Hi Blair, What I'm doing as a test is to set up both a server and a client using ENet, connected through localhost. The server echos back anything it receives, and the client prints out statistics after 10 seconds.
Kind regards, Philip Bennefall ----- Original Message ----- From: Blair Holloway To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues Generally, no. 500ms should be adequate; pinging more frequently is just going to take up more bandwidth from ping responses (reliable acks). What are you using for comparison as a "valid" ping? The output of your platform's ping command? - Blair On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Philip Bennefall <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Blair, Do you think it'd be a good idea to decrease the ping interval? Maybe to 200 milliseconds? Kind regards, Philip Bennefall ----- Original Message ----- From: Blair Holloway To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues By default, Enet sends (reliable) ping packets every 500ms, if no other reliable traffic was sent in that interval. If you're sending reliable packets 30 times per second instead of 2 times, it's possible Enet is deriving a more accurate average round trip time. - Blair On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Philip Bennefall <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Lee and others, I am having some minor issues with ENet. First, I'm trying to get the average up and downstream for each peer by using the appropriate data fields in the peer structure but it always returns 0 for some reason. The same seems to be true with the host structure as well. Second, when I look at the average round trip time for a peer, this value is only correct if I send out a few reliable packets. on localhost, for instance, I ran a test where I sent 30 unreliable packets every second. I poll the network every 5 milliseconds, but got an average round trip of 44 milliseconds. When I changed it to reliable packets, however, I got an average of 12 which seems much more reasonable. Is this intended behavior? Thanks in advance for any help. Kind regards, Philip Bennefall _______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00 _______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
