[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches

[Philip Bennefall]

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