Packet-loss simulation, latency etc and Shared Peer IDs is something
I've wanted to implement myself! Very useful.
On 2013-04-30 15:24, Nuno Silva wrote:
As a follow up I meant that it would allow us to simulate packet drops
and packet sending speed. Also allowing to simulate a % for packet
drop and packet sending through some parameter to the Host would be
just as good if it's too complicated!
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Nuno Silva
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Also maybe some way to simulate different connection types so you
could test your game without having to have those connections,
this is mostly used in games but it would be very useful!
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Doug Warren
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Shared Peer ids: Unique IDs shared among all peers connected
in a mesh connection. This would enable you to route a
message to another peer if there is no direct connection due
to firewall rules.
New packet type of best effort last message of a channel: Any
message for the channel would be unreliable but if we're
sending a packet and the last acknowledged received sequence
number is less than the last sent sequence number for that
channel, a copy is sent anyway. This could be used for
frequently changing things like position but if there's room
you'll get the most recent position anyway.
Packet out of ordering metrics: Can be added now easily
enough, I always like thinking in terms of the console TCRs of
requiring 64k throughput, 10% packet loss, 2% packet out of order.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Lee Salzman
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So, I'm just thinking in the back of my mind what sort of
things would be desired in a hypothetical version 2.0 of
ENet that broke API compatibility and so could do things
that would otherwise not be possible in a 1.x release.
That doesn't mean that a 2.0 is in the near future, but
I'd like to get a dialogue going about it.
Aside from IPv6 support, are there any other big things
people would want that are none-the-less realistic and not
overly complicated?
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
