[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
Philip Bennefall
philip at pbsoundscape.net
Wed Oct 28 13:33:19 PDT 2009
My apologies, I meant to say 40 per second not 50. This way I would have an average latency of about 12.5 milliseconds. My packets will not be more than about 30 bytes, so even with the 60 byte overhead I'll be under the 100 mark
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Bennefall
To: Discussion of the ENet library
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
Thank you Chris, for your very helpful information. based on this, do you think that perhaps 50 would be a reasonable maximum?
I will do tests on a whireless connection that I've got here to get a rough idea of packet loss and round trip times and so on, but of course that's only one configuration and is not going to represent an average by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll fiddle around with rates and see where it gets me.
Again, thank you!
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Jurney
To: Discussion of the ENet library
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
When you're picking your update rate, keep in mind users' up channel limitations. 128kbit is a very common cap in Internetland. I think the size of an unreliable eNet header (~32 bytes) + UDP (8 bytes) + IP (20 bytes) gives you a minimum packet size of roughly 60 bytes.
Upstream header overhead = 60 byte header * rate * 8 bits/packet
If you send at 60/s, you'll have at least 29kbit of packet overhead before you send your first byte of payload. If you're on a console, that overhead potentially goes up with their wrapper as well.
(I'm not 100% sure of my size number for eNet because we have fiddled with headers a bit)
Chris
----- 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
_______________________________________________
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: 270.14.34/2463 - Release Date: 10/27/09 15:50:00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 270.14.34/2463 - Release Date: 10/27/09 15:50:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20091028/dcb9787f/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the ENet-discuss
mailing list