By Trevor Hannant 1240481
#526231 [quote="Chris Knipe 920540"3) Given the fact that VATSIM's Board of Governors already in 2016 agreed to look at the voice issues... What has been done? Again, clearly, nothing.[/quote]

It is being developed as we speak - someone is currently actively working on it
By Daniel Morris 1132365
#526365 Literally the voice codec is the only thing that puts me off flying in VATSIM,
if you have to cut older interfaces like squawkbox and leave behind fs9 users - fine, it's about time they updated from a sim made in 2003. There are probably more people willing to return given a new codec vs the amount lost from moving to a new one...
edit/p.s.: just checked up on the MELP codec that vatsim uses, it was developed in 1995 just for reference

"Something is being done"
"It's in development"
from one corner of the room for about 6 years with nothing to show
(source of this same conversation with another user)

"there's nothing wrong with it"
"It's your hardware, this is fine"
from another corner
Image
By Matthew Cianfarani 993838
#526384 Daniel,

I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post that you quoted. A large amount of work is underway. We cannot make things happen overnight, especially as we are all volunteers.

The concerns you hold are heard - And I am sure you will be pleased with the result.
By David Zhong 1027224
#526401 UDP has nothing to do with the issues. All state of the art voice protocols run off UDP including Skype. "Reliable" in the context of what TCP provides is not necessarily desired in real-time applications.
By Nicholas Cavacini 1084329
#526403 As previously stated, UDP is preferred for (almost) all real and near real time applications because while TCP guarantees delivery and will sequence packets in order, in real time applications, it makes no sense to have the overhead that TCP has and it makes even less sense to have a packet arrive late as that section of the transmission is now in the past. You can build reliability on top of UDP at a higher OSI level but again, you'd be adding latency and overhead.
By Daniel Morris 1132365
#526405
Matthew Cianfarani 993838 wrote: The concerns you hold are heard - And I am sure you will be pleased with the result.


I come from a medium sized volunteer organization so I understand this, Rome wasn't built in a day; I accept that, looking at the history of squawkbox 3: it took 3 months from start to the first flying test. Vatsim's been stagnant for yearS with moving forward from this

My frustration comes for the love of flying online, the concept of vatsim is awesome, I'm more passionate that I want to see vatsim do well!

Is there anything you can show us? tell us? interact with the community with dev blogs, videos. Let's hear the struggle and we might stand with you :)
By Oliver Gruetzmann 961224
#526653
Scott Bickford 810789 wrote:I wonder if clients are still based on old RogerWilco, which uses UDP. UDP is transmission is not guaranteed where tcp is guaranteed. This is probably why a lot of people say, when I use Skype it works perfectly, but this I get breakups etc.. (and the other ATC network is perfect to the point of not being "real", but this one I get breakups-too real, but too much).

I think those breakups are related to the way the VATSIM implementation (or the codec) is buffering the audio. You hear those breakups even when playing an automated Euroscope-ATIS locally - exactly at the same time. This happens if the ATIS reaches a specific length, think it is around 60 seconds. And if I'm not totally wrong, there was a similar effect in VRC (don't have it installed currently, so I can't test :lol: )

I'm not 100% sure, but those sound exactly like the breakups on frequency. Most likely this comes from the codec, not the transport.