Forums Feature Suggestions Webcam

- So if you had your way there'd be no more features ever then? If you like it the way it is then if DCC VIDEO support is added you can ignore it and you'll like it just the same.

Maybe, and maybe not...

Why 'maybe not'? Would you lie in bed at night in a cold sweat just knowing that if someone sent you a DCC VIDEO request you could choose to accept or decline it? The horror.

Thats why I made this suggestion.

We know that maybe 20% or less of the mIRC users uses the SSL supp and mIRC have this feature. So why cant do this with webcam?

If you like SSL, use it.
If you dont like SSL, ignore it.

If you like webcam, this feature would be very welcome.
And if you dont like webcam, just give a chance to who wanna this and ignore.

i agree. the webcam support would make mirc more useful, and who dont want this feature can do a simple dcc ignore on dcc sound and dcc video requests and never worry about this. it's like color support (that can be stripped), ctcp sound (that can be ignored), and etc.
the program will not change in any way for those that dont use this feature; but it will become very better for the people that need this feature.

I think it would only be compatible with other mIRC users, wouldn't it?

Take Linux clients, for example. I've not looked greatly in to this subject, but I have read somewhere that the reason video chat isn't (as of yet) incorporated in to IM clients is because of the way the two OS' handle the images from the webcams.

I don't know whether or not this is true, but if it is, I'd say that's a good reason for a webcam feature to not be added.

Yes, if the video streaming could only be implemented in a way that prevented it's use across a wide range of systems then it would be better not to have it at all. I believe Ircle's /dcc sendvideostream uses Quicktime, which is available on all major platforms (I think) and so could presumably be supported by any clients; unfortunately it's a proprietary format which is something it would be better to avoid. I don't know the details behind other DCC VIDEO implementations (or even how many differing DCC video-streaming implementations there have been). Perhaps when OGG Theora reaches maturity it will be the best bet for an open standard, multi-platform video stream.

Hopefully there's someone on the boards who knows more about these things then me that can clear this up; I'm certainly no expert on the matter.

maybe dcc video can be multi-format, so the users choose between, lets say, quick time, .avi (with divx, xvid or any other codec installed), .mpg, and other formats. dcc sound can be streamed with mp3, ogg ou .wav, as the choice of the user. the qualify of both of dcc video and audio may be configured, too, and the standard configurations would be as small as it can.
so the problem with multi-plataform will be soilved, since at least one of these formats are supported by linux/mac/etc programs.

The idea is that I don't want mirc to become just another multimedia program...
So... maybe, and maybe not...

Edit: Let Khaled deside, if he likes it, I don't have a problem with it, I'll just use older mirc version...

It won't be "just another multimedia program" because of all the other features it has.

There are many programs with many other features, and they are still multimedia programs...

This is directed not only to you but to a LOT of people that have the same weird attitude. The weird part is that you almost deliberately avoid stating a reason for the feature not to be added. You said two things:

"I really don't see any reason to add it."
This is an answer to the exact opposite question. We aren't asking you for a reason to add it, we're asking for a reason not to add it.

"The idea is that I don't want mirc to become just another multimedia program."
How adding something ("add" means old features + new features), changes mirc from your favorite IRC client to "just another multimedia program"? More the point, how adding something hurts the already existing functionality?


Yet such reason surely must exist, and it must be good, since you're willing to stick to older versions (if video support is added) and deprive yourself of other useful features of newer versions. So, I really wonder, what is it?

I am not sure why I don't like the idea of adding webcam support, maybe becouse mirc was always text based chat program and I like it that way.
I have nothing more to say.

mIRC is still primarily a text-based chat client, but it stopped being just that long ago.

Further to my questions earlier about reasons to add webcam; and a reason to not add it:

A really big problem in projects is the desire of "customers" to "gold-plate" the product. This adds time and complexity to building it. Further more, it enhances unreal expectations of the customer that the product can be "everything to everyone".

Thus, every feature suggestion would have to be looked at - to see if it really adds to the intent of the product, or if it is just gold-plating.

mIRC is an IRC client. IRC is (by its very definition) a text-based chat. Video is not text.
mIRC supports sounds, but only in the context that the commands to play sounds are sent in the text portion. The sounds themselves are played by another progam, usually using files that already exists on the client's PC.
If mIRC were to support video, then it would occur in a similar way. This would mean that mIRC itself will not support webcam, but that IRC would support a text command that would enable clients to recognise that a particular file should be played by a nominated application. I would be surprised if that infrastructure was not already in place.

ON CTCP:VIDEO:/play <file name or URL>

Come to think of it, would not the existing commands to play sounds achieve the same purpose? After all, Windows Media Player coud be the chosen application for that particular file extension.


If this is the case, then WebCam support does not need to be added!

To provide an analogy - I would like my family car to be able to transport Cargo on occasions, I would also like it to park in city parking spots and go bush and be used for racing. These activities are largely incompatible with the concept of the family car. I can achieve that by using different vehicles (applications). In the case of transporting cargo, I can buy a trailer (add-on), but the only thing I have to do to the car is to buy a tow-bar/ball (hook). In mIRC/IRC's case - the hook already exists.

To go back to the original point ( We aren't asking you for a reason to add it, we're asking for a reason not to add it. ). The hooks already exists - no need to add further support, and Video is outside the original concept of text-based chat (again no need to gold-plate - use an application that is optimised for the purpose).

Cheers,

DK

- Yeah. So lets never add any more features. Ever. After all, we don't want to get anyone's hopes up. This crazy idea of listening to users suggestions/requests is spiralling out of control, if we don't curtail it now who knows what tomorrow's feature suggestors might bring. Won't somebody please think of the children?!



- If mIRC is an IRC client plain and simple then there's no reason for /splay, sockets, binary variables, file handling, or pretty much about 90% of the scripting language. Just because mIRC is an IRC client doesn't mean it must be an IRC client in the most spartan sense of that term.



- Of course it requires support in mIRC because we're talking about streamed content being sent over a sub-protocol of a sub-protocol of IRC. It's nothing like a sound request.

To the people that dont want Webcam supp:

Adding Webcam, your life will be more bad? Will you die with just a new feature that you wont use but another xxx users will love it. Give me just one reason against the webcam...

Remember:
Adding = Old + New
So stop saying that mIRC wont be only text based cause you dont need to use this feature.

Dont like webcam? Just ignore it...

I didn't want to write anymore to this subject but I guess I have to.

mIRC was always text based irc client, so I am not against new features, I am just agains those that will make mirc something that it never was (multimedia client). That's reply for you starbucks_mafia.
Next, I didn't say mirc was just text based irc client, but generally it is/was text based client, so in my oppinion if you add webcamera to it, people will not use it for "text chating" and it will no longer be primary text based irc client and he always was that with features that are already added to it.

Reply to you Debug: When you add anything to any program, it's size become bigger and program becomes slower... the same is for mirc... if it's bigger I don't mind, but I don't want it to be slower. So, I can't just ignore something that will make mirc slower. If it is some patch it's ok, but you can't add anything to mirc. (it's primary a text based irc client, and always was). So, Debug... use other (many) programs that will let you use webcam, and let us who likes text based chat to enjoy in mirc.

I hope I will not have to write to this subject again.

It will only make mIRC noticeably slower if you accept a webcam request sent by somebody else, no human could notice such a tiny difference in speed that adding a few extra lines to the executable would add (that's if it affects speed at all).

If webcam support were added, people would still need to type to each other, they could just see each other at the same time. My friend recently got a webcam and she uses it all the time on MSN Messenger - at the same time, chats via typing to the person she's viewing and/or being viewed by. The same could be done for mIRC, people aren't going to stop typing and instead just stare at each other.

Personally, I am in support for some sort of webcam feature, I think they're a great invention.

I see little need for you to use older versions of mIRC if webcam support were created, it wouldn't change the look of mIRC or anything - or would it just be some sort of boycott?

My 2 cents.

Regards,