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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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>