The only real thing I've always modified is the timeout, which is different
in my apps (normal is around 30 sec timeout, but one of my main apps can
take a bit longer, loading a large scene, possibly taking >30 sec). So I
made the timeout modifiable:
- in callbacks.cpp, I added (the default is a bit large, should be 30*1000
for general use):
int ENetPeerTimeOutMinimum=5*60000;
int ENetPeerTimeOutMaximum=5*60000;
Then in enet.h I took out the hardcoded number and replaced it with a
reference to the parameters above:
---
// RvG: dynamic settings (see callbacks.cpp)
extern int ENetPeerTimeOutMinimum;
extern int ENetPeerTimeOutMaximum;
#define ENET_PEER_TIMEOUT_MINIMUM ENetPeerTimeOutMinimum
#define ENET_PEER_TIMEOUT_MAXIMUM ENetPeerTimeOutMaximum
enum
{
ENET_HOST_RECEIVE_BUFFER_SIZE = 256 * 1024,
ENET_HOST_SEND_BUFFER_SIZE = 256 * 1024,
ENET_HOST_BANDWIDTH_THROTTLE_INTERVAL = 1000,
ENET_HOST_DEFAULT_MTU = 1400,
ENET_PEER_DEFAULT_ROUND_TRIP_TIME = 500,
ENET_PEER_DEFAULT_PACKET_THROTTLE = 32,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_THROTTLE_SCALE = 32,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_THROTTLE_COUNTER = 7,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_THROTTLE_ACCELERATION = 2,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_THROTTLE_DECELERATION = 2,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_THROTTLE_INTERVAL = 5000,
ENET_PEER_PACKET_LOSS_SCALE = (1 << 16),
ENET_PEER_PACKET_LOSS_INTERVAL = 10000,
ENET_PEER_WINDOW_SIZE_SCALE = 64 * 1024,
ENET_PEER_TIMEOUT_LIMIT = 32,
//ENET_PEER_TIMEOUT_MINIMUM = 5000,
//ENET_PEER_TIMEOUT_MAXIMUM = 30000,
ENET_PEER_PING_INTERVAL = 500,
ENET_PEER_UNSEQUENCED_WINDOWS = 64,
ENET_PEER_UNSEQUENCED_WINDOW_SIZE = 1024,
ENET_PEER_FREE_UNSEQUENCED_WINDOWS = 32,
ENET_PEER_RELIABLE_WINDOWS = 16,
ENET_PEER_RELIABLE_WINDOW_SIZE = 0x1000,
ENET_PEER_FREE_RELIABLE_WINDOWS = 8
};
---
Perhaps it's useful enough for inclusion in v1.3.1; it doesn't require
changes in the user code, but adds the option of setting ENetPeerTimeOut* to
something other than the default.
Cheers,
Ruud
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Lee Salzman <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, I am probably going to roll out a 1.3.1 release soon. The main change
> in it would simply be the reliable packet throttling idea that I had thought
> of earlier, as well as some bug fixes discovered in the testing of it (which
> also merit a 1.2.4). Are there any other small things people would like that
> are applicable for a sub-point release? Please no pie-in-the-sky requests,
> this is just a 0.0.1 version increment. :)
>
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> 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
