[ENet-discuss] ENet 2.0 most wanted features?

[Stefan Lundmark]

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 
> <little.coding.fox at gmail.com <mailto:little.coding.fox at gmail.com>> 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
>     <dwarren at thebigwave.net <mailto:dwarren at thebigwave.net>> 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
>         <lsalzman at gmail.com <mailto:lsalzman at gmail.com>> 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
>             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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20130430/fb7dfd4b/attachment.html>