You have a very good point there. I always assumed that the frame rate would
also be the latency, but of course when thinking further about it I realize
that that cannot be true. The same goes for Microsoft DirectSound which has
a minimum latency of 20 milliseconds, but that's hardly the average time
that one needs to wait before a sound actually starts playing.
On a slightly unrelated question, if I decrease the ping time from 500 to
say 100 milliseconds, what effects will that have if any?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Salzman" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
Don't rely on the throttle. Choose a reasonable rate to begin with.
20-30 times a second is probably fair. Keep in mind that on average an
event will occur half-way between an interval, so 20 Hz does not
correspond to 50 ms latency, but rather on average more like 25 ms, and
by the time you get to 30 Hz your average latency is like 16 ms. Taking
that up to 50 Hz, and your average latency is only about 10 ms, so
you're making huge jumps in bandwidth usage for very marginal benefits.
Lee
Philip Bennefall wrote:
I understand what you're saying there. But say then that I start at a
rate of 50 per second, and then let ENet's dynamic throttle take it
down if necessary? Would that be a safe approach? It would allow for
50 packets a second in ideal network conditions such as a lan or two
super connections, and automatically adapt itself to other
circumstances. What do you think?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Nuno Silva <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Discussion of the ENet library <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:04 AM
*Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending
approaches
60 times per second would probably be overkill on most
connections, considering you send packets every 16ms, which IMHO
may be a bit too fast even for TCP. Do notice that i'm no
networking expert, but having a guy from the other side of the
world send/receive packets every 16ms instead of the usual 50ms
will need a pretty darn good connection.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Philip Bennefall
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Lee,
Would it be acceptable to send small packets out, say 60 times
a second or so? Will ENet handle it if it getst oo much?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending
approaches
Mihai is mistaken. Sauerbraten only sends 30 times a
second. Events like
gun shots are sent reliably. Only position data for
players is sent
unreliably.
Lee
Philip Bennefall wrote:
So what is the game frame rate in sauerbraten? How
often does it end
up sending updates, how many times a second?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.32/2459 - Release
Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date:
10/26/09 20:22:00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/26/09
20:22:00
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
