<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5726" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kind regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Philip Bennefall</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philip@pbsoundscape.net href="mailto:philip@pbsoundscape.net">Philip
Bennefall</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=enet-discuss@cubik.org
href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org">Discussion of the ENet library</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable
packets and data sending approaches</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you Chris, for your very helpful
information. based on this, do you think that perhaps 50 would be a reasonable
maximum?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Again, thank you!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kind regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Philip Bennefall</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jurney@gmail.com href="mailto:jurney@gmail.com">Chris Jurney</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=enet-discuss@cubik.org
href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org">Discussion of the ENet library</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:10
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable
packets and data sending approaches</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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.<BR><BR>Upstream header overhead = 60 byte header * rate *
8 bits/packet<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>(I'm not 100% sure of my size number for eNet because we have
fiddled with headers a bit)<BR><BR>Chris<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Salzman" <<A href="mailto:lsalzman1@cox.net"
target=_blank>lsalzman1@cox.net</A>><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV class=im>To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <<A
href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>enet-discuss@cubik.org</A>><BR></DIV>Sent: Tuesday,
October 27, 2009 2:27 PM
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data
sending approaches<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Don't
rely on the throttle. Choose a reasonable rate to begin with.<BR>20-30
times a second is probably fair. Keep in mind that on average
an<BR>event will occur half-way between an interval, so 20 Hz does
not<BR>correspond to 50 ms latency, but rather on average more like 25
ms, and<BR>by the time you get to 30 Hz your average latency is like 16
ms. Taking<BR>that up to 50 Hz, and your average latency is only about
10 ms, so<BR>you're making huge jumps in bandwidth usage for very
marginal benefits.<BR><BR>Lee<BR><BR>Philip Bennefall wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">I
understand what you're saying there. But say then that I start at
a<BR>rate of 50 per second, and then let ENet's dynamic throttle take
it<BR>down if necessary? Would that be a safe approach? It would allow
for<BR>50 packets a second in ideal network conditions such as a lan
or two<BR>super connections, and automatically adapt itself to
other<BR>circumstances. What do you think?<BR><BR>Kind
regards,<BR><BR>Philip Bennefall<BR><BR> ----- Original
Message -----<BR> *From:* Nuno Silva <mailto:<A
href="mailto:little.coding.fox@gmail.com"
target=_blank>little.coding.fox@gmail.com</A>><BR>
*To:* Discussion of the ENet library <mailto:<A
href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>enet-discuss@cubik.org</A>><BR> *Sent:*
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:04 AM<BR> *Subject:* Re:
[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending<BR>
approaches<BR><BR> 60 times per second would
probably be overkill on most<BR> connections, considering
you send packets every 16ms, which IMHO<BR> may be a bit
too fast even for TCP. Do notice that i'm no<BR>
networking expert, but having a guy from the other side of
the<BR> world send/receive packets every 16ms instead of
the usual 50ms<BR> will need a pretty darn good
connection.<BR><BR> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 AM,
Philip Bennefall<BR> <<A
href="mailto:philip@pbsoundscape.net"
target=_blank>philip@pbsoundscape.net</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:philip@pbsoundscape.net"
target=_blank>philip@pbsoundscape.net</A>>> wrote:<BR><BR>
Lee,<BR><BR> Would it be
acceptable to send small packets out, say 60 times<BR>
a second or so? Will ENet handle it if it getst oo
much?<BR><BR> Kind regards,<BR><BR>
Philip Bennefall<BR>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman"<BR>
<<A href="mailto:lsalzman1@cox.net"
target=_blank>lsalzman1@cox.net</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:lsalzman1@cox.net"
target=_blank>lsalzman1@cox.net</A>>><BR>
To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <<A
href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>enet-discuss@cubik.org</A><BR>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:enet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>enet-discuss@cubik.org</A>>><BR>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:00 AM<BR><BR>
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and
data sending<BR>
approaches<BR><BR><BR>
Mihai is mistaken. Sauerbraten only sends 30 times a<BR>
second. Events like<BR>
gun shots are sent reliably. Only position
data for<BR> players is
sent<BR>
unreliably.<BR><BR>
Lee<BR><BR> Philip
Bennefall wrote:<BR><BR>
So what is the game frame rate in sauerbraten?
How<BR> often
does it end<BR>
up sending updates, how many times a second?<BR><BR>
Kind
regards,<BR><BR>
Philip Bennefall<BR><BR><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
ENet-discuss mailing list<BR>
<A href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A>><BR>
<A
href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>
Checked by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com"
target=_blank>www.avg.com</A> <<A href="http://www.avg.com"
target=_blank>http://www.avg.com</A>><BR>
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.32/2459 -
Release<BR> Date: 10/25/09
19:57:00<BR><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
ENet-discuss mailing list<BR>
<A href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A>><BR>
<A href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR><BR><BR>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
ENet-discuss mailing list<BR> <A
href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A><BR> <A
href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR><BR>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>
No virus found in this incoming message.<BR> Checked
by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com"
target=_blank>www.avg.com</A><BR> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus
Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date:<BR> 10/26/09
20:22:00<BR><BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>ENet-discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>ENet-discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></DIV></DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR><BR><BR><BR>No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com"
target=_blank>www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database:
270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/26/09
20:22:00<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>ENet-discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org"
target=_blank>ENet-discuss@cubik.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss"
target=_blank>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>ENet-discuss
mailing
list<BR>ENet-discuss@cubik.org<BR>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2463 - Release
Date: 10/27/09 15:50:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>ENet-discuss mailing
list<BR>ENet-discuss@cubik.org<BR>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2463 - Release
Date: 10/27/09 15:50:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>