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

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.

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..

Quote from 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..

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).

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 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
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

Quote from 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.

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)?

Quote from 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
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

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.

Quote from Nathan D. :

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.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

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!

Quote from Nathan D. :

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.

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.

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.

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"

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)

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.

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.

Quote from 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.

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.

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;

Quote :

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.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

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.

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.

Quote from 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;


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?

Quote from Ger Roady :

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.

Quote from 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.

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.

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?

Quote from 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?

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.

Quote from 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.

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

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

Quote from blackbird04217 :

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.