[ENet-discuss] Channel Incoming Unreliable Commands List Management Question

Ruud van Gaal ruud at racer.nl
Thu Aug 2 01:17:13 PDT 2012


Even on a 1Gb LAN, I've experience severe packet drops. However, that was
with ~30 PC's talking to eachother at around 100Hz on a few channels (so
quite a lot of data flying around).
I'd say a method where you get packets that are split into 200 fragments
might need a bit of redesigning, to send out smaller chunks of data (and
more chance of them all arriving).

Cheers,
Ruud

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Jurney <jurney at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you send 100 packets with 99% reliability, there is a 36% chance of
> getting them all there.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alexander Dolgansky <alexd221 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> That's a fair point but what bothers me about this somewhat is the
>> fact that I was able to get these large messages before (perhaps they
>> weren't 200 fragments long but definitely twice as large as the kind
>> of messages that I can send now). Perhaps packet loss is more severe
>> now but the last time I checked it was less than a percent (I don't
>> know how accurate that measure was thought).
>>
>> Anyways, I'll experiment some more with what I can send unreliably
>> with the updated ENet given my setup but as I mentioned before, the
>> update did improve things so I am very happy about that.
>>
>> Alexander.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20120802/5b3ccc59/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ENet-discuss mailing list