Community Forums Today's Posts     Member List     Archive    
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7

    Post Feature Requests (and Bribe) for TS3

    Hi,

    I'm very new to the Team Speak community. With the recent Ventrilo license changes I would love to switch to Team Speak. I recently sent $50 via Pay Pal to Team Speak just in support even though I'm not using the product yet, just to help create competetion for Ventrilo.

    I will continue to use the old version of Ventrilo with my friends (we don't have a "clan" or anything like that, just some friends who game together) as the voice quality is PERFECT. So, I'm wondering what it will take to get that type of voice quality in Team Speak for version 3?

    I believe it will require the 44k GSM 6.10 codec for one thing. Yes, I understand that folks on modems wouldn't be able to talk to us. I don't really care about people on modems as they should be on broadband. They don't have to join a channel that their connectivity cannot support.

    I think it'll also require TCP instead of UDP for communications. I also think you should be able to choose these settings (codec and TCP/UDP) on a per client basis. Certainly by default the server could function just as it does in TS2 with everyone in one channel matching codecs; but with some new options it would be great if each client could chose their own transport layer (UDP or TCP) and codec (current ones or GSM 6.10) and have the server do a bit of conversion.

    Obviously this would make the server QUITE a bit more complex in what it actually does and probably a lot more CPU intensive, but I think for those of us that have dual Xenon 3Ghz 800mhz FSB servers sitting on Gigabit Ethernet connections to the Internet this would be just fine.

    So, in support of the following features I'm making another donation to the Team Speak developers in addition to the $50 I've already sent they'll be getting another donation for $200 right after I post this message.

    The features (in order of importance to me) that I would like most to see in TS3 are:

    [list=1][*]44k GSM 6.10 codec[*]TCP Connectivity Option (with buffering and limits to buffers)[*]Option for server to translate UDP/TCP and/or Codecs on single channels[/list=1]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    behind the monitor
    Posts
    6

    Perfect voice?

    How much more perfect does it have to get?

    Anything above speex 16 is astoundingly good, hearing every little weeze in the speakers mik.

    44 would be a total waste of bandwidth and all you would hear is spit hitting the mic. ;-)

    Unless you have studio grade mics and phones, what is the point?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    115
    IMO, I think speex codecs are good enough. I use speex 7.2 for gaming, and 12 or 16 for chating. The difference of using anything higher than 16 is hard to notice.

    High bandwidth codecs are good for regular chatting, but why waste more bandwidth than what you really need? Most users have connections from 56k to 384k.
    In that range, you'll want to spend most of your bandwitdth on the game itself. Especially if that user is running the server.

    Besides quality depends a lot on the microphone the other user has, the location of the mic, their room setup, and maybe even their sound card.

    How much quality can you expect from a free bundled mic anyways? (modem bundled mics, monitor mics, etc.)

    Maybe a more important feature would MBR support (multiple bit rates), or maybe mixing of all simultanous streems into one. But both these options would consume a lot of CPU cycles.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Hmmm, as I said... the quality of Team Speak version 2 even on the highest settings sounds no where near as good as Ventrilo. We'd rather use Team Speak, but until it sounds as good as Ventrilo, then we'll stick with Ventrilo.

    While it sounds as though both of you are satisfied with the static and background hums that are produced with Team Speak, my friends and I are not. We like the crystal clear communication of Ventrilo where we never have to repeat ourselves.

    Your opinion is noted that the Team Speak codecs and UDP transport are good enough for you. I've simply posted my opinion (and made a donation) stating that my opinion is that the Team Speak codecs and UDP transport are NOT good enough. We can each have a different opinion, there is no right or wrong answer here. I simply want the OPTION of using higher quality codecs, more bandwidth, and TCP for a transport protocol. That does not mean YOU will have to use those options.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,140
    static and background hums
    What are you talking about? I don't have static or background hum when talking to most people, there are only a few with background noise, probably because they're using a stand microphone and speakers.

    But I do agree, a few higher-rate codecs would be nice to have.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Krün / Germany
    Posts
    1,964
    1) 44k GSM 6.10 codec
    - ofcourse that will be done

    2) TCP Connectivity Option (with buffering and limits to buffers)
    - hum, thats something total new, something we could implent. but prolly
    not for a ts3 release. maybe in a later
    version.

    3) Option for server to translate UDP/TCP and/or Codecs on single channels
    - we have planed todo server side mixing.
    dunno yet if we gonna allow that several clients will have different codec settings.
    that would change alot of our channel logic. we have to look into this.

    thanks for your support mate!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Originally posted by Brain

    What are you talking about? I don't have static or background hum when talking to most people, there are only a few with background noise, probably because they're using a stand microphone and speakers.

    But I do agree, a few higher-rate codecs would be nice to have.
    The wording I chose evidently made it sound worse than it is I guess. If you have ever used Ventrilo then you'll notice there is NO EXTRA noise at all with Ventrilo, just the person's voice, clear as a bell with Ventrilo.

    The reason for that is two fold probably, one it is using the higher codec (but even with the lower codecs all that happens is that their voices aren't as perfectly clear, you still don't hear any artifacts) the other part of the TCP part probably. Since every packet is assured of delivery the codec doesn't have to "fill in" any dropped packets. Also what happens with TCP is the connection is buffered. So, if a person does drop a packet you don't miss what they are going to say, it is just delayed by a few seconds while it is retransmitted.

    Now, I think there should be a limit of some kind so you don't hear someone say something from 15 seconds ago, but depending on the game (MMORPG vs. FPS) a delay of 5 seconds may not be bad. Obviously in a First Person Shooter though, that 5 seconds may cost someone their life so UDP is probably a better option for that kind of game. Also if the person is known to have packet loss on their link, then UDP is probably a better option. But for a person with a link that NEVER has packet loss to the server, then TCP seems to be great!

    Oh well. I don't mean that Team Speak is unusable, just that I (and my friends) prefer the crystal clear quality of an old version of Ventrilo over the current Team Speak voice quality. That will NOT stop me from throwing money at Team Speak though as they make an AWESOME product in many other ways. Ventrilo which I supported with donations as well though, will never get a SINGLE DOLLAR from me again. I hope they go out of business and starve to death! They are very mean people over there.

  8. #8
    casteevo Guest
    Would it be possible to get one last release of the TS2 client & server with the range of GSM 6.10 codecs included? I know this would make many people happy during the interim until the TS3 release with the rest of the new feature set.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    10
    I would like to see subchannels within subchannels. That way I can organize channels more efficiently. Also, allow subchannels to have their own channel admin (with all subchannels being in the channel family, but not the parent channel).

    For example, the following channel layout:

    Code:
    Channel 1
      Guild 1
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 2
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 3
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
    Channel 2
      Guild 1
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 2
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 3
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
    Channel 3
      Guild 1
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 2
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
      Guild 3
        Group Channel
        Raid Channel
        Social Channel
    In the above layout, each "Channel #" represents a different server (game server, not teamspeak server). I would've used "Server #" but that may be confusing.

    I don't want to have a channel admin for the "Channel #" channels, since each of those channels is for multiple guilds, but rather I'd want each of the guild channels to have channel admins (in which all subchannels are administrated by the same admin of the main guild channel).

    This isn't possible with TeamSpeak 2, mostly because only 1 set of subchannels can exist.

    It's very annoying to have to create guild channels as their own main channel, since there could be 100, 1000 guilds, and to have to scroll through them all can be somewhat daunting. It'd be much easier to collapse/expand the server channel and find the guild within that listing instead. That way, you can determine what server the guild plays on as well. I could just as easily prefix the guild name with the server name, like I have done for the time being, but that gets daunting as well.

    Also, add a client-side feature in which collapsing/expanding channels/subchannels are saved through each session.

    Also add a feature in which a server administrator can remove channel commander status from someone without having to kick them from the server.

    Also add a feature to add a line break in between channels (as created by the admin) so that you can separate groups of channels for easier reading. Currently I've done so by creating channels with names similar to "-----------------------" but because channel names cannot be the same, each channel had one less dash in it, which makes the server listing look amateurish.

    Allow for edit channel window to be resizeable.

    The edit channel window doesn't preserve spaces correctly in the linux client.

    Allow for recording in more than just wav format. I'd love to record directly to ogg vorbis format. Otherwise at least allow for a conversion to take place immediately once recording is done.

    Allow for a method to mute the microphone, but still be able to hear through the speakers/headset.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7

    Unhappy Still Stuck with Evil Ventrilo

    My friends and I are still stuck with the most VILE and EVIL COMPANY in the world's old version of the better sounding voice chat system (ie: Ventrilo).

    I'm just curious if a TCP/buffering option like I spoke about made it into TS3? How about server side mixing?

    We'd still love to switch to TeamSpeak once it sounds as good as Ventrilo does. And of course we'll make more donations!

    Jay

  11. #11
    m&m's Guest
    did you read post #6 ?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4
    And regarding modem users, what's the problem?
    It's easy to say 'they should be on broadband' when you completely fail to understand that a) they may not have the money and more commonly b) broadband IS NOT AVAILABLE where they live. THat actually include smany US locations, wether you believe it or not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by m&m's
    did you read post #6 ?
    Why, yes, I did read it!!! Thank you for asking!!!

    I posted again for very simple reasons. I'll now refer to post #6: there was "probably", "maybe", and a "we have to look into this" in post #6. That is why I was asking IF they made it in after they've been working on it for a few months. I thought maybe the "probably" would be a "definitely", the "maybe" a "yes", and a "we have to look into this" into a "we looked, we conquered, it's there!"

    I'm sorry I offended you so much m&m's, it wasn't my intention. I really hate supporting a project with cold hard cash and then getting put down as if I was an idiot for not reading a post when I come back to check. Why did I want to support this project again?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    7

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by GGTharos
    And regarding modem users, what's the problem?
    It's easy to say 'they should be on broadband' when you completely fail to understand that a) they may not have the money and more commonly b) broadband IS NOT AVAILABLE where they live. THat actually include smany US locations, wether you believe it or not.
    There is no problem with modem users. Whether that is all they can afford or whether broadband is not available where they are both perfectly acceptable reasons for not having it. My statement was merely that modem users can use a different codec and not join channels that are 44k GSM 6.10 channels was all.

    Course, if there was server side mixing, then the modem users could join those channels and the server could communicate with them via a different codec but still allow everyone else to have crystal clear communication.

    Jay

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5
    I totally agree with Jaym on all points; please give us a good quality codec!
    Speex 25.9 is crap compared to anything above GSM 6.10 in 11khz 16bit.
    Me and my friends use GSM 6.10 22khz 16bit (4420 bytes/sec) on ventrilo, just because we're used to it and cannot consider going any worse than that.

    Personally i'd much more like to use TS , because the ventrilo author has a strange attitude and the TS interface is much nicer.

    The biggest thing is though that TS client runs under linux, which ventrilo does not.

    If you gave TS a better quality codec i think i could persuade my friends to go over to TS, but as it is today, it's not an option because of the limitations in speech quality

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •