Even on a 1Gb LAN, I've experience severe packet drops. However, that was with ~30 PC's talking to eachother at around 100Hz on a few channels (so quite a lot of data flying around). I'd say a method where you get packets that are split into 200 fragments might need a bit of redesigning, to send out smaller chunks of data (and more chance of them all arriving).
Cheers, Ruud On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Jurney <[email protected]> wrote: > If you send 100 packets with 99% reliability, there is a 36% chance of > getting them all there. > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alexander Dolgansky <[email protected]>wrote: > >> That's a fair point but what bothers me about this somewhat is the >> fact that I was able to get these large messages before (perhaps they >> weren't 200 fragments long but definitely twice as large as the kind >> of messages that I can send now). Perhaps packet loss is more severe >> now but the last time I checked it was less than a percent (I don't >> know how accurate that measure was thought). >> >> Anyways, I'll experiment some more with what I can send unreliably >> with the updated ENet given my setup but as I mentioned before, the >> update did improve things so I am very happy about that. >> >> Alexander. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
