[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches

Philip Bennefall philip at pbsoundscape.net
Wed Oct 28 13:37:00 PDT 2009


Very true, however one thing that I have not mentioned is the fact that my games do not have any graphics so I have to do no rendering there. My games are built especially for the blind and visually impaired, and so they are entirely based on sound. This means that a lot of the processing which would normally go to graphics rendering is taken away, so I can afford to lower the time a little bit I believe. I may be mistaken certainly, but it's my primary guess.

Kind regards,

Philip Bennefall
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nuno Silva 
  To: Discussion of the ENet library 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches


  Also consider the CPU cycles you have to use for your game simulation. Going at 60 packets per second would equal 16ms to do the simulation, send the packets, and potentially for them to arrive at the destination. That's a very small ammount of time, especially for more complex games like RTSs.


  On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Chris Jurney <jurney at gmail.com> wrote:

    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






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20091028/153c5765/attachment.htm>


More information about the ENet-discuss mailing list