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.

Quote from 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.

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.

Quote from Nathan D. :

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...

Quote from bbman :

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.

Quote from Nathan D. :

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...

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.

Quote from 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.

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...

Quote from 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 is a good link with pros and cons.

Quote from bbman :

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.

Quote from 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.

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

Quote from Nathan D. :

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.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

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.

i'm currently on teamspeak and it's using a whopping 8mb of my 8GB of ram. time to lower the priority me finx
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.

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