[ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues
thynameisblair at chaosandcode.com
Tue Jul 13 23:23:38 PDT 2010
Generally, no. 500ms should be adequate; pinging more frequently is just
going to take up more bandwidth from ping responses (reliable acks).
What are you using for comparison as a "valid" ping? The output of your
platform's ping command?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Philip Bennefall <philip at u7142039.fsdata.se
> Hi Blair,
> Do you think it'd be a good idea to decrease the ping interval? Maybe to
> 200 milliseconds?
> Kind regards,
> Philip Bennefall
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Blair Holloway <thynameisblair at chaosandcode.com>
> *To:* enet-discuss at cubik.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues
> By default, Enet sends (reliable) ping packets every 500ms, if no other
> reliable traffic was sent in that interval. If you're sending reliable
> packets 30 times per second instead of 2 times, it's possible Enet is
> deriving a more accurate average round trip time.
> - Blair
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Philip Bennefall <
> philip at u7142039.fsdata.se> wrote:
>> Hi Lee and others,
>> I am having some minor issues with ENet.
>> First, I'm trying to get the average up and downstream for each peer by
>> using the appropriate data fields in the peer structure but it always
>> returns 0 for some reason. The same seems to be true with the host structure
>> as well.
>> Second, when I look at the average round trip time for a peer, this value
>> is only correct if I send out a few reliable packets. on localhost, for
>> instance, I ran a test where I sent 30 unreliable packets every second. I
>> poll the network every 5 milliseconds, but got an average round trip of 44
>> milliseconds. When I changed it to reliable packets, however, I got an
>> average of 12 which seems much more reasonable. Is this intended behavior?
>> Thanks in advance for any help.
>> Kind regards,
>> Philip Bennefall
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ENet-discuss