[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
Philip Bennefall
philip at pbsoundscape.net
Tue Oct 27 08:19:16 PDT 2009
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" <lsalzman1 at cox.net>
To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <enet-discuss at cubik.org>
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:little.coding.fox at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Discussion of the ENet library <mailto:enet-discuss at cubik.org>
>> *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
>> <philip at pbsoundscape.net <mailto:philip at pbsoundscape.net>> 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"
>> <lsalzman1 at cox.net <mailto:lsalzman1 at cox.net>>
>> To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <enet-discuss at cubik.org
>> <mailto:enet-discuss at cubik.org>>
>> 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
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org <mailto:ENet-discuss at cubik.org>
>> 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
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org <mailto:ENet-discuss at cubik.org>
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> 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
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> 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
More information about the ENet-discuss
mailing list