[ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues

[Blair Holloway]

Does the unreliable version of your code converge after a longer period,
perhaps? Try running it for a minute or two and compare the results.

- Blair

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Philip Bennefall <philip at u7142039.fsdata.se
> wrote:

>  Hi Blair,
>
> What I'm doing as a test is to set up both a server and a client using
> ENet, connected through localhost. The server echos back anything it
> receives, and the client prints out statistics after 10 seconds.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Philip Bennefall
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Blair Holloway <thynameisblair at chaosandcode.com>
> *To:* enet-discuss at cubik.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues
>
> 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?
>
> - Blair
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Philip Bennefall <
> philip at u7142039.fsdata.se> wrote:
>
>>  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
>>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 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
>> 12:37:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> 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
> 12:37:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100714/960eb6a7/attachment.html>