice as it would be TS is a much easier solution with chanels and the like

[Becky Rose]

How did you do that?
Do what?

[CSU1]

guy's I'm lost!

[Becky Rose]

Where's that topic gone too....
I dunno i'm just commenting on the bits about me. I like those bits, the rest I lost interest in ages ago.

[Jakg]

Do what?predict what i typed, before thinking "its rude to ask a lady her age" and closing the tab

[Becky Rose]

I predict you're about to edit your post from 'name' to 'age'.

Oh thaaaaat, *smug grin*.

I.Q.

[Jakg]

I predict you're about to edit your post from 'name' to 'age'.

Oh thaaaaat, *smug grin*.

I.Q.ooooooops

no wait, i meant name, then i looked at your username and thought "damn she's clever!"

EDIT - You did it again, you predicted what i was going to do! Is my room bugged or something?

[Becky Rose]

Stop touching that, it's disgusting to watch.

[Jakg]

Stop touching that, it's disgusting to watch.get out of my house!:schwitz:

[duke_toaster]

Provided it is OPTIONAL, it is a good idea. Sometime's it's best to be on a team TS not an all drivers one.

[tomylee]

BTW what is the page for TS?

[CSU1]

Get a room you guy's

[Jakg]

GGet a room you guy'si'd rather not, especially with a guy!

ts - http://www.goteamspeak.com/

[CSU1]

i'd rather not, especially with a guy!

ts - http://www.goteamspeak.com/
whatever floats your boat:)

[Rappa Z]

+1 i would like it,but it could destroy teamspeak in LFS

[CSU1]

+1 i would like it,but it could destroy teamspeak in LFS
lol' maybe u n' jakg shud get it on yo' lmao:D :D

[Jakg]

lol' maybe u n' jakg shud get it on yo' lmao:D :Dmaybe you should stop fantazing about a 15 year old "getting it on" with a 12 year old? :D

[CSU1]

maybe you should stop fantazing about a 15 year old "getting it on" with a 12 year old? :D
Holy schmit! Damn I didn't realize:(
Public appolagy: I'm sorry I did not know.
Damn you get that off the top of my post I look like a perv:)
Really I didn't realize and failed to remember that when talking to others that they may not be in the same age bracket as onesself.On this I can't say sorry enough I honstley did not know of you guy's age I am sorry, one tends to forget that another person is not as old as him/her when talking on forum.Believe me If I had of known Iwould not have been so rude.A lesson learned though...Know whom you are talking too.

[Leifde]

I wouldn't like this in LFS unless I could turn it off.

And I think one smiley can sum up the off-topic posts in this thread: :really:

[Ritey]

A vote for LFS comms here, with the ability to turn them on and off naturally.

Only having used dedicated servers (passworded) it would be a great feature of the game to be able to toggle live chat on and off IMO

-----
Ritey

[keiran]

Ever tried playing an Xbox360 online with one of them headsets?

My experience is limited but man does it annoy the hell out of me. Some people having a personal conversation and others making random noises.

All I need is someone shouting "Shift + R", "BLUE FLAG", "OMG! U n00b wrecker".

There is no reason for this to be implemented into LFS IMHO the thrid party programs are more than adequate.

LFS is a racing simulator, not a chatting one.

Keiran

[tomylee]

I used to use Skype when I played LFS but LFS lags BIG time when this is being runned. I think it all depends on the inet connection but this also happend in Singleplayer session...
Nothing to do with the inet connection. I made a test and used skype on my PDA while playing LFS. The PDA used the same inet connection and both worked perfect. When I play LFS and Skype is doing something (like getting a message) on the same PC, LFS goes down. I dont know what the developer of skype did but it does take like 100% of the performance.

[dawesdust_12]

Too bad you couldn't do it with the ability to invite users to your "radio channel", and it'd only work if you were in a radio channel.

[tomylee]

what u mean, with skype?

[duke_toaster]

Built in voice comms? NONONONONO!

A pit to driver radio that plays pre-recorded OGGs at certain times? +1

[Dumpy]

It could be set up with a channel system in game.
A user could create a voice channel, with access granted by either invites or passwords or what-not. Each team and/or group of friends would be able to have their own little channel.
Each user could set up server specific auto-joins. Each time you join ServerA it will automatically /join TeamWinz:iddqd, and when you join ServerB it will /join CopzTeam:idkfa
A default "general" channel could exist. For those who like to make and/or hear random noises and yell "blue flag!" this would be the place to go.
And of course you'd be able to easily squelch any one or more users.


Just some thoughts. :shrug:

[Venus]

definitely not something I want or care about. Who needs all those distractions. It just means someone talking to someone who should be focusing on racing, ends up hitting me. No thanks, its bad enough as it is.

V

[Nathan D.]

I can't believe after all these years an in-game voice communication system hasn't been implemented.

This is a racing simulation. We should ABSOLUTELY have the ability to use microphones, in-game, to communicate with one another. Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc are great, but requires people to manually join and would be somewhat difficult to get people in the habit of connecting to the Teamspeak server whenever they join a LFS server.

For those of you who are strongly against the idea of having an in-game communication system, your argument is nullified as it would/should be controllable by a config variable (eg: /voicecomm) AND contain an in-game option to mute ALL or just certain people.

With voicecomm, the game would be much improved. Teams could coordinate and have tactics (as far as aggression and etc), regular players could talk without having to stop racing or mess up their race and so much more.

I am so surprised that this has been implemented and actually disappointed.

Please implement this. LFS would really benefit from it, across the board.

[Mr_Lonely]

agree..

Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc takes up to much cpu for us lowers too so its make the game lagg even more..

an ingame voice communication shouldent take that much more cpu to use ether..


huge +1..

[Nathan D.]

agree..

Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc takes up to much cpu for us lowers too so its make the game lagg even more..

an ingame voice communication shouldent take that much more cpu to use ether..


huge +1..

Thank you so much. I'm very glad that you agree.

Anyone else that agrees, please state your opinion here in hopes that it brings this issue to the attention of the developer(s).

[blackbird04217]

LFS would still need to take up that cpu and bandwidth that teamspeak of ventrilo or similar programs do, so that argument is nullified could even be arguable that the program dedicated to voice communications would be more advanced; using less cpu and bandwidth than something quickly added to the game.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have this support built in, but don't pretend it would take less CPU or bandwidth when it _could_ take more.

[fab_iceman_67]

I don't agree ... I anderstand that this voicecomm would be great but in a pub server is always a HUGE crash on first corner and I don't wanna hear all noobs flamming there each other :schwitz:
Ok I can mute them ... But I don't wanna spend my 5 first minuts to muting drivers ...
And if you wanna talk you can use TS/Mumble/skype or watheva you want, those softwares are very light and LFS is light too, if your computer lags ... Change your computer :tilt:

[Nathan D.]

LFS would still need to take up that cpu and bandwidth that teamspeak of ventrilo or similar programs do, so that argument is nullified could even be arguable that the program dedicated to voice communications would be more advanced; using less cpu and bandwidth than something quickly added to the game.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have this support built in, but don't pretend it would take less CPU or bandwidth when it _could_ take more.

I highly doubt it would use more CPU/bandwidth than an external app but regardless, do CPU/bandwidth need to be that strictly limited (rhetorical)?

I don't agree ... I anderstand that this voicecomm would be great but in a pub server is always a HUGE crash on first corner and I don't wanna hear all noobs flamming there each other :schwitz:
Ok I can mute them ... But I don't wanna spend my 5 first minuts to muting drivers ...
And if you wanna talk you can use TS/Mumble/skype or watheva you want, those softwares are very light and LFS is light too, if your computer lags ... Change your computer :tilt:

No need to post these "disagreeing" opinions. Your argument of spending your first 5 minutes muting people is negated, as my post suggests an ALL mute button AND a mute option for just individual players. Also, I actually think the voicecomm will be just as enjoyable/handy in public servers as a private match. Any arguments as far as it being annoying or etc, really have no basis because there will be simple and easy controls to prevent such.

I think this thread will be more beneficial if the "disagreeing" comments are completely left out. If the ones who dislike the idea don't post, that's one less positive post possibility.

[blackbird04217]

I highly doubt it would use more CPU/bandwidth than an external app but regardless, do CPU/bandwidth need to be that strictly limited (rhetorical)?

I think this thread will be more beneficial if the "disagreeing" comments are completely left out. If the ones who dislike the idea don't post, that's one less positive post possibility.


How do you think LFS developers putting an additional feature in a _RACING SIMULATOR_ will be more optimal in bandwidth and/or cpu usage than companies that have been developing _VOICE COMMUNICATION_ software for several years, perfecting the amount of data needed to be sent as well as compression? I am not saying the LFS Developers are not capable of doing good VoN in LFS, but to beat software that has been developed specifically for that reason, I'd say unlikely since they are focusing on LFS, the racing simulator.

Where as I am for the idea, see my first post, you achieve nothing if you look at things one sided, regardless of what you believe is a good idea or not. So shoving everyone else out of the thread that disagrees with the idea of having voice-communication in LFS is very pointless. Let them give their perspective, everyone has the ability to share their opinion.

[Nathan D.]

How do you think LFS developers putting an additional feature in a _RACING SIMULATOR_ will be more optimal in bandwidth and/or cpu usage than companies that have been developing _VOICE COMMUNICATION_ software for several years, perfecting the amount of data needed to be sent as well as compression? I am not saying the LFS Developers are not capable of doing good VoN in LFS, but to beat software that has been developed specifically for that reason, I'd say unlikely since they are focusing on LFS, the racing simulator.

Where as I am for the idea, see my first post, you achieve nothing if you look at things one sided, regardless of what you believe is a good idea or not. So shoving everyone else out of the thread that disagrees with the idea of having voice-communication in LFS is very pointless. Let them give their perspective, everyone has the ability to share their opinion.

Who ever said the LFS developers have to recreate VoIP communication? I'm sure they could use an already developed codec as well as whatever other aspects are necessary for the system. I'd rather not get into the technicalities; that should be up to the LFS developers to see if it is practical or not.

Secondly, I don't agree that the lack of an opposing side will cause us (those who are for the idea) to not achieve anything. That actually makes no sense but lets not get off topic. I never requested that people not post their opinion. I simply posted my opinion, which was that I thought this thread would benefit most from those who agree with idea, since it is implied that you disagree if you simply don't post.

OK, so back to those who agree with having voicecomm in LFS. Please let it be known!

[blackbird04217]

No need to post these "disagreeing" opinions.

I think this thread will be more beneficial if the "disagreeing" comments are completely left out. If the ones who dislike the idea don't post, that's one less positive post possibility.

You are pretty much telling people not to post negative / disagreeing opinions.

If the developers put VoIP into LFS they need to recreate it to some degree - even if using codecs and the such.

[ColeusRattus]

Bad idea. For several reasons:

1) It would need time to add properly. With only one coder, the developement time can be spend on more importnat things, especially since there are means to achieve what you want be running an external program.

2) Most people don't have important things to say. Just look at the chats in game. Now take away the "barrier" of typing, and there would be even more nonsense. A mute option doesn't nullify that argument because if you don't use it, there would've been no reason to implement it in the first place.

3) It would take server bandwidth away from more improtant things. Again, muting has no effect on server load, thus it's not a valid counterpoint.

and lastly
4) It would be unrealistic. While radios are used for communication between cars and the pits, they're not used for drivers to communicate with each other. As the pit isn't operated by a human, simp,y pretend to talk to them by talking into your headset. No need for VoIP for that.

On a sidenote: Opening a thread in a discussion forum and then complaining about people who disagree is about as rediculous as it can get. If you don't like you idea being shot down, put it on a homepage with no comment function, or any other means to contact you.

[blackbird04217]

If properly implemented it would mute would have an effect on server load. Also from my understand, which can be wrong, LFS is P2P based. Sure there is some communication with the server for things like chat messages, race restart etc - but the main physics stuff is done P2P which means the server really isn't loaded that much to begin with; although like I said I could be wrong.

Your point is still valid VoIP would increase bandwidth. Just because of the 1 programming developer doesn't mean that once physics are top notched that this type of feature can't be added, so IMO that is an invalid argument, although I agree this shouldn't be high on the priority list.

Rants/Muting is a controversial topic. Of course you will have the idiots in the game fooling around for no good reason, so mute is necessary - in any VoIP system, so that isn't making this special. That said, a team radio is a realistic thing to have, including between two cars (on the same team). Sure, chit-chat is saved until after the race by almost all drivers; but there does need to draw a line between sim vs game. I am all for 100% realism in the driving department, but considering an online community, race restarts every ~5 minutes on casual servers and a few other limitations I think that chit-chat with others is acceptable and making up for other things. In a league event however I think the option should be able to turn it off completely; or even force administration team to be heard; (with non-broadcasting available so the admins can talk to driver a without interrupting the rest.)

Yea, wall of text - sorry.

[hazaky]

Voice communication is nice, but i personally wouldnt find any specific use for that in lfs. In cruising, maybe. In racing, concercrate (right word?) and talk at the same time = few minutes later "*blaargh* crashed" :shrug:

[Ger Roady]

In my oppinion ,it would be a good idea. It should be in that way , that you only can talk (and chat ) while you in the box or pit lane. That would make it realistic and could stop the chat message spamming while racing. I know there is the option, to mute the chat but other drivers always expect to say "sorry"or "no problem " . It would focus the things to times where it should be done.

(and yes, I would also work on my pronunciation):D

[Nathan D.]

Your arguments as far as server load and bandwidth go are not realistic. LFS is an extremely "light" game from what I've seen. Client/server bandwidth is low as well as server load and client load. LFS would not become a "heavy" game with a relatively small implementation such as voicecomm.

[blackbird04217]

The argument that server bandwidth would be used for voice communications stand.

Regardless of how light LFS is compared to other games, or in comparison to itself. Adding more data to pass over the network increases bandwidth regardless of how you look at it. Will it effect LFS, likely not, but the point of the matter is it still does increase the network traffic.

So that is a valid argument that more bandwidth is required, however for me personally I don't think it would effect much and would like to see it built into LFS, though at the moment I am fine with using Ventrilo or something.

[Nathan D.]

The argument that server bandwidth would be used for voice communications stand.

Regardless of how light LFS is compared to other games, or in comparison to itself. Adding more data to pass over the network increases bandwidth regardless of how you look at it. Will it effect LFS, likely not, but the point of the matter is it still does increase the network traffic.

So that is a valid argument that more bandwidth is required, however for me personally I don't think it would effect much and would like to see it built into LFS, though at the moment I am fine with using Ventrilo or something.

I'm not sure I understand why you state the obvious. We know that it will increase bandwidth but it was clear that I was stating that it would be a very small amount and that it would not affect LFS negatively.

Never the less, I'm glad you agree it should be implemented. Let's quit debating with each other and just agree it should be implemented.

K? K. :)

[blackbird04217]

Where I agree with it should be implemented, I don't believe in pretending things are not positive or negative side-effects of something being implemented.

So the;
Your arguments as far as server load and bandwidth go are not realistic.

Needed to be straightened out, because those who use an argument that more bandwidth will be used are 100% correct, and that can be deemed as a negative impact. However, IMO, the positive outweigh the negative. The amount of extra bandwidth was never claimed to be a lot or a little.

- - - - - - - -

So, we do agree. But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.

[Ger Roady]

But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.

Why not make it to an option, whether you want to use it or not.

[blackbird04217]

Making it an option doesn't change the fact that when the server is using Voice Communication that it still requires more bandwidth.

I am all for adding options for the server, and individual player for these types of things. But again whereas, Ger Roady, Nathan D. and I agree it would be convenient to have in-game VoIP - with appropriate options, we can not deny the negative impacts that will come from the addition. Even if we agree that the negative impact is 'worth-it' in our minds.

[Nathan D.]

Where I agree with it should be implemented, I don't believe in pretending things are not positive or negative side-effects of something being implemented.

So the;


Needed to be straightened out, because those who use an argument that more bandwidth will be used are 100% correct, and that can be deemed as a negative impact. However, IMO, the positive outweigh the negative. The amount of extra bandwidth was never claimed to be a lot or a little.

- - - - - - - -

So, we do agree. But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.

We aren't using AOL 4.0 via dialup anymore. This is why your argument is, for the most part, unrealistic. If the implementation of voicecomm uses more bandwidth than LFS currently (which of course it will; this is obvious) but we can't notice that anymore bandwidth is being used because 90% (or more most likely) of us use a broadband connection with plenty of bandwidth to spare and the bandwidth increase from voicecomm would be nominal then how is it a negative impact?

Why not make it to an option, whether you want to use it or not.

Exactly. Having the option available wouldn't cause any negative impact to LFS. It would be completely controllable.

Making it an option doesn't change the fact that when the server is using Voice Communication that it still requires more bandwidth.

I am all for adding options for the server, and individual player for these types of things. But again whereas, Ger Roady, Nathan D. and I agree it would be convenient to have in-game VoIP - with appropriate options, we can not deny the negative impacts that will come from the addition. Even if we agree that the negative impact is 'worth-it' in our minds.

If you support the suggestion of in-game voicecomm, then why are you even posting these ideas that do not support the suggestion? If you want it, then support it.

[blackbird04217]

Because regardless of which side of an argument someone is on they can not pretend that facts do not exist when brought up by the other side. It seems you need better 'listening' skills. You are doing great at ignoring the other side, but my point that I have been trying to make for the last 5 posts or so is that the people against voice communications have a valid point, and you can not pretend that their point is invalid, or unrealistic!

When the point was first brought up that doing this would cause more bandwidth to be used, you mentioned that that is an unrealistic argument. Which it is not unrealistic. This is a negative side-effect to putting voice communications in the game. Where I believe, and likely you and others believe, that the good overcomes this negative - we can not deny the fact that it is something that needs to be thought about.

You have no valid point in saying 90% of LFS'ers use broadband or a good connection that LFS takes < 10%. You realize it is upload limits that games have to be careful about since ISP's do not like large amounts of uploading- most networks are designed for good download speeds, but less upload speeds. Even ignoring the connection itself, pretend for a moment that everyone uses only 0.5% of their connection while playing on a loaded multiplayer server. Add VoIP and it could go up to 1.0% or it could even be well enough to be 0.050001% which is STILL MORE bandwidth.

So the argument: "this will use more bandwidth" is a 100% accurate statement, regardless of connection speed and status!

Do I think the benefits of VoIP in the game are worth the extra bandwidth, yes. But don't pretend that the fact, coming from an opposing side is 'unrealistic' or 'invalid' in any sense. Accept the fact, and listen to what others have to say vs ignoring the idea and blowing it off. Does that help explain where I am trying to come from?

[Nathan D.]

Because regardless of which side of an argument someone is on they can not pretend that facts do not exist when brought up by the other side. It seems you need better 'listening' skills. You are doing great at ignoring the other side, but my point that I have been trying to make for the last 5 posts or so is that the people against voice communications have a valid point, and you can not pretend that their point is invalid, or unrealistic!

When the point was first brought up that doing this would cause more bandwidth to be used, you mentioned that that is an unrealistic argument. Which it is not unrealistic. This is a negative side-effect to putting voice communications in the game. Where I believe, and likely you and others believe, that the good overcomes this negative - we can not deny the fact that it is something that needs to be thought about.

You have no valid point in saying 90% of LFS'ers use broadband or a good connection that LFS takes < 10%. You realize it is upload limits that games have to be careful about since ISP's do not like large amounts of uploading- most networks are designed for good download speeds, but less upload speeds. Even ignoring the connection itself, pretend for a moment that everyone uses only 0.5% of their connection while playing on a loaded multiplayer server. Add VoIP and it could go up to 1.0% or it could even be well enough to be 0.050001% which is STILL MORE bandwidth.

So the argument: "this will use more bandwidth" is a 100% accurate statement, regardless of connection speed and status!

Do I think the benefits of VoIP in the game are worth the extra bandwidth, yes. But don't pretend that the fact, coming from an opposing side is 'unrealistic' or 'invalid' in any sense. Accept the fact, and listen to what others have to say vs ignoring the idea and blowing it off. Does that help explain where I am trying to come from?

You might really want to re-read my posts AND comprehend them. I never said that stating "this will use more bandwidth" is an invalid argument. In fact, throughout my posts, I continue to agree that it will use more bandwidth. I said that stating "more bandwidth is a negative impact" is invalid due to it being a nominal and an unnoticeable amount.

At this point your wasting my time and we're no longer providing benefit to the suggestion topic. If you want this in LFS, then quit batting for the other team.

[blackbird04217]

Your arguments as far as server load and bandwidth go are not realistic. LFS is an extremely "light" game from what I've seen. Client/server bandwidth is low as well as server load and client load. LFS would not become a "heavy" game with a relatively small implementation such as voicecomm.

Really? This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!

And there is no "teams" here, its all opinions, which doesn't help anything.

[Nathan D.]

Really? This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!

And there is no "teams" here, its all opinions, which doesn't help anything.

Your responses are pathetic and are instigating a pointless argument. By you saying "This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!" it admits that you are putting words in my mouth. Notice I said "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" which refers to what you previously said without having to retype it out specifically. It's very common in the English language. If you can't remember what you said, re-read your post.

Are we done with this now or are you going to continue this nonsense?

Please someone get us back on topic.

[blackbird04217]

I was finished with this on my last post until you started calling my responses pathetic. As I pointed out, directly where you tried pushing away the notion that increased bandwidth is any form of fact. The words you used meant you did not accept the fact for what it was and instead pushed it away like it wasn't a negative side-effect. And then you go and claim that I am putting words in your mouth; you said them.

Maybe since you've said them you've changed your mind and started thinking about the negative impact of the bandwidth (or any other facts that may be said since or still to come.

I am not instigating anything, just trying to make a point that it is important to listen to the other side when they have valid points. First you weren't letting any 'negative opinion' be heard at all; glad we moved up so you can at least read those. I hope now that you can also accept what people have to say even when it is against what you want.

Also, I did notice you said, "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" and I also noticed you added, "are not realistic" which is where you took the argument and nullified it in your head. The fact about bandwidth; that I was making, has to do that it will use more bandwidth than LFS uses now. There is no way around that, if you have more data to send, you use more bandwidth to send it. I didn't give out numbers of how much more bandwidth, I didn't pretend it would make the game suffer I simply said 'more bandwidth'. Which is a very realistic side effect.

As I said, I was done on my last post back until you went calling my responses pathetic when it was based on what you said. This is my final post on this unless of course you want to continue that type of bashing. Whether you have learned to accept others opinions, that will be for the future to tell. But I never once put words in your mouth, 'basically' was probably the wrong word to choose, the more appropriate word would be 'is'. And regardless of the word choice there, it is not twisting your quote around, or changing the words you said.

After rereading the post you say again that it wouldn't affect LFS negatively; the simple fact of more bandwidth is the negative thing about the more bandwidth comment/fact. The comment was never made saying "more bandwidth will be used and therefore LFS will be laggy". That was not the fact,
-------------------------------------------------------
All done for now, please don't go bashing because I haven't been doing any of that to your post. I have stated that you need to open up more and listen to the other sides, but I haven't gone towards an insulting level and nor do I want to go there.

[Nathan D.]

I was finished with this on my last post until you started calling my responses pathetic. As I pointed out, directly where you tried pushing away the notion that increased bandwidth is any form of fact. The words you used meant you did not accept the fact for what it was and instead pushed it away like it wasn't a negative side-effect. And then you go and claim that I am putting words in your mouth; you said them.

Maybe since you've said them you've changed your mind and started thinking about the negative impact of the bandwidth (or any other facts that may be said since or still to come.

I am not instigating anything, just trying to make a point that it is important to listen to the other side when they have valid points. First you weren't letting any 'negative opinion' be heard at all; glad we moved up so you can at least read those. I hope now that you can also accept what people have to say even when it is against what you want.

Also, I did notice you said, "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" and I also noticed you added, "are not realistic" which is where you took the argument and nullified it in your head. The fact about bandwidth; that I was making, has to do that it will use more bandwidth than LFS uses now. There is no way around that, if you have more data to send, you use more bandwidth to send it. I didn't give out numbers of how much more bandwidth, I didn't pretend it would make the game suffer I simply said 'more bandwidth'. Which is a very realistic side effect.

As I said, I was done on my last post back until you went calling my responses pathetic when it was based on what you said. This is my final post on this unless of course you want to continue that type of bashing. Whether you have learned to accept others opinions, that will be for the future to tell. But I never once put words in your mouth, 'basically' was probably the wrong word to choose, the more appropriate word would be 'is'. And regardless of the word choice there, it is not twisting your quote around, or changing the words you said.

After rereading the post you say again that it wouldn't affect LFS negatively; the simple fact of more bandwidth is the negative thing about the more bandwidth comment/fact. The comment was never made saying "more bandwidth will be used and therefore LFS will be laggy". That was not the fact,
-------------------------------------------------------
All done for now, please don't go bashing because I haven't been doing any of that to your post. I have stated that you need to open up more and listen to the other sides, but I haven't gone towards an insulting level and nor do I want to go there.

I'm glad you felt the need to further embarrass yourself; this is becoming amusing. I started to quote all my posts and show exactly what I said versus what you comprehended but have decided against that. I didn't intend to get personal but you are posting in a manner that is "over your head." You are misquoting and misrepresenting what I've said. I'll sum it up fairly quickly.

In regard to me allegedly not letting any negative opinion be heard, this is ridiculous and impossible. I simply stated an opinion that I thought negative comments weren't necessary for this suggestion. I never used an imperative sentence. It was simply an opinion of mine which I am entitled to.

Secondly, I never argued that bandwidth would not be increased. Simple as that. You put words in my mouth. Also, another opinion of mine that I stated which you still fail to understand is that I don't believe a nominal bandwidth increase should be considered a negative side-effect. If you can't see, feel or otherwise notice the effect, how is it a negative effect? More importantly, how is it an effect at all (rhetorical)? Again, in my opinion, it would not be noticeable and not degrade the performance of LFS. Since everything must be drawn out for you, I'll start saying "in my opinion" in front of everything I say.

You state that I'm the one who needs to accept others opinions. That makes you a hypocrite <insert smartass comment> in my opinion </end smartass comment>.

Let me know when you're ready to set this aside and get focused back on the topic. I'd like to note that I've attempted to do this a couple times now.

[bbman]

We know that it will increase bandwidth but it was clear that I was stating that it would be a very small amount and that it would not affect LFS negatively.

If you think transferring voice needs only little bandwith you are badly mistaken...

[Nathan D.]

If you think transferring voice needs only little bandwith you are badly mistaken...

I consider 5 through 10 Kilobytes/sec per person little. But of course this estimation is based off of previous implementations and applications I've seen. If it's implemented and executed well, it should be somewhere close to my estimation, in my opinion.

[bbman]

I consider 5 through 10 Kilobytes/sec per person little. But of course this estimation is based off of previous implementations and applications I've seen. If it's implemented and executed well, it should be somewhere close to my estimation, in my opinion.

I don't consider 80 kbit/s additional overhead little, especially not on the upload side... And god forbid more than one person decides to start babbling, that's the older networks out pretty fast... And for what? That I can listen to the insentient ramblings of someone who thinks it's a driving version of second life or the angry rants and insults of yet another ego who thinks a backmarker held him back? No thanks...

[March Hare]

Isn't it more like 470 kB/s?
10 per person and 47 connectios?

Or do I have my bits and bytes mixed up again.

[bbman]

Isn't it more like 470 kB/s?
10 per person and 47 connectios?

Or do I have my bits and bytes mixed up again.

Depends whether packets will only be transfered when somebody actually talks (which probably means additional overhead for a switch "is talking"/"is not talking") or you send blanks all the time, which yes would mean 470 kB/s... But as the internet speed is still measured in kbit/s, that would make yours 3760 kbit/s, way more than the usual household connection...

[Ger Roady]

It should be in that way , that you only can talk (and chat ) while you in the box or pit lane. That would make it realistic
The message (chat) system what we have now is more annoying. Here (http://internetgames.about.com/cs/hardware/a/aavoice.htm) is a good link with pros and cons.

[Nathan D.]

I don't consider 80 kbit/s additional overhead little, especially not on the upload side... And god forbid more than one person decides to start babbling, that's the older networks out pretty fast... And for what? That I can listen to the insentient ramblings of someone who thinks it's a driving version of second life or the angry rants and insults of yet another ego who thinks a backmarker held him back? No thanks...

80 Kilobits (kbps) is quite small in my opinion based on the fact that most broadband connections will give you at least 1024 kbps up and down. But that's alright. We can disagree on this. I'm sure you have your reasons. I would like to use Counter-Strike as an example though especially since it has such a large network of players. I can't say that I remember a time when people were using voicecomm in Counter-Strike, even 3 or 4 people talking at once, caused someone to lag. And I'm confident Counter-Strike uses more bandwidth than LFS. Of course, we can't directly compare Counter-Strike to LFS since they have no relation other than both being online multiplayers games, but I still feel it's worth mentioning.

Again, it would be optional for you to listen to people or not. I can't confirm though if you'd still use the bandwidth as if you were listening. You definitely wouldn't for upload (since you wouldn't be talking) though.

Isn't it more like 470 kB/s?
10 per person and 47 connectios?

Or do I have my bits and bytes mixed up again.

Yea, I think so lol :smileypul. 470kB (Kilobytes) is a substantial amount of bandwidth. Voicecomm wouldn't use anything near this.

[blackbird04217]

80 Kilobits (kbps) is quite small in my opinion based on the fact that most broadband connections will give you at least 1024 kbps up and down.

Most broadband connections are ADSL. Asynchronous meaning the upload speed is (on average) 10% what the download is capable of. Meaning upload is about 102.4kbs not 1204kbs up. Give it some credit and got up to 140kbs uploading. at 80kbs for voice alone that is 60% of the upload speed. You're entitled to think that that is quite small, but my opinion using half the upload is considered an impact. Also considered worth it in my opinion, but that has already been said.

[Nathan D.]

Most broadband connections are ADSL. Asynchronous meaning the upload speed is (on average) 10% what the download is capable of. Meaning upload is about 102.4kbs not 1204kbs up. Give it some credit and got up to 140kbs uploading. at 80kbs for voice alone that is 60% of the upload speed. You're entitled to think that that is quite small, but my opinion using half the upload is considered an impact. Also considered worth it in my opinion, but that has already been said.

Asynchronous DSL simply means that the upload and download bandwidth are not equal. I haven't heard of upload as low as "102.4" kilobits per second (kbps) in a long time. The lowest packages I've seen in the past couple years were 768kbits per second upload. There may be lower speeds available but I doubt many people would choose to have such low bandwidth packages, especially gamers.

We should use our connections as examples though since they are realistic even though they may not be the average or near the average.

I've got 15Mbps download and 3Mbps upload. Converted to kbps: 15360kbps down and 3072kbps up.

What do y'all have?

The point I'm trying to make here is that most LFS players are probably going to have the higher end of available bandwidth packages and with that being said, bandwidth is not a big concern, if a concern at all.

Just some more of my opinion.

[dadge]

i'm currently on teamspeak and it's using a whopping 8mb of my 8GB of ram. time to lower the priority me finx:really:
also you can limit the bandwidth on ts. you only need 32Kb/s to send/recieve traffic (with the highest codec on ts). not what i would call resource hungry.

[GenesisX]

I believe this is a good idea. However, I think that there should be a filter. Mandatory. There are too many 12 year old noobs whining about how they get hs, I mean not hitting the apex =D