Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Coming Soon: 3CX WebMeeting on Your Local Network or Cloud

Status
Not open for further replies.
All zones are getting a huge server boost. More details on this very soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmadorM, accentlogic, pmterp and 1 other person
Very Nice 3CX and this is will solve the block in our county for your service, is that correct?

Google servers and 3cx web meeting is blocked and need VPN.
 
Paul Reynolds said:
A downvote won't be the worst insult I've had online :)
Click to expand...
Am happy to give it a shot too :) WEll clearly the reason is because the PBX is much more complex than the SBC and it requires more time to prepare it and fully test it for production use than the SBC. But Debian 10 and Raspbian support for 3CX PBX is around the corner, wait for our road map update in the coming days.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: steinberg, bwitzig, Paul Reynolds and 1 other person
this is nice feature if it is available please let us know

also i suggest at this moment if there is a server in Dubai will be much better for UAE clients


Regards

Engineer Ghayath Hawasly
 
Hi,
please advise me when Webmeeting server on Premices will be available.
we will be happy to evaluate
 
This is so welcome.

How long until a build will be available? Pressure is upon us to provide this, especially in the current situation worldwide.

Good job 3cx!
 
  • Like
Reactions: accentlogic and jed
Hey Guys,
I am really keen to see this. any idea on when we can start to deploy?

Cheers,

Aaron
 
Great news - looking forward to getting this running.
 
Also looking forward to this!
Tonight I had a webmeeting scheduled, but some participants got an error that the server was too busy to accept them in, and other people couldn't hear each other, some people only got to see the webcam of half of the people etc.

Do not take this the wrong way, however! I am not complaining at all. I've also had quite a few meetings that went flawlessly and I understand all servers are under a lot of stress currently.
But in that light it would be really great to be able to host your own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: accentlogic
Regarding Data Volume:
From what I have tested and read, I think, that 3CX transfers video of every participant to every participant. So Download-Speed requirements add up 1-2MB/Sec per Video-participant.

Some other solutions seem to do a "Remix" on their central servers, so that only one DL-stream is used.

I know, that this would limit the individual ability to move camera windows around, but for larger conferences or in cases of high server load it would save much bandwidth and improve overall experience.

Idea:
Add an option to switch between High and Low Bandwidth mode for moderators.
 
hi guys, as lot of people are looking for zoom alternatives due varuous reasons, its best time for 3cx webmeeting to capture the market , if you can improve the usability of webmeeting further .

like from online portal itself we should be able to host a meeting as organizer without 3cx client that is connecting through local network where ppl have blocked 3cx access from outside of office can also use.. like basically 3cx webmeeting should work standalone also.
 
@surenr - thats aboslutely possible, you can organize the meeting from the webclient and then attendees do not need any client at all. But you need to have deployed 3CX in your offce to be able to organize meetings. We are not interested in stand alone meeting service.
 
Keep me up to date about this news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard Turner
Just chiming in to say that we are very interested in exploring this new on-premise option as well. We are not happy with the performance of the cloud based option, which has been a very disappointing experience for group video calls so far.

We recently purchased the Enterprise level of licensing for our company, and the only limits around web conferencing mentioned was 250 participants. While I wouldn't ever imagine being able to support that many simultaneous video participants, I did expect parity with other standalone solutions which seem to handle up to around 50 without issue.

In this thread I've seen that it was only recently increased to 25 participants, but I've had issues with more than 10 on a regular basis. How much bandwidth is required to send the video for that many participants? Is it encoded on the cloud side into a single stream, or does every participant need the bandwidth to support multiple feeds? If it is the latter, I can understand why we're seeing issues with many of our remote participants, and doubt that a move to on-premise would help much with client experience.

I'm looking forward to seeing this part of the product improve - the telephony side seems fairly good thus far!
 
@SSherwood - you cant have 250 participants per meeting with video. That limit is for your whole installation. So it is meant to group all sim participants for your whole installation. i.e. have 25 meetings with 10 participants going on at the same time. Even 25 video participants per meeting is too much. It is going to be limted to less than 10 plus the rest audio and then people who want to show audio whilst speaking can click to video call. If you want to have class room style meeting you can use webinar and then stream the meeting to 10 plus the rest, but they cant all have their faces shown.....
 
Nick Galea said:
@SSherwood - you cant have 250 participants per meeting with video. That limit is for your whole installation. So it is meant to group all sim participants for your whole installation. i.e. have 25 meetings with 10 participants going on at the same time. Even 25 video participants per meeting is too much. It is going to be limted to less than 10 plus the rest audio and then people who want to show audio whilst speaking can click to video call. If you want to have class room style meeting you can use webinar and then stream the meeting to 10 plus the rest, but they cant all have their faces shown.....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - I'm aware of the limits, now

I was trying to say that your materials listing total number of conferencing participants is somewhat misleading as-is. I'd suggest changing it. Other platforms who mention 100 or more participants for web conferencing mean within the same meeting, not aggregated across multiple meetings. Again - I understand that isn't what 3CX supports, but I only found out about that after purchase.

Are you able to speak to the other question on how video is distributed to participants? Is it a single stream which encapsulates all participant video, or multiple/separate streams for each video participant? I'm just wondering if the on-premise solution will help the biggest choke point, which seems to be client bandwidth with multiple video participants.

Thanks,
Steven
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitrox
@SSherwood - Well it does support a 100 participants. Just not all with streaming video. So you can definitely create meetings with that amount of participants but video will only stream for the participant that wants to talk and be shown. I believe there are other platforms that do it that way. At this point you can create 100 participant meetings with video but its tough on the clients.

Do you need to see all 100 participants in a meeting with those numbers? Normally its distracting or difficult to manage in our experience.

But to answer your question - yes they are separate, though optimized streams. We do not bundle the streams to one smaller stream.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of the limits too, now. I didn't know about the limitation and yes the add of 3cx about webmeeting is misleading as-is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,995
Messages
590,194
Members
164,934
Latest member
bunthoeun.may
3CX Logo Footer Copyright © Sitemap Privacy
Top Bottom