Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.
Edit: Geez, after I posted this, I see now I do NEED to check "Also generate new Internet-ID code for existing hosts". I was expecting to get a code emailed regardless of whether it was a new or existing host.
The reason why the program does not apply the new Internet-ID settings when you upgrade existing hosts unless you check "Also generate new etc." is to avoid a situation of your losing remote access to Hosts already on your address book. The same applies to Internet-ID server settings at the bottom of the screenshot.
Edit 2: Ok, I just ran it again on an existing host with the option "Also generate new Internet-ID code for existing hosts". I did get an email containing the Internet-ID, but no code. I was expecting the copy/paste output to add to viewer using "Add using code". The code is supposed to the host password, ID and something else encoded in the code, no? Does a code not exist when you choose single password authentication?
The encrypted code is only used if you enable the "Automatically generate host password option". It is encrypted because it contains not only the Internet-ID code but also your password and you would not want this to be emailed unprotected.
Let's not confuse the following terms:
Internet-ID code - a 12-digit number that serves as an address of the remote computer (Host) whenever you use Internet-ID connection
Single/master password - a password that you set when using the Single-password authorization. You do not necessarily have to use single password authorization, there are other authorization types (e.g. Windows security etc.). Starting version 126.96.36.199 beta you can select authorization methods separately or set multiple methods.
Encrypted code - a block of encrypted text sent via email when you use the "Send via email" and "Automatically generate host password" features. This encrypted text contains your Internet-ID and password. You can add a new connection to your Viewer's address book by pasting this code into the "Add using code" dialog.
1) The hard pop up above the taskbar settings that prevent you fr om accessing taskbar icons and settings that a person at the desktop needs to click to make it go away.
You probably mean the first connection warning. This warning is shown only once and will go away if either of the following is true:
- The remote user clicks on it - You connect to that Host from a Viewer registered with a PRO or SITE license
The screen display for stretch and full screen just don't make for a productive setup. Needing to scroll or having unexpected scroll when moving the mouse is terrible.
Do you guys test with 2 monitors much? That was my test PC just now and it was not usable. With other remote solutions, I just don't have to touch display settings, they just adjust full screen to my current screen. None of the 4 options presented to me just now allowed for that same display. It was not usable at all.
Stretching the screen and changing its screen resolution is not the same. Remote Utilities cannot automatically change the remote screen resolution for you to make it equal to your local screen resolution, if that's what you mean.
Edit: Had to change it from "Entire Desktop" to a single display and then Full screen stretch looks nice. So I think the next feature I'm looking for, is being able to display both displays at the same time in separate stretched full screen views.
Do you mean displaying them on two different local monitors? So you have two remote monitors and two local monitors, and you want to map each remote monitor to a specific local monitor. Is that the case?
I also encourage you to post more general issues and feature requests to either Windows version discussion or Feature requests. This discussion is dedicated to bugs and issues specific to the recent beta version.
So after clarification of the expected behaviour, I think the only bug was that it didn't re-email the re-generated host code. I'm also assuming the Viewer displaying the online clients only upd ate Version string after connecting to it, not when it determined it was online.
The code is emailed only once. You can tell if the Host sent the email by looking at the Host log after installation. There should be a record about that.
And no, the upgraded host did not have single password checkbox enabled. As you said, that is expected if I select it to auto generate the host password. I might have confused code and host password. Actually, I don't think I want to generate a host password randomly, I want to set it to a known password so if I don't get the code emailed, I can still login if I know the ID and the password I se t.
There are Internet-ID code and Host access password (single password authorization). You can still get the ID emailed to you even if you do not enable "Automatically generate password" box and manually set the password in Host settings in the last step. In this case the email will be sent unencrypted because it will only contain the Internet-ID.
Are there any plans to implement a service to facilitate direct connections between hosts instead of connections relaying through your servers unless manually setting up port forwarding and using direct IP's?
I am not sure what service you can possibly mean. A connection can be either direct or mediated through a server - be it our public server or a self-hosted server. If our public servers don't work for you well, feel free to use the self-hosted server, this is one of the reasons why we offer it (for free).
If you mean peer-to-peer connectivity though, I am sorry but this is not the way to go for us. It might work for free and personal tools, but since we also sell to businesses they won't be happy to use a P2P application due to security concerns that such applications can bring.
I've frequently ran into performance issues through the various relays used by Remote Utilities. Way, way, too frequently. The latency is high and there is significant ping loss. I have a PC next to me that I'm connecting to that has more than 8 seconds of latency (it's varied fr om 4-18 seconds while I've been writing this). The re's the scenic login screen and then the computer boots up with Spotify open and the large pictures seem to bring it to a crawl even with 16 bits colour. I have it on HDMI output to a monitor on my right, and then connecting using Internet ID fr om my main PC next to it. At this moment, round trip ping time to your relay server in Montreal is 163ms (from west Canada. I normally get 78ms pings to Ontario, so this Montreal hub kinda sucks as you'll see below) with approx 18% packet loss.
A ping from your location to our server doesn't say anything about the quality of the server itself. Our servers can sustain far more load than now and are located in one of the largest datacenters in Canada.
I believe you also have a relay server in California, which is closer and lower latency, approximately 50ms with no ping loss so far. So I'm not sure how hosts pick the relay servers, whether its random, first to respond, round robin, or load balanced, etc. But there is very clear and poor performance using the relay server and I don't see a way for me to bounce it to a better relay server and I don't see anything happening on the server side to migrate me to the better performing server that is 1/3 latency and without packet loss.
We recommend that you use a self-hosted server or even direct connection where possible.
Sorry, I probably should have explained that I understand how a RU Server would benefit, but I was just testing for raw performance and a direct connection through a port forward would be the same as a local RU server with Internet-ID (please correct me if I am wrong).
With direct connection performance is better by definition. However, if RU Server is located very close to either side of connection (Viewer or Host) the difference should be unnoticeable.
As for improving the sound capture performance, we'll see what we can do and we can implement any improvements in this beta.