Also consider the CPU cycles you have to use for your game simulation. Going at 60 packets per second would equal 16ms to do the simulation, send the packets, and potentially for them to arrive at the destination. That's a very small ammount of time, especially for more complex games like RTSs.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Chris Jurney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jurney@gmail.com">jurney@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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><font color="#888888"><br>Chris</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><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>
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><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><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>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
ENet-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org">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></div><br>